UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Yes, I am aware that US Supreme Court Justices are not bound by the canons, because it is PRESUMED that the honor of their high office means they set the example without the need to have it spelled out for them.

Do you really believe that Justice Thomas was unaware of his wife's radical obsession over the Big Lie?

Imagine a Justice whose spouse is a lobbyist for Exxon. Imagine an environmental dispute case involving oil drilling. Shouldn't the Justice recuse herself/himself from hearing the case?


Link: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Btw, it is not often that someone admits in the very first sentence of their post that the information they provided to prove a point isn’t applicable and doesn’t actually prove any point at all.

Very weak minded and calls into question competence.

Supreme Court justices, appointed for life, decide whether they should step down or recuse themselves from a given case.

The appearance of being a neutral jurist is sacrosanct.

Congratulations for lowering the bar once again, Baron.

To say you “forgot” implies that you learned about integrity and honor at some point in your past. I see no evidence of that.

What I do see is a hyper partisan who defines such terms strictly in terms of allegiance to the leftwing agenda.

Dems cheated to win the election - thats what the No Voter ID emergency orders were about. Good for Mrs Thomas for believing that too! But in my world people speak for themselves, and not others.

Mrs Thomas iscorrect in her concern, and she is also worthy to be taken as her own person.

Your presumptions reveal both your underlying mysogeny and racism. Your world sucks.

All this was going to be made public anyway. It is part of the congressional investigation.

The fact is that a wife of a Supreme Court Justice is a QAnon loony who was communicating with the Speaker of the House and revealing that lunacy.

Another fact is that Thomas was the lone dissenter in a decision about whether 1/6 communications should remain private. His wife's communications were involved - if he knew that, he should have recused himself. But maybe he didn't.

This is not going to be a big story for long, and certainly Thomas will not be impeached.

But it does not help with the court's attempt to remain above politics, that's for sure.

(no message)

...which is to undermine trust in the SCOTUS legitimacy.

Interestingly, the target audience for this Dem/MSM leak manipulation is not conservatives, it is other Dems who have not yet been massaged to the point of accepting a change to the 9 member SCOTUS.
The "bad look" is exactly message that was intended to be sent to the middle of the road Dems to get them to rationalize the court packing.

History provides many, many examples of the Dem/MSM leak manipulation. I am 100% correct, and you know it. Rush would be all over this.

Your QAnon reference means nothing to conservatives. It is specifically a trigger word for liberals, and your use of this nonsense further substantiates my point.

The texts are real. The Speaker has confirmed that.

The issue is not the leak. The issue is the stupidity of this woman - and whether her husband knew.

(no message)

You’re so manipulated that you can’t even see it.

Before you recite the “Mantra of the Hypocrite” and cry “Whataboutism”, understand that I referenced your Biden/Hunter double standard as an example of how deeply manipulated your thinking has become.

(no message)

…..I’m pointing it out to you because you could’ve see it. It is further evidence of your manipulation.

(no message)

Justice Thomas potentially being influenced by his wife's strident political beliefs...hopefully, you can appreciate this...

Somewhere deep inside you Tyrone, there is a reasonably smart and rational human. It's my goal to find that guy and bring him back to the surface.

We have ACTUAL proof of malfeasance by the son of sitting president for benefit of himself and his father, and this is no big deal.

But the wife of a SC Judge expressing her opinion, regardless of whether or not you think she's looney tunes, is YET AGAIN the death of democracy.

(no message)

>NO ONE can verify that Hunter Biden dropped off HIS laptop...the repairman is legally blind (odd in itself) and HB doesn't know anything about it...could be a 'stolen laptop', or some other laptop...in either case there's no end to the possibilities of what might be on the laptop...valid emails and photos...PLUS some not-so-valid communications??? We simply CANNOT VERIFY all the contents.

Also, keep in mind the context, what has happened before...AND the people involved...we're talking about an Impeachment of a President for an established "Quid Pro Quo" scheme to discredit Joe Biden...with his son thrown in for good measure...orchestrated by none other that that guy who can't even dye his hair properly...Rudy Giuliani...same cast of characters in this caper. In this context, etc., also, on the other side, we have James Clapper...a career Intelligence professional...LONG BEFORE Trump ever showed up...as well as 51 IC pros who put their names on a letter saying this whole thing is BOGUS and a Russian disinformation trick...they too have devoted their lives to keeping this country safe...LONG BEFORE Trump ever showed up.

>As for Joe Biden...unlike Paul Manafort...he doesn't covet $15,000 Ostrich Skin Sports Coats...and unlike Donald Trump...he doesn't care a bit for Gold Plated Toilets...he also goes to Mass regularly and rode Amtrack for decades instead of getting a limo ride...there is NO WAY that Joe Biden is using his son for corrupt purposes...choose your "Avatars" more carefully.

>re: Justice Thomas...it is my understanding that there will be zero questions as to the credibility of the messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows...regardless of how they came to light..., so take a look at the Judicial Canons that Conor has provided (your Law Firm can also show them to you...as well as give you their opinion on the matter...would be nice if you'd share)...the clearly point out the "Family Members" can be a "Conflict of Interest" under certain circumstances...and with Justice Thomas being the ONLY Justice to offer a Dissenting Opinion on making Jan. 6th communications public...you can readily see why suspicion abounds regarding he and his wife.

(*) TOTALLY DIFFERENT situations...btw, if this were a Dem. Justice with an "off-the-charts" BLM promoter voting on a racial discrimination case, you'd be all over this...as well you should be...Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from ANY involvement with "Jan. 6th" cases.

I feel like you're just simply unwilling to concede that point. It is hunter's laptop. There is nothing to sway. Myself or others. You're wrong.

Now you wanna debate the severity OK. There is no denying it's his.

Edit: good of you to admit BLM is a domestic terror group though. Good on ya!

to talk about...it's as simple as that...even Bill Barr wouldn't assign a special prosecutor to investigate this exercise in desperation by Donald Trump...you're aligning yourself with one of the worst losers, ever...not what I'd call "good judgement".

The very real concern has to do with Justice Thomas and his wife...while these "Canons" from the document Conor provided aren't imposed on Supreme Court Justices...they should be zealously followed by members of that austere body...

---------------------
C) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;

(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) KNOWN BY THE JUDGE TO HAVE AN INTEREST THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING, or (emphasis mine)

(iv) TO THE JUDGE'S KNOWLEDGE LIKELY TO BE A MATERIAL WITNESS IN THE PROCEEDING.(emphasis mine)

(e) the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

(2) A judge should keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the judge’s spouse and minor children residing in the judge’s household.

(3) For the purposes of this section:

(a) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system; the following relatives are within the third degree of relationship: parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great grandparent, great grandchild, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, niece, and nephew; the listed relatives include whole and half blood relatives and most step relatives;

(b) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(c) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

(ii) an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii) the proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

(iv) ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities;

(d) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.

(4) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Canon, if a judge would be disqualified because of a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the judge (or the judge’s spouse or minor child) divests the interest that provides the grounds for disqualification.

(D) Remittal of Disqualification. Instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, a judge disqualified by Canon 3C(1) may, except in the circumstances specifically set out in subsections (a) through (e), disclose on the record the basis of disqualification. The judge may participate in the proceeding if, after that disclosure, the parties and their lawyers have an opportunity to confer outside the presence of the judge, all agree in writing or on the record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate. The agreement should be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.
--------------------

Let's not deflect away from the REAL issue at hand...Justice Thomas' recusal from any "Jan. 6th" case must be acknowledged...one can ask, anyway ;-)...


Link: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

(no message)

Hunter Biden...the essential "Content" of that machine is vulnerable to manipulation and therefore unreliable...a disinformation scheme can leave much of that content alone, while adding and changing the rest...that's how such things are supposed to work...if you don't get that, then you peg the "Naive Meter".

btw, If you lost your laptop, and its contents were not encrypted, thus allowing access, I'm sure you would be just a bit concerned as to what might happen to those files of yours. (see link)...


Link: https://www.howtogeek.com/359125/what-data-can-a-thief-get-from-a-stolen-phone-or-laptop/

If what has already been released was doctored on anyway the MSM would be shouting it from the rooftops. That the Biden haven't disavowed it speaks volumes.

It's his. Your lying to yourself.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)