No, because the judge is a Democrat... different rules of ethics.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
If you are calling for that judge's recusal, then you should call for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because of the conflict of interest with his wife and her involvement in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.
The broad paint brush is working again. Please enlighten us as to Justice Thomas's conflict of interest is regarding the 2020 election.
I do not know if you are or have been married and I do not care. Having a spouse is not a reason for recusal, except in your mind.
ramage wrote: The broad paint brush is working again. Please enlighten us as to Justice Thomas's conflict of interest is regarding the 2020 election.
I do not know if you are or have been married and I do not care. Having a spouse is not a reason for recusal, except in your mind.
Except when that spouse was actively engaged in attempting to overturn a valid election and then a case involving that attempt to overturn a legitimate election is brought before that justice for judgement.
No.
I interpret your statement to mean that a spouse has an inordinate influence and you feel that this extends to a sitting Justice of the USSC.
Is that how your relationship(s) works(ed)?
ramage wrote: No.
I interpret your statement to mean that a spouse has an inordinate influence and you feel that this extends to a sitting Justice of the USSC.
Is that how your relationship(s) works(ed)?
You interpret incorrectly.
Ginni Thomas was allegedly involved in attempts to overturn legitimate election results. I'm sure you've read the stories.
Her husband, Clarence Thomas, may have an opportunity to render judgement on cases in which she may be involved.
You don't see the conflict of interest there? I can't connect the dots for you any more clearly. You'll have to reason it out for yourself.
Love the use of your description "allegedly". I have not read those stories. I am cognizant of the fact that she testified voluntarily before the Jan 6 committee and have read the transcript. What is it in the transcript that you find onerous.
Her husband "may have an opportunity... in which she may be involved".
In that there are no dots to connect I completely understand why you cannot connect them.
