The insurrection at the Capitol, during which both the House of Representatives and the Senate came under attack by thousands of followers of Donald J.
they are trying to find themselves a way out of this where they will not be likely to be lynched by one side or the other. they are not asking questions of law. they are trying to figure out which one of the results from the ruling puts them in the most personal danger. that thomas was not forced to recuse is an insult to the law.
$CROTUS is a profoundly corrupt institution. The fact that no one in power will call a bribe a bribe is simply unconscionable. My guess is it's always been that way given it took 30 YEARS and an outside entity to expose it for what it is.
By bribes taken, should I assume you are referring to the millions that Clarence and his battleship of a wife have taken from our oligarch masters? Bribes which forced Silent Clarence to actually ask a question after being silent for 20 years or so?
They will do nothing to stop him under the 14th Amendment. The only hope is that the Court denies cert with respect to immunity and allows the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to stand. Thomas, that disgrace, will continue to refuse to recuse himself.
This is how I see this working out. They'll give him one (CO decision) and take the other 'immunity.'
This misses the real point. The Supremes have totally destroyed their brand and any confidence or respect people might have held for them. A not so subtle signal that our government no longer works the way it was designed.
Maybe it's time for a radical re-think about how we govern ourselves.
Judge Jackson Brown voiced concern that one state, such as Colorado could keep a candidate off of ballots and affect a national election.
The judge needs to understand that the Constitution gives Colorado the authority to conduct its elections. As such, Colorado and its interpretation of the 14th Amendment is abiding by its Constitutional resposibilities.
In remarking as she did, is she ignorant of the fact Maine agrees with Colorado but is awaiting the SCOTUS decision on the issue before making their decision final?
Is the judge also ignorant of the fact other states have their 14th Amendment decisions on hold just as Maine has done? The Colorado interpretation of the 14th Amendment mirrors the interpretation of a large swath of the United States. Judge Jackson Brown needs to be informed of this before she embarrasses herself further with her concerns.
Possibly, all of the Capital officers who fought the insurectionists, and who were injured or killed by them, should file a suit to keep insurectionist Trump^s name off of all 2024 election ballots.
Hard to think that she does not recall Bush v. Gore, which is the last time I remember a state doing that. Her brothers and sisters at the court should, since they were all involved with that either as litigants or as participants in that shameful episode.
Everyone knows the majority is bought and paid for by leonard leo. They have their malignant orders. I'll leave this comment with the same response I posted in reply to Mary Pat Sercu a few columns ago - hear evil, see evil, do evil. Also, I'd like to know why thomas isn't drowning in lawsuits brought by the IRS.
Yes! Where is the IRS?! I speak as one who in the 1970's fought with the IRS over $25,000, a fight which went on for three years. They settled for $2500; I also got to write off more than that in legal and accounting fees. Nobody won. Thomas, a lifelong liar/fake, we can be certain reported nothing---millions.
BTW: I really believe I owed them nothing. We were minutes away from going into that awful Administrative Tax Court. The $2500 was a bribe to the IRS to gd leave me alone and go away! It was like being mugged by very polite men in suits.
Thanks for the good background. I was torn about the 14th amendment question. While I believe in the validity of Colorado's position that, because of his actions, Trump is ineligible to run for potus, it is a national election, and, of course nothing like this has happened before. No one like Trump has happened before.
I predict the batch of bums will redeem themselves on the next bounce, and perhaps unanimously (save for Thomas, because of, well, you know) and uphold the recent circuit court decision that went against Trump.
Lucien, you are a blistering, brilliant writer! I agree with you wholeheartedly.
How's this for a savage twist of irony? The Supreme Court, in all its infinite wisdom, decrees it's totally kosher for states to hash out the murky waters of abortion rights within their own borders. But, heaven forbid, when it comes to the prospect of blacklisting a flagrant traitor from sullying the sacred slips of election ballots, that's where they draw the line in the sand. It's a mad, mad, mad judiciary we're spiraling in, where the rights to life and democracy get juggled by robed jesters who can't seem to sniff out the stench of hypocrisy choking the air.
In the twisted heart of our America, where the Supreme Court was once the shining knight of justice, we now find it drowning in a swamp of timidity and dodges. The madness that tore through the fabric of democracy, a wild howl away from their hallowed halls, should've sparked a raging fire in their bellies. But no, the nine robed figures seem hell-bent on digging tunnels to nowhere, rather than staring down the beast of January 6, 2021.
The era when the Supreme Court was a towering force, a bulwark against the dark tides of tyranny, has vanished into smoke. Now, they're caught in a pathetic squabble over words and loopholes, clawing at any frail straw to duck the storm they're sworn to face head-on. The sacred vows they took, to stand guard over the law, to be the guardians of the Constitution, are now just whispers lost in the wind, smothered by their dismal efforts to wash their hands of the anarchy at their doorstep.
Their cold feet in confronting the insurrection, in recognizing the depth of this abyss, stands as a stark marker of their eroded virtue. The siege on the Capitol wasn't some roadside scuffle, as Trump's mouthpiece dared to belittle it. It was a vicious, vile, and utterly disgraceful siege on the very soul of democracy. And the justices? They know. They've seen the nooses, the battered officers, the raw fear that seized the nation that day.
Yet, rather than seizing the reins to anchor our democracy, they slink back into the shadows of legalese and nitpicking. They choose to forget that the Constitution isn't just some academic riddle, but a living, pulsing call to arms that demands their absolute allegiance. The framework of our government, the dance of checks and balances, was crafted not as a division, but as a symphony of unity.
Hanging heavy over this tragic comedy is whether the Supreme Court possesses the spine, the moral compass, to confront Trump and his horde. Will they emerge as the champions of democracy, or will they let their corner of the world be devoured by the gaping maw of Trump's boundless greed? The nation teeters on a knife-edge, under the gaze of a world caught between hope and horror. Witnessing the crumbling of an institution once synonymous with justice is a bitter pill.
I love this take on it. It boils down to something like "Are you brave enough to believe the evidence of your inconvenient eyes?"
At the same time, I'm intrigued by the contention of Jason Murray, a lawyer for the Colorado voters, that on January 6, 2021, "for the first time since the War of 1812, our nation’s capital came under violent assault." I was around on May 3, 1971, when the city was put, in effect, under martial law in response to the efforts of the "May Day Tribe" to block the main commuting routes into D.C. during the morning rush hour. People who had nothing to do with the demonstrations were arrested for congregating in groups of more than two. Military vehicles patrolled the streets.
As a student activist at Georgetown U., I strenuously disagreed with the May Day Tribe's strategy, but I disagreed even more with the police crackdown that followed. With a friend I went down to the Capitol on May 5 to listen four members of Congress -- Ron Dellums, Bella Abzug, Charles Rangel, and Parren Mitchell -- speak on the Capitol steps: they'd invited us onto the steps, nothing illegal about it. But the police cordoned us off, warned us to leave, then arrested the approximately 1,200 of us who didn't. My friend and I thus became among the plaintiffs in Dellums v. Powell (490 F. Supp. 70 [D.D.C. 1980] -- it's easy to find online).
Three years earlier, in April 1968, the city had erupted in grief and rage in response to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The vestiges of that violence were still around when I left D.C. in 1985.
What happened on January 6, 2021, was different in scope and scale from 1968 and 1971, and from the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. I see why Jason Murray compared it to the British attack during the War of 1812. But the nation's capital was not entirely spared from violent assault between 1814 and 2021.
I too was there on May Day 1971. Came down from NJ the night before and had a bad feeling the day of the march, so I spent 16 hours in a church basement, smoking endless cigarettes, raising bail money, and working with the volunteer attorneys. People returning from the streets carried tear gas on their clothes and we were gagging. I'll never forget it.
There's a double-page spread in LIFE magazine of the front gate of Georgetown U., CDU (Civil Disturbance Unit) on one side, students on the other. I'm there, but you can't see me or anyone else for the tear gas.
You were one of the folks on the street. I was one of the folks working to raise bail money for those arrested and sent to RFK Stadium. A bad day all around for every one of us.
When my friend and I were busted on the Capitol steps, we were sent to the Washington Coliseum. RFK was over-full with people busted on Monday and Tuesday. My crowd mostly got out on personal recognizance after almost two days, partly because what we were doing wasn't illegal and partly because by then the authorities realized they'd overdone it. My favorite graffito from those days was on a brick wall on Wisconsin Ave.: FREE THE D.C. 13,400.
A couple of the people I went to DC with were busted within an hour of hitting the street and ended up in RFK for a couple of days. Those of us staffing the phones in that church basement finally left for NJ after 16 very long hours of raising bail funds. I don't think I've ever been so tired. One interesting story: a couple of gentlemen from the embassy of an African country, which I will not name, appeared in their full and beautiful regalia to provide money toward bail, and brought us food. I was so exhausted at that point that I thought I was hallucinating.
What a time to have been in school in D.C.! I confined my protests to NYC, where cops usually tolerated unruly but harmless misbehavior. I stayed away from D.C., believing that cops there habitually overreacted to dissent. My only street action in D.C. was a frivolous protest at Nixon's second inauguration. Little did we know how *that* administration would develop.
Had to run away from the cops at the Counter Inaugural in January 1969. I yelled at a cop, got teargassed, of course, and pulled a muscle in my leg; my boyfriend had to carry me out of there and was convinced we were all going to die. Seems like it happened yesterday. I was almost 19 at the time; now I'm 74 and I couldn't run even if my life depended on it. Guess I'll have to find other ways to fight back.
Our protest sign: UNLEASH CHIANG! Faced with a second Nixon administration, life just felt too absurd. My then-boyfriend later spent several years in D.C. as a DNC operative, finally gave up and bought a farm in Nova Scotia—moved there, a dual citizen now.
Very wise of him! I was only dimly aware of the Democratic Party in those days, though of course I knew the DNC was the target of the Watergate break-in. "Politics" wasn't party politics, esp. if you lived in D.C.
it's funny, but I haven't been to DC since the Pentagon march in October, '67. the cops were not what I'd call especially brutal, which surprised me. I DID get badly clubbed outside the UN during that week of demonstrations in Fall '68. I pretty much deserved it, too.
aside from that, I do remember some mounted cops behaving very badly to some hippies during the Easter Be-In in...I suppose it was '68. the cops were clubbing the kids for no reason on a hill overlooking the relevant transverse (79th, mebbe?).
At least two of the justices are corrupt and should have recused themselves. Two others were liars at their conformations. And the majority are cowards just like the vast majority of Republican congressmen and women.
I agree that the SCOTUS is looking for a trap door, at least the conservative majority, on the 14th amendment issue. I'm more hopeful that they will decline to hear the immunity appeal and thus uphold the DC Court of Appeals. In the end though, as much as I want SCOTUS to stop him, we will have to save ourselves by voting.
Because, even if he is convicted (as he should be) in one or more cases pending before Election Day, he'll still be on the ballot.
My theory is that the lesson that the Republicans politicians on the Court learned from Bush v. Gore, is that, if they can get away with choosing the president without regard to the law, they can get away with anything. And now, with six of them, they can. They have gone rogue, feeling free to ignore federal statutes (as with their invented "major questions" doctrine), overturn a 50-year-old precedent because they oppose women's rights, and effectively repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1965. How I wish that Gore had not so supinely accepted Bush v. Gore (as VP, it was his job in 2001, as it was Pence's in 2021, to turn in the Electoral votes). But I can't blame Gore for not knowing that Bush would launch a war of aggression based on a lie and would institute mass torture, or that the Supreme Court would go rogue.
I hold zero faith that these SCOTUS judges will side with the rule of law and do the right thing for our democracy. The fact that Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from these proceedings and his fellow judges did not see a sense of urgency to encourage him to do so says all we need to know about this current Court.This corrupt SCOTUS will leave a shameful and embarrassing legacy in the history of our country.
That Thomas’s refusal to recuse isn’t a daily front page story is a testament to the craven complicity of the despicable political media. Just fucking disgusting.
The other eight justices should be the ones telling him he must recuse. If they’re not doing this, then they are cowards. Or perhaps they did and he refused.
they are trying to find themselves a way out of this where they will not be likely to be lynched by one side or the other. they are not asking questions of law. they are trying to figure out which one of the results from the ruling puts them in the most personal danger. that thomas was not forced to recuse is an insult to the law.
They all got A’s in law school in the course “How to Contort Yourself into a Pretzel When Arguing Before a Judge.”
Or in one's confirmation hearings!
THIS!!! ⬆️
An insult to all of us, WE, THE PEOPLE!
$CROTUS is a profoundly corrupt institution. The fact that no one in power will call a bribe a bribe is simply unconscionable. My guess is it's always been that way given it took 30 YEARS and an outside entity to expose it for what it is.
By bribes taken, should I assume you are referring to the millions that Clarence and his battleship of a wife have taken from our oligarch masters? Bribes which forced Silent Clarence to actually ask a question after being silent for 20 years or so?
yes
They will do nothing to stop him under the 14th Amendment. The only hope is that the Court denies cert with respect to immunity and allows the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to stand. Thomas, that disgrace, will continue to refuse to recuse himself.
This is how I see this working out. They'll give him one (CO decision) and take the other 'immunity.'
This misses the real point. The Supremes have totally destroyed their brand and any confidence or respect people might have held for them. A not so subtle signal that our government no longer works the way it was designed.
Maybe it's time for a radical re-think about how we govern ourselves.
reminds me of referees in an NFL game!
Judge Jackson Brown voiced concern that one state, such as Colorado could keep a candidate off of ballots and affect a national election.
The judge needs to understand that the Constitution gives Colorado the authority to conduct its elections. As such, Colorado and its interpretation of the 14th Amendment is abiding by its Constitutional resposibilities.
In remarking as she did, is she ignorant of the fact Maine agrees with Colorado but is awaiting the SCOTUS decision on the issue before making their decision final?
Is the judge also ignorant of the fact other states have their 14th Amendment decisions on hold just as Maine has done? The Colorado interpretation of the 14th Amendment mirrors the interpretation of a large swath of the United States. Judge Jackson Brown needs to be informed of this before she embarrasses herself further with her concerns.
Possibly, all of the Capital officers who fought the insurectionists, and who were injured or killed by them, should file a suit to keep insurectionist Trump^s name off of all 2024 election ballots.
Hard to think that she does not recall Bush v. Gore, which is the last time I remember a state doing that. Her brothers and sisters at the court should, since they were all involved with that either as litigants or as participants in that shameful episode.
Perhaps all 9 judges recognize their proximity to Insurrection Lane, and fear they will be next?
I have to say that KBJ disappointed me in her questioning. That makes me sad.
Everyone knows the majority is bought and paid for by leonard leo. They have their malignant orders. I'll leave this comment with the same response I posted in reply to Mary Pat Sercu a few columns ago - hear evil, see evil, do evil. Also, I'd like to know why thomas isn't drowning in lawsuits brought by the IRS.
Yes! Where is the IRS?! I speak as one who in the 1970's fought with the IRS over $25,000, a fight which went on for three years. They settled for $2500; I also got to write off more than that in legal and accounting fees. Nobody won. Thomas, a lifelong liar/fake, we can be certain reported nothing---millions.
BTW: I really believe I owed them nothing. We were minutes away from going into that awful Administrative Tax Court. The $2500 was a bribe to the IRS to gd leave me alone and go away! It was like being mugged by very polite men in suits.
Agree, M.T. Sheldon Whitehouse has all the evidence the IRS needs on Thomas. Time for an early retirement.
Corrected spelling of your last name.
It's a tricky one! Thanks.
"The question for the justices is, do they have the honesty and integrity and courage..."
Yeah that would be the question wouldn't it, and it's not looking good, if you look at the record.
Thanks for the good background. I was torn about the 14th amendment question. While I believe in the validity of Colorado's position that, because of his actions, Trump is ineligible to run for potus, it is a national election, and, of course nothing like this has happened before. No one like Trump has happened before.
I predict the batch of bums will redeem themselves on the next bounce, and perhaps unanimously (save for Thomas, because of, well, you know) and uphold the recent circuit court decision that went against Trump.
From your lips to God’s ear, Margo.
Lucien, you are a blistering, brilliant writer! I agree with you wholeheartedly.
How's this for a savage twist of irony? The Supreme Court, in all its infinite wisdom, decrees it's totally kosher for states to hash out the murky waters of abortion rights within their own borders. But, heaven forbid, when it comes to the prospect of blacklisting a flagrant traitor from sullying the sacred slips of election ballots, that's where they draw the line in the sand. It's a mad, mad, mad judiciary we're spiraling in, where the rights to life and democracy get juggled by robed jesters who can't seem to sniff out the stench of hypocrisy choking the air.
In the twisted heart of our America, where the Supreme Court was once the shining knight of justice, we now find it drowning in a swamp of timidity and dodges. The madness that tore through the fabric of democracy, a wild howl away from their hallowed halls, should've sparked a raging fire in their bellies. But no, the nine robed figures seem hell-bent on digging tunnels to nowhere, rather than staring down the beast of January 6, 2021.
The era when the Supreme Court was a towering force, a bulwark against the dark tides of tyranny, has vanished into smoke. Now, they're caught in a pathetic squabble over words and loopholes, clawing at any frail straw to duck the storm they're sworn to face head-on. The sacred vows they took, to stand guard over the law, to be the guardians of the Constitution, are now just whispers lost in the wind, smothered by their dismal efforts to wash their hands of the anarchy at their doorstep.
Their cold feet in confronting the insurrection, in recognizing the depth of this abyss, stands as a stark marker of their eroded virtue. The siege on the Capitol wasn't some roadside scuffle, as Trump's mouthpiece dared to belittle it. It was a vicious, vile, and utterly disgraceful siege on the very soul of democracy. And the justices? They know. They've seen the nooses, the battered officers, the raw fear that seized the nation that day.
Yet, rather than seizing the reins to anchor our democracy, they slink back into the shadows of legalese and nitpicking. They choose to forget that the Constitution isn't just some academic riddle, but a living, pulsing call to arms that demands their absolute allegiance. The framework of our government, the dance of checks and balances, was crafted not as a division, but as a symphony of unity.
Hanging heavy over this tragic comedy is whether the Supreme Court possesses the spine, the moral compass, to confront Trump and his horde. Will they emerge as the champions of democracy, or will they let their corner of the world be devoured by the gaping maw of Trump's boundless greed? The nation teeters on a knife-edge, under the gaze of a world caught between hope and horror. Witnessing the crumbling of an institution once synonymous with justice is a bitter pill.
9-0
What a fantastic editorial! Please submit this to your local and national newspapers.
Interesting idea.
And don't be so modest. It's enitorial@nytimes.com.
Thank you. 🙏
GOOD idea!
i was thinking exactly the same!
I just have to keep reminding myself that, in terms of SCOTUS history, the Warren Court was a wonderful anomaly.
and yes, this would make a great Op-Ed in any serious newspaper.
Yes! It would.
You nail it again Gloria.
I'm weeping for US.
I love this take on it. It boils down to something like "Are you brave enough to believe the evidence of your inconvenient eyes?"
At the same time, I'm intrigued by the contention of Jason Murray, a lawyer for the Colorado voters, that on January 6, 2021, "for the first time since the War of 1812, our nation’s capital came under violent assault." I was around on May 3, 1971, when the city was put, in effect, under martial law in response to the efforts of the "May Day Tribe" to block the main commuting routes into D.C. during the morning rush hour. People who had nothing to do with the demonstrations were arrested for congregating in groups of more than two. Military vehicles patrolled the streets.
As a student activist at Georgetown U., I strenuously disagreed with the May Day Tribe's strategy, but I disagreed even more with the police crackdown that followed. With a friend I went down to the Capitol on May 5 to listen four members of Congress -- Ron Dellums, Bella Abzug, Charles Rangel, and Parren Mitchell -- speak on the Capitol steps: they'd invited us onto the steps, nothing illegal about it. But the police cordoned us off, warned us to leave, then arrested the approximately 1,200 of us who didn't. My friend and I thus became among the plaintiffs in Dellums v. Powell (490 F. Supp. 70 [D.D.C. 1980] -- it's easy to find online).
Three years earlier, in April 1968, the city had erupted in grief and rage in response to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The vestiges of that violence were still around when I left D.C. in 1985.
What happened on January 6, 2021, was different in scope and scale from 1968 and 1971, and from the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. I see why Jason Murray compared it to the British attack during the War of 1812. But the nation's capital was not entirely spared from violent assault between 1814 and 2021.
I too was there on May Day 1971. Came down from NJ the night before and had a bad feeling the day of the march, so I spent 16 hours in a church basement, smoking endless cigarettes, raising bail money, and working with the volunteer attorneys. People returning from the streets carried tear gas on their clothes and we were gagging. I'll never forget it.
There's a double-page spread in LIFE magazine of the front gate of Georgetown U., CDU (Civil Disturbance Unit) on one side, students on the other. I'm there, but you can't see me or anyone else for the tear gas.
You were one of the folks on the street. I was one of the folks working to raise bail money for those arrested and sent to RFK Stadium. A bad day all around for every one of us.
When my friend and I were busted on the Capitol steps, we were sent to the Washington Coliseum. RFK was over-full with people busted on Monday and Tuesday. My crowd mostly got out on personal recognizance after almost two days, partly because what we were doing wasn't illegal and partly because by then the authorities realized they'd overdone it. My favorite graffito from those days was on a brick wall on Wisconsin Ave.: FREE THE D.C. 13,400.
A couple of the people I went to DC with were busted within an hour of hitting the street and ended up in RFK for a couple of days. Those of us staffing the phones in that church basement finally left for NJ after 16 very long hours of raising bail funds. I don't think I've ever been so tired. One interesting story: a couple of gentlemen from the embassy of an African country, which I will not name, appeared in their full and beautiful regalia to provide money toward bail, and brought us food. I was so exhausted at that point that I thought I was hallucinating.
I missed all of that as I worked in DC at the time but I never missed a Vietnam March!
Wow!
What a time to have been in school in D.C.! I confined my protests to NYC, where cops usually tolerated unruly but harmless misbehavior. I stayed away from D.C., believing that cops there habitually overreacted to dissent. My only street action in D.C. was a frivolous protest at Nixon's second inauguration. Little did we know how *that* administration would develop.
Had to run away from the cops at the Counter Inaugural in January 1969. I yelled at a cop, got teargassed, of course, and pulled a muscle in my leg; my boyfriend had to carry me out of there and was convinced we were all going to die. Seems like it happened yesterday. I was almost 19 at the time; now I'm 74 and I couldn't run even if my life depended on it. Guess I'll have to find other ways to fight back.
I recall the outrageous, marvelous feats we accomplished in the 60s and I am so proud of us. So, so proud.
Just wish we could have done more.
I almost got busted at that one -- some friends and I thought it would be fun to follow along in parade. We had to get out of there fast.
Our protest sign: UNLEASH CHIANG! Faced with a second Nixon administration, life just felt too absurd. My then-boyfriend later spent several years in D.C. as a DNC operative, finally gave up and bought a farm in Nova Scotia—moved there, a dual citizen now.
Very wise of him! I was only dimly aware of the Democratic Party in those days, though of course I knew the DNC was the target of the Watergate break-in. "Politics" wasn't party politics, esp. if you lived in D.C.
it's funny, but I haven't been to DC since the Pentagon march in October, '67. the cops were not what I'd call especially brutal, which surprised me. I DID get badly clubbed outside the UN during that week of demonstrations in Fall '68. I pretty much deserved it, too.
aside from that, I do remember some mounted cops behaving very badly to some hippies during the Easter Be-In in...I suppose it was '68. the cops were clubbing the kids for no reason on a hill overlooking the relevant transverse (79th, mebbe?).
Brilliant!
At least two of the justices are corrupt and should have recused themselves. Two others were liars at their conformations. And the majority are cowards just like the vast majority of Republican congressmen and women.
I agree that the SCOTUS is looking for a trap door, at least the conservative majority, on the 14th amendment issue. I'm more hopeful that they will decline to hear the immunity appeal and thus uphold the DC Court of Appeals. In the end though, as much as I want SCOTUS to stop him, we will have to save ourselves by voting.
Because, even if he is convicted (as he should be) in one or more cases pending before Election Day, he'll still be on the ballot.
Exactly!
Bush v Gore was the moment for me. Hacks.
My theory is that the lesson that the Republicans politicians on the Court learned from Bush v. Gore, is that, if they can get away with choosing the president without regard to the law, they can get away with anything. And now, with six of them, they can. They have gone rogue, feeling free to ignore federal statutes (as with their invented "major questions" doctrine), overturn a 50-year-old precedent because they oppose women's rights, and effectively repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1965. How I wish that Gore had not so supinely accepted Bush v. Gore (as VP, it was his job in 2001, as it was Pence's in 2021, to turn in the Electoral votes). But I can't blame Gore for not knowing that Bush would launch a war of aggression based on a lie and would institute mass torture, or that the Supreme Court would go rogue.
The four saddest words in the english language...it might have been...
I wish I didn’t have to agree with you.
100/100 Lucien. Again.
Obviously they will lack the courage. We all knew that from the start. They are not classy people.
I hold zero faith that these SCOTUS judges will side with the rule of law and do the right thing for our democracy. The fact that Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from these proceedings and his fellow judges did not see a sense of urgency to encourage him to do so says all we need to know about this current Court.This corrupt SCOTUS will leave a shameful and embarrassing legacy in the history of our country.
That Thomas’s refusal to recuse isn’t a daily front page story is a testament to the craven complicity of the despicable political media. Just fucking disgusting.
The other eight justices should be the ones telling him he must recuse. If they’re not doing this, then they are cowards. Or perhaps they did and he refused.