comment: >
  
  Lately we have had the separation of powers part figured out, but we're whiffing it on the checks-and-balances part.
  Trump and the SC have proven that making the institution corrupts has no consequences, so we will see more of it unless we start showing teeth.
context: How is it possible to believe that she sent those emotional, overwrought texts to Mark Meadows, but didn't discuss anything with her own husband?  It's just not plausible. >
  
  She said she felt better after a chat with her husband, and then said in closing that they never talk about her work.
  How did he make her feel better after she just had an emotional outburst like she described?
  What did Clarence Thomas say that assuaged her worries? >
  
  "Who put this pubic hair on my Diet Coke?" >
  
  Don't remind me. 🤢🤮 >
  
  Someone please fill those of us in who don't want to be reminded yet.
  Edit: thx much and happy new year to everyone >
  
  That's how Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill as she stated during his confirmation hearing. >
  
  Not just Hill. He was constantly talking about pornography, sex, and other work inappropriate topics throughout his career. Women of course, to make them uncomfortable and exude "power," but men in his various offices have often admitted that he was a fucking weirdo. The guy would literally roll in on a Monday and over coffee and bagels casually mention, "I saw this movie where a woman was fucked by a dog over the weekend. Wild, right?"  
  If his career had begun in the modern day any half-competent HR department would have had him drummed out within six months. >
  
  The bestiality angle always amazes me.
  You are a Judge, whose judgement is so shit you think its perfectly acceptable and totally normal to discuss hardcore beastiality, in the workplace.
  A Supreme Court Judge y'all. >
  
  This was fine with the 90s GOP.
  Their degeneracy in the service of their ideology is nothing new. >
  
  Ah, the era of Newt Gingrich >
  
  Clarence Thomas has already demonstrated that he has no problem whatsoever lying under oath >
  
  Because it's too late for that. >
  
  He can be subpoenaed. Not by J6Comm but he’s not immune. >
  
  Who is going to issue a subpoena? The DOJ? >
  
  That’s what the article says. The DOJ have a grand jury seated to get after the J6 shenanigans. Any subpoena would come from them. >
  
  Even if this were to happen Thomas would ignore the subpoena. >
  
  Yeah, I’m not the most intimately familiar person with how subpoenas work, but previously I had thought they were relatively serious legal inquiries. Now I know they can be safely ignored, from politicians to the rich. Dan Snyder stayed on his boat in France so they couldn’t subpoena him and literally just ignored Congress… cuz he’s rich enough to just say “nah I’m good” to the legal system I guess. >
  
  When you’re young the adults teach you about right and wrong, about laws etc. What they don’t teach you is that the rich and powerful are usually immune to laws and that this is they way it’s always been and always will be because corruption is innate in the human condition. >
  
  Subpoenas don't apply to Republicans. They're only for Democrats and ordinary people. >
  
  AFAIK no Republican has refused a DOJ subpoena so far. >
  
  DoJ doesn't issue subpoenas. Grand juries do. And several republicans have defied  Georgia grand jury subpoenas and republican federal judges have ruled they could. >
  
  Send them straight to jail >
  
  the problem is they want to be martyred. they will use it as a rallying cry about how the evil liberal democrats jailed them for not answering an unlawful subpoena about their witch hunt election fraud.
  they're obsessed with being the victim. /r/Persecutionfetish >
  
  In this Post-Trump presidency era, all a Republican has to do to escape accountability is merely say that a subpoena is unlawful and/or any allegations against them are just a political witch hunt.
  Unfortunately very effective in the court of public opinion.  The few smaller people who end up facing any consequences seem to only get a slap on the wrist that usually just strengthens the narrative that they’re being persecuted.
  Jan 6 showed everybody how important and dangerous the court of public opinion is.  The only way to fight back at it is full accountability to everyone who participated in criminality.  I’m tired of hearing pundits and politicians talk about indictments having political implications.  Doing nothing and letting shit slide also has political implications - far more damaging ones at that. >
  
  January 6th was OUR Beer Hall Putsch
  We're taking an awfully similar path. >
  
  Not really, beer haul push was somewhat similar but also these idiots aren't gonna risk their own necks at anytime soon like the Nazis did, before most of the Nazis who did the dirty work were in turn halfway killed >
  
  Clarence Thomas needs to impeached and removed from the bench >
  
  Won't happen because Republicans see him as someone who will vote to overturn any convictions they receive as a result of this.
  Laws and ethics don't matter to Republicans. >
  
  I know it, and it’s a shame what’s happened to our just system and our Supreme Court especially. It’s sickening. Our democracy has never been in more jeopardy 😫 >
  
  I used to be pretty optimistic but I don’t see how our democracy will recover from this. It’ll be impossible to remove any of the justices and they’re going to have a majority for decades.
  Businesses already have too much sway in our politics and they’ll happily funnel as much money as it takes to demonize true democracy and enshrine the advantages they enjoy. Regulatory capture will continue to gradually spiral. 
  We can’t even do the most trivial stuff in the public interest because of corporate control. Like all economists agree we should drop physical pennies but they’re still made because they benefit a few copper and zinc mines, and those mine owners pay for votes. 
  The IRS could send most of us a simple statement of how much we owe, as the Australians do—it takes an Australian 5 minutes to do taxes. But Intuit (TurboTax) buys congressional votes to make sure that won’t happen. 
  How is Marjorie Taylor Green worth over $40M on a salary of $140K? Why aren’t any ethics agencies looking into blatant influence peddling?
  Why do our politicians spend the majority of their time begging for money from companies that want their votes instead of doing their jobs? Who thinks that a sane system for good governance?
  We spend the most per-person on healthcare by a mile, yet our outcomes are at the bottom of industrialized nations because so many people are uninsured. Where is the political will to fix it?
  Did you know America is the only advanced nation where medical debt is the  cause of 65% of bankruptcies?
  But we have no problem spending astronomical amounts on defense—it’s never enough despite no direct foreign military threat. >
  
  You are telling truths here on New Years Eve and this block of time from 2016 till today and it makes me physically sick to my stomach that our future is looking pretty dim and I'm not blaming just one party but both. The Democrats have let the Republicans get away with anything they wanted, Roe V Wade, the Electoral College, and missing the chance for a liberal judge on the bench and so much more. >
  
  when was the last time a republican suffered any consequences for ignoring a subpoena >
  
  Bannon just got 4 months- not sue if he is a republican >
  
  He was Trump's campaign manager, what else would he be? >
  
  I don't think people take this seriously enough.
  These are 9 people with a lifetime appointment who can (apparently) make shit up on the spot, forget precedent.
  Clarence knew full well what Ginni was up to. That's why she was a tool, because of her husband.
  These people are walking shit shows, and I've never seen anything like it, and I even remember Wilbur Mills and the Argentinian Firecracker jumping into the tidal basin wearing nothing but a fur coat. ^(Look it up GenZ.) 
  Subpoena his ass.
  Edit -link was messed up sry >
  
  This man is a menace. He has been from day one. He has no business sitting on the bench at the Supreme Court. He Is a petty, grievance-filled, feeble-minded idiot who jeopardizes the integrity of the entire justice system. >
  
  Have you listened to the “behind the bastards” episode on him? It doesn’t pull any punches. This guy legit switched parties to be aligned with, because it would help his chances of moving up the ranks. >
  
  Oh he’s the bad guy from Hamilton? >
  
  Burr in Hamilton doesn't switch sides. He just never takes one. Burr does this so that he has no enemies. Problem is that taking a stance is what Hamilton sees as the noblest stance, even if it is against his own. Ironically enough, Hamilton likely thinks this because of the way Burr refuses to take a stance.
  It's almost like a self fulfilling prophecy. Situational irony! >
  
  
  “I changed parties to seize the opportunity I saw” - Burr in Schuyler Defeated >
  
  Good catch! Yeah you hit it right on the nose then. >
  
  I want to hear him say Fith. >
  
  I remember a former president who claimed that pleading the Fifth was for the mob. >
  
  Must be in jail.  
  That’s what the headline should read.  Why is this treason weasel still free? >
  
  
  treason weasel 
  
  I just snort-laughed, except I’m sick and stuffed up, so it turned into the loudest ever snort in the entire history of the world. It probably could’ve been heard from the moon. It vibrated my skull to the point it felt like my eyeballs were bouncing around, lol. >
  
  I also would have accepted Felon Ferrets or Subversion Sables or Misogynist Mongeese or Moronic Mustelids or Syncophatic Stoats, or Political Polecats or Mansplainin’ Mink or Ornery Oaxacagale or Whining Weasels or Traitorous Tayra. >
  
  Seditious Skunks. >
  
  Also acceptable. >
  
  Those Worthless Wolverines are terrible as well. (Are we running out of Mustelids yet?) >
  
  Clarence the fascist will lie under oath because he can and no one can do anything about it. >
  
  Maybe he should resign so that he can take care of his mentally unfit wife. >
  
  There are a lot of jobs in the US that you can’t do or can be lost if your spouse or direct family are up to sketchy stuff. Your spouse or family member don’t even need to be suspected of actually doing anything wrong. It’s the fact they are a risk that disqualifies you for the job. 
  A SCOTUS Justice should definitely qualify as one of those jobs. 
  Half the people at DOE would be in a quagmire of awful if their wife got tied up in a violent insurrection and election fraud conspiracy. Same if she had ties to a politically active cult. Mrs. Doubtful Thomas is all of those things in one person. 
  It’s absolute madness that Justice Thomas hasn’t already been railroaded out or impeached. >
  
  Imagine if they tried this and it went all the way to the SCOTUS, Thomas didn't recuse himself, and successfully got the court to drop the subpoena.  
  That's what would happen. The right-wing on the SCOTUS have no interest in lessening their power and there is no mechanism that would keep Thomas off the bench.  
  This is why it should happen anyway. No liberal or law-and-order centrist would be able to rationalize this away. SCOTUS reform would be in the Top 5 of issues for every Democrat and Independent. >
  
  Best friends with an insurrectionist. >
  
  I'd rather he be impeached along with Alito, the supreme court is completely illegitimate now >
  
  Why would they stop when there are never any consequences >
  
  Yeah, that’ll happen. /s. We are in the post-accountability era. The powerful are allowed to lie and cheat as they like. We have three so called justices who lied in their testimony about abortion being settled law, and then they unsettled it. Why would Clarence Thomas be held accountable? By whom? It takes a 2/3 majority to impeach a justice, and the Republican’ts will never allow that. >
  
  just a hunch, but nothing will happen to him or the rest of the coup attempt traitor trash >
  
  ​
  Clarence Thomas will neither accept a subpoena nor recuse himself. Anybody who thinks he will doesn't understand the history of this man's actions nor his rulings. >
  
  Or that the right has consistently been getting away with its childish and obnoxious behavior as it conducts its campaign >
  
  Make it so. >
  
  Clarence Thomas needs to be fired and this isn’t even the first or 10th reason >
  
  Why haven’t they questioned him already?  Why is he involved in cases related to January 6th when his wife was involved?  Why doesn’t he recuse himself?
  His wife, Ginni, should be put on trial. She should get a fair trial, but if the courts insist on using their position as a will to power then she should get the same shitshow kangaroo trial Ed Snowden would get if he came back.  Whereas Snowden (or Assange) would be tried in a three letter agency district in Northern Virginia with the ruling predetermined, G. Thomas should be tried in a district with little to no MAGA support, a hostile rubber stamp district with little support leading to a supermax.
  In the extremely likely event C. Thomas was involved and there is clear evidence, he should be impeached and criminally tried as well. >
  
  
  Why haven’t they questioned him already?
  
  The ugly truth is separation of powers. It's one of the cracks in our system (and one of its virtues, some days of the week). If a member of SCOTUS wants to not recuse themselves from a case, they can legally do that (I understand there is a written law; they can ignore it). If they want to become political, they can also legally do that. The instrument we have to deal with it is the Impeachment. Or an Amendment. Alas, our political polarization and ossification has wrecked all that, and here we are. >
  
  Why do people have to listen to the Supreme Court?  It holds power through perceptions of legitimacy, being impartial and fair-minded in interpreting the law.  It is clearly a political institution and always has been.  The Court is now just a parliamentary body far more powerful than Congress.  If it functions as a parliamentary body, why regard as a judicial system; why not end the bullshit?
  There is a good case for ignoring the Supreme Court.  Admittedly for unjustifiable reasons, Andrew Jackson ignored the Court.  What can the Court do if the other branches ignore it?  The Supreme Court cannot enforce anything and only has legitimacy from a perception of being fair-minded in its Judgements. The Democrats only have something to lose if it somehow hurts them in elections.  Very few Republicans will likely ignore Supreme Court rulings because they don’t want to hurt their political weapon.  If the Democrats are not willing to add Judges (say having 20-40 Judges added over time who rotate so it’s doesn’t remain the kangaroo court it now is), they have little to lose by making a case that the Court has undermined its own legitimacy.  Unless the Court is changed in its size, it will be a nakedly partisan branch of government for at least the next few decades.
  The current Supreme Court cannot be taken seriously.  It’s members stopped vote counting in Bush v. Gore and one member’s wife sought to play a role in denying the election results. Thomas refused to recuse him from cases in which his own wife was involved. >
  
  
  Why do people have to listen to the Supreme Court?
  
  Why do people have to obey the law at all?
  Regardless of our observations of SCOTUS' defects, they actually have a higher approval rating than Congress. >
  
  Subpoenae his ass tyvm 😊 🙏 🤣 😂 >
  
  Clarence Thomas must be removed for engaging in a seditious Conspiracy with his wife. >
  
  No judge should have a lifetime appointment. IMO all politicians and judges should have a mandatory retirement age of 70 yo >
  
  Who's going to do that? The GOP won the House and the 1/6 committee is over. There's no one now to issue a congressional subpoena to him even if Dems wanted to. There doesn't seem to be any one else deeply investigating this. >
  
  DoJ. >
  
  I honestly could never see the current DoJ doing that to a sitting SCOTUS justice. They'd fear seeming partisan too much. There doesn't seem to be an actual DoJ investigating going on into any of the organizing of 1/6 by higher officials anyway. >
  
  Garland is too slow and timid. He’s doing the investigation but is dragging his feet. 
  He’s afraid that prosecuting a former president or Supreme Court justice sets a dangerous precedent. And he’s right. 
  But not prosecuting a former president or justice who are obviously criminals sets an even more dangerous precedent. 
  SCOTUS and POTUS must never be above the rule of law. >
  
  He hired a guy to take over to avoid looking partisan. I’m not sure how that translates to “doing nothing”, but a lot of people seem to be making that jump here. >
  
  Sowing discontent and pessimism. It's designed to make people lose hope and stop fighting. 
  But they've been proven wrong time and time again. >
  
  It’s about time. Fuck him >
  
  Reminder that he's a huge reason W. Bush was able to steal the election in 2000. >
  
  He needs to be removed, though I seriously doubt the R-led House will do a dam thing the next 2 years. Again, we need limits on how long any justice, or even a member of Congress, can serve. And no more of this lifetime healthcare coverage, most don’t come close to earning it. >
  
  Impeach him >
  
  They won't. America is rotten to the core >
  
  It is a great tragedy that Clarence Thomas will most likely never face any repercussions for any of the horrid shit he has done of the years. >
  
  He won’t be. If he were, he would just ignore it. If he didn’t ignore it, he’d just plead the 5th. If he didn’t plead the 5th, he’d just boldly own it and dare someone to do something. 
  But let’s be honest, he won’t be. >
  
  I’m just one big metaphor for this entire disgusting damaged GOP era. >
  
  He should just resign and hope he doesn't get subpoena then. >
  
  Lock them both up and throw away the keys. >
  
  Hell yeah, we have finally reached the point that skin color doesn't matter and opinion is based solely on politics. 
  Free at last, free at last. >
  
  Their both liars pure and simple >
  
  Good advice if it was still 2020. Instead, over a year went by before Congress got serious about investigating the January 6th attack and began in depth investigations. And now time has run out and Republicans will NOT take a year before investigating Biden. >
  
  Time has not run out. The Jan-6 committee completed their work. The They are turning over their materials to the DoJ and have recommended charges be filed. >
  
  his head is so far up Trump's ass no one will hear what he says. >
  
  She lied. She admitted it. Now shut your trap - we don't need your chaotic, lying open trap spewing idiocy in the media.
  You want to be stupid? Do that in the privacy of your own lair.
  And Clarence? Hell he wanted to outlaw interracial relationships. Has he noticed he's in one? Stupid, stupid man. >
  
  
  he wanted to outlaw interracial relationships
  
  I guess he doesn't have the balls to just divorce her lying vanilla a$$ >
  
  Hadn't thought of it that way but -- interesting to think that one through.
  Thanks for the insight. >
  
  And Clarence would tell the truth. Not. >
  
  Oh cool I've never seen a USSC justice lie on the stand this will be new for me >
  
  I am for sure looking forward to the Opening Arguments podcast discussing the actual real subpoena of a sitting Supreme. >
  
  subpoenas still work? >
  
  What a dumb headline. "Must", "Lawyers". Just do it already and fuck off Dems who are holding back. 
  Why isn't Biden demanding it publicly? Because they all love being above the law is my guess. Don't want to set a precedent that holds high offices accountable. >
  
  
  "At best, they are material fact witnesses. At worst, they are co-conspirators to be charged with seditious conspiracy."
  
  Gosh if only people had been saying this two years ago. oh wait, they have been. I am sure the authorities will do something this time around. For sure this time, I just know it. >
  
  
  Clarence Thomas Must Be 'Subpoenaed' to Testify Over Jan. 6: Lawyers
  
  Perhaps.
  But what he NEEDS to do is RESIGN. >
  
  Thomas just needs to be thrown outta office. Along with many of them... >
  
  Because of his position, the bar is far higher for his conduct, he must testify.  Since they are good Christian folks, I want both to sit together and answer one question, with their hands on the Bible, swear to tell the truth, did you ever discuss any of the stop the steal action being taken by either of you? >
  
  You know she is lying ...he is a pos >
  
  He should be DISBARRED FOR LIFE!!!
  Should be PROSECUTED for Criminal Case of Contempt of Court + Additional Sections!!! >
  
  He’s Trump’s wild card when his documents case reaches the SC. >
  
  This brazen authoritarian needs a big dollop of accountability - under oath. >
  
  A two-thirds majority is needed from Congress to have Thomas removed from office. 
  Republicans don't care about integrity or laws particulary when it will cost them power. The Supreme Court is completely politicised. Checks and balances are basically a mythical portion of American government.