The judicial ethics laws regarding conflicts of interest on even the appearance of a conflict (which theoretically apply to Supreme Court justices with the rather ginormous loophole that they are the ones who enforce it on themselves) include the justices and their spouses.
Regardless of whether Ginni Thomas kept her direct involvement in insurrection plotting and other treasonous activities separate from her husband (they previously have said that they discuss everything and are like two heads on one body, except when Clarence “Uncle” Thomas is propositioning underlings like Anita Hill), under the law as written, a conflict with Ginni applies equally to Clarence.
Similarly, if Mrs Scapegoat Alito — the only woman Sammy thinks has any privacy rights — wants to fly the flags of insurrection and treason, that is her business and her First Amendment right, but then her husband needs to recuse himself in cases involving these activities she is a part of.
But good luck in getting these two justices, the most corrupt in history with all their bribes and overt favors, to actually apply the law to themselves the way Elena Kagan, formerly in the Obama justice department, did when any case involving the department came up her first several years.
I suppose if Sammy and Clarence don’t even have influence over their own wives, no wonder they are such insecure little man-babies — threatened by strong women — that they feel the need to tell other women — under force of law — what they can and can’t do with their own bodies and their own private medical choices.
I can just see a young Sammy Alito making excuses to his teacher: “My wife ate my homework.”
I can just see a young Sammy Alito proposing to Mrs Scapegoat: “Will you make me the happiest man in the world and become my political scapegoat?”
The judicial ethics laws regarding conflicts of interest on even the appearance of a conflict (which theoretically apply to Supreme Court justices with the rather ginormous loophole that they are the ones who enforce it on themselves) include the justices and their spouses.
Regardless of whether Ginni Thomas kept her direct involvement in insurrection plotting and other treasonous activities separate from her husband (they previously have said that they discuss everything and are like two heads on one body, except when Clarence “Uncle” Thomas is propositioning underlings like Anita Hill), under the law as written, a conflict with Ginni applies equally to Clarence.
Similarly, if Mrs Scapegoat Alito — the only woman Sammy thinks has any privacy rights — wants to fly the flags of insurrection and treason, that is her business and her First Amendment right, but then her husband needs to recuse himself in cases involving these activities she is a part of.
But good luck in getting these two justices, the most corrupt in history with all their bribes and overt favors, to actually apply the law to themselves the way Elena Kagan, formerly in the Obama justice department, did when any case involving the department came up her first several years.
I suppose if Sammy and Clarence don’t even have influence over their own wives, no wonder they are such insecure little man-babies — threatened by strong women — that they feel the need to tell other women — under force of law — what they can and can’t do with their own bodies and their own private medical choices.
I can just see a young Sammy Alito making excuses to his teacher: “My wife ate my homework.”
I can just see a young Sammy Alito proposing to Mrs Scapegoat: “Will you make me the happiest man in the world and become my political scapegoat?”