"Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone member of the court who dissented from the court's ruling"...

[Miles Archer]

Former President Donald Trump has lost his final bid to block the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots from having access to key documents.

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that a former president could not invoke executive privilege on White House records if the current president did not also assert that privilege.

"The questions whether and in what circumstances a former president may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent president to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns," the court writes. "The Court of Appeals, however, had no occasion to decide these questions because it analyzed and rejected President Trump's privilege claims 'under any of the tests [he] advocated."

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone member of the court who dissented from the court's ruling, although he issued no explanation for his dissent.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-supreme-court-2656436590/

Wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas signs letter against Jan. 6 committee
On Jan. 6, Ginni Thomas was supporting the Capitol riot violence as it unfolded on her social media
By SARAH K. BURRIS
PUBLISHED JANUARY 19, 2022 4:24AM (EST)

https://www.salon.com/2022/01/19/wife-of-justice-clarence-thomas-signs-letter-against-jan-6-committee_partner/

https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/

[dem4decades]

1. Is Ginni in the records?

[bamagal62]

22. That was my thought.

[Cha]

2. Yeah, he's such a Fascist Fuck.. him &

FUBARED wife.

Link to tweet

[Bev54]

3. I hope his wife's name comes up in some of these documents

[Baitball Blogger]

16. +1

[onenote]

4. RawStory -- no surprise -- misstates what the Court said.

"According to RawStory, the Court "ruled that a former president could not invoke executive privilege on White House records if the current president did not also assert that privilege. "

In fact the Court expressly did NOT say that.
This is what the Court said: "Because the Court of Appeals concluded that Presi- dent Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision....Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump’s status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta.

[milestogo]

5. "Is that a pubic hair on my coke can, baby?"

[PlanetBev]

6. Whenever I see 8-1, I know who the holdout is

What an insufferable prick and his idiot wife.

[gratuitous]

7. I'm starting to get the same vibe about Justice Thomas that I did for Scalia

There was a photo of Scalia not long before he died. I noticed that he did not look like a well man: overweight, sedentary habits, smoker, in his late 70s. I don't know how old that photo of Thomas in his robes is, but he isn't looking very fit to my amateur eye. If the current president doesn't get to name his successor, the next one almost surely will.

[uponit7771]

9. +1

[DEbluedude]

8. Serious question .

What would it take for him to be removed from the USSC due to his wife's political affiliations with terrorists. Just wondering.

[malaise]

11. I'd love to hear about that n/t

[lastlib]

12. Dying........

I fervently hope that process is under way.......

[onenote]

13. Impeachment.

Good luck with that.

[gratuitous]

14. The only way is through impeachment

We're overdue for some serious reform of our judiciary, starting with how Supreme Court Justices are recused from cases. For now, the sole decider of whether a justice is recused from a case is . . . the justice herself or himself. The decision can't be appealed, is not subject to any review whatsoever, and recusal cannot be imposed on a Justice from anyone or anywhere else. So Justice Thomas can hear and vote on cases in which his wife has a direct personal, financial, or political interest, and nobody can say a word against the obvious conflict of interest. It's like the letters of transit in "Casablanca."

[DEbluedude]

20. Thanks. I was wondering if Roberts could step in and remove him.

Yeah. LOL. Sounds like a "beautiful friendship".

[lastlib]

10. Well, to be fair....

It kinda goes against decorum to say "I dissent becuz I'm a d*ckhead"..........

[budkin]

15. He needs to go

Hopefully it'll happen soon.

[rockfordfile]

23. I agree

[LastDemocratInSC]

17. Maybe Clarence is dealing with an "Alienation of Affection" case

under his own roof and the only solution is to submit to Ginny's demands.

[spanone]

18. Go the fuck away Clarence.

[Demovictory9]

19. please retire to spend more time with family

[FBaggins]

21. Oh no... death is preferable

No… I’m not wishing him harm. But he isn’t retiring until there’s another right-wing president and senate majority to match. I’m just hoping that’s many years off and he passes from old age.

[Buckeyeblue]

24. Ginni Thomas makes way more $ than her husband

His votes pay her salary. Honestly, anytime she takes a public (especially for her work) position on an issue before the court, he should have to recuse.