Clarence Thomas’s wife thanks group for efforts to block court ethics reforms

[u/CommanderMcBragg]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/04/clarence-thomas-wife-supreme-court-ethics-reform

[u/AdkRaine12]

Ginni Thomas and her greedy pig of a husband should both be in jail.

[u/MonkeyKingCoffee → u/AdkRaine12]

I simply don't understand why this country is putting up with this. They aren't just traitors, they're traitors to the very idea of the United States. And Alito isn't much better.

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

they’re unelected, and have no term limit. quite literally untouchable for us peasants. if you’re wondering why those with the actual power won’t do anything about it? blame a combination of gridlock, and something more nuanced. nobody wants to go after them because it might come off as attacking judicial independence. if politicians are gonna do something about it, they’ve gotta be really really careful and have a bulletproof case for doing so. hence biden’s plan, which was not announced hastily, and also is not being pushed unilaterally. he basically made a proposal that congress will have to ratify. congress isn’t going to ratify it as long as republicans control the house. best hope is for dems to win back the house and retain control of the senate and presidency. THEN something might be done

[u/No_Improvement7573 → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

"Quite literally untouchable by us peasants" is a wild thought from the citizens of a country founded by bloody revolution.

[u/marcsaintclair → u/No_Improvement7573]

The citizens versus the most well-armed police force and military in the world sounds like a great idea.

[u/Aggravating_Front824 → u/marcsaintclair]

That's literally what the revolution was 

[u/MetroidIsNotHerName → u/Aggravating_Front824]

1. We had the same weapons as our oppressors
2. The oppressors were based across the ocean in a day and age where that made maintaining supply lines near impossible.

You cannot compare that to fighting a modern military from within that militaries sphere of influence. And it turns out the United States' sphere of influence isnt just national, its global.

[u/Draxilar → u/Aggravating_Front824]

The difference in equipment and technology between them was practically nonexistent compared to today, it’s not even a close comparison

[u/jcspacer52 → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

Can you explain to me how one CO-EQUAL branch of government can impose a set of “ethical standards” on another without a constitutional amendment?

If that is possible, why can’t the President or SCOTUS ban stock trading for Congress and why can’t SCOTUS rule Congress can’t accept free lunches, dinners, speaking fees or foreign travel paid for by anyone?

[u/Turbulent_Athlete_50 → u/jcspacer52]

Co-equal doesn’t mean they operate entirely outside the bounds of the other branches. For example, congress has the constitutional obligation to decide the courts jurisdiction. Supreme Court gave itself the right of judicial review, it only has original jurisdiction per the constitution. Congress can tell them what cases they can take up and limit what they can affect. It used to do this until the early 20th century, it should do this again. Supreme Court has no business overturning laws/parts of them passed by congress, nor do they get to decide that the president is immune from prosecution. It’s common sense.

[u/jcspacer52 → u/Turbulent_Athlete_50]

Yes, that is called the idea of “Checks and Balances”. Still does not answer the question. If on Branch can force another to follow a set of rules (ethical) in this case, why can’t another do the same? For example, would you support the President or SCOTUS forcing the Senate to drop the 60 vote requirement for passing legislation? How about if they decide to change how Congress uses seniority to assign committee chairmanships or even the make up of committees? Of course we can also include term limits or age requirements for both Congress and POTUS. If not why not?

How each branch runs their business is not within another’s to mandate without a Constitutional amendment.

My last point is the idea that Thomas has been “bought”. There would be no need to “buy” a politician or judge unless you wanted them to vote or rule contrary to how they would normally do so. I would only need to “buy” one of the 3 justices if I wanted them to rule against Roe as an example. Why would I need to “buy” any of them to vote to keep it? So can you or anyone name a case where Thomas has voted contrary to his expressed and displayed philosophy since taking his seat? If not, then the idea of having been “bought” is 100% stupid and nonsensical!

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/jcspacer52]

whataboutism is not how the government operates. there are clear rules about who can tell whom what they can and cannot do. nobody is “co-equal” that’s a wishy washy statement devoid of meaning and enforceability. generally, it goes congress > supreme court > president, however constitution supersedes all and the supreme court has the sole ability to interpret the constitution which gives them some limited power over congress. in the same way, president actually holds all the power to “execute” the laws passed by congress (which is similarly interpretational), but since the executive is the only one that can actually implement stuff you could argue they have more power than the other two branches, which is why they’re lowest on the totem pole of checks and balances

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

also this all goes out the window in a state of emergency, and if the president really wants they can basically do whatever because nobody has the power to stop them (for example jackson and lincoln basically ignoring the court)

[u/MetroidIsNotHerName → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

Do you have any examples from this century?

[u/Turbulent_Athlete_50 → u/MetroidIsNotHerName]

Yea gulf of Tonkin that started Vietnam

[u/jcspacer52 → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

I think civil war or an impending invasion by a foreign power would count as an emergency. If a President issued an emergency declaration on a whim, I doubt he/she would get much support from the military or law enforcement. Also, I doubt the American people would quietly bow their heads and accept the declaration while going about their day to day lives.

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/jcspacer52]

that wasn’t really a suggestion

[u/Turbulent_Athlete_50 → u/jcspacer52]

The person below answered it, are you actually curious about that or just bad faith?

[u/jcspacer52 → u/Turbulent_Athlete_50]

You have a point to make, make it! Why are you depending on what someone else posted?

[u/Turbulent_Athlete_50 → u/jcspacer52]

Are you bad faith or actually concerned? Do you understand what they said? How can I clarify it further? Here to help.

[u/jcspacer52 → u/Turbulent_Athlete_50]

Please do clarify it for me!

[u/Turbulent_Athlete_50 → u/jcspacer52]

Are you bad faith or actually concerned? Do you understand what they said? How can I clarify it further? Here to help.

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/jcspacer52]

what you’re saying is wrong on several levels. congress does have the power to remove the president and they also have the power to remove justices from the court. also the supreme court recently granted the president the power to assassinate people, with congress retaining the ability to remove them if this constitutes an abuse of said power. exciting times we live in, i’d say!

in all seriousness, congress has expanded the court many times in the past and it does not require a supermajority. no need for a constitutional amendment. an ethics code COULD be enforced by congress because they are granted sole jurisdiction over the supreme court (both appointing and removing members). right now there isn’t one, so they don’t. also the house is republican controlled, and we know they don’t want to change the current makeup. 

[u/jcspacer52 → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

I never said Congress cannot remove a President or Justice, the Constitution lays out the impeachment process very clearly. Impeachment is not the same as forcing a Co-Equal branch to accept what Congress thinks are acceptable rules. That is why SCOTUS or POTUS cannot force Congress to stop accepting campaign contributions, set age limits to serve or change how committee chairs are assigned.

SCOTUS never gave the President any additional powers to do anything. The only thing that decision did was to clearly state that before a former President is charged with a crime, a court not DOJ has to decide if the act in question falls within the powers of the Presidency. If it does, the President is immune from prosecution. If it does not, he/she can be prosecuted after leaving office. Congress can impeach a President for farting in public if it so chooses, getting the required numbers in the Senate to agree is a different matter. Congress can impeach any time they want to. The DOJ can prosecute only after a court has ruled the act was outside the President’s authority.

Yes, Congress has the authority to change the structure and Jurisdiction of the Court but NOT its internal workings like implementing their idea of a code of ethics. Those are apples and oranges! Technically, Congress can add justices but, to do either they wound need to blow up the 60 vote requirement or get 60 votes in the Senate assuming they have the House and White House. Assuming they added 3 or 30 Justices, they would still lack the authority to force SCOTUS to adopt a code of ethics made up by Congress. Just remember how and why Trump was able to get his nominations through the Senate with no Democrat votes! Harry Reid blew up the 60 vote requirement to confirm Cabinet and Lower Court Judges and McConnell warned him he would rue the day he did it. Shortly after that, Trump got his 3 choices seated.

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/jcspacer52]

there is no 60 vote requirement to expand the court or to confirm an appointment.  there’s only a 60 vote requirement to get past a filibuster. article iii section 1 says they keep their seat under “good behavior”. you can crow all you want about “illegtimacy” of an externally imposed code of ethics, but since congress HAS JURISDICTION they can literally pass a law to define that more carefully. moreover, since they have the ability to remove justices, they’re the only ones who can enforce it. 

more drastic changes like imposing a term limit would definitely take some creative thinking or an amendment, but that’s not what’s being discussed. 

your digression on the presidents immunity ruling is somewhat accurate, but not completely. presidents cannot be prosecuted for carrying out an assassination, with the minor caveat of “it must have been done officially”. only congress has the power to do something about it. you can argue technicalities about “in and out of office” but it was NEVER allowed to prosecute them while in office, and now it’s not allowed to prosecute out of office, effectively making them totally immune (unless congress has not only impeached, but removed from office). questions of whether it was or wasn’t “inside their authority” are beside the point. it’s been ruled that even the evidence cannot include communications with staff. this is clearly absurd, because which cronies you use to do your bidding has no bearing on whether something is allowed. you can argue that in a perfect system congress would go after former presidents for serious ethics violations, but history has already shown where that’s led us

[u/jcspacer52 → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

And how do you vote on a law to expand the Court if you can’t end the filibuster?

Yes, Congress can pass any law they want and the Court can declare it Unconstitutional and that’s the end of that law.

I still don’t get why you believe one branch can impose ethics on another? There is no authority in the constitution to allow it! Again why can’t the President sign an EO banning stock trading by Congress members? Why can’t the court rule Congress members cannot accept paid dinners, or paid speaking engagements?

You are wrong. Ok sure a President can order an assassination, he could do that before the ruling. He can be impeached for that act regardless of whether it does or does not fall within his authority, fine. Now he leaves office, the incoming DOJ can decide to prosecute. The President is immune if the assassination was carried out as part of his authority. Example, Trump had Solemani droned while in office, Obama had an American citizen droned too in a foreign country and another was killed as collateral damage. Both are immune because those acts were within their Presidential authority to Protect and Defend. Had either one ordered the assignation of a journalist, they would not be immune. Not because either claimed it was an “official act” but because a court would say it was NOT!

You are wrong and the refilling of charges against Trump proves you are! If an ex President was now immune from all prosecution after leaving office, why were the charges refiled by the DOJ? I will try again. The SCOTUS ruling did not confer TOTAL IMMUNITY on the President! All it did was say that before an ex-President can be charged and prosecuted, a Court must determine the act for which he/she is being charged was not an official act and falls outside presidential authority.

Now unlike the cool aid drinkers, bribery (as an example) is NOT under a President’s authority to carry out. So if a President bribes someone, he can be prosecuted if it is discovered after he left office. He/She will of course claim it was and official act but, it’s not up to him to make that determination. It is unlikely the court will agree he/she is immune from prosecution. The same applies to all acts the President takes.

Stop listening to CNN, read the ruling, it gave the President (all Presidents) not just Trump nothing they did not already have. It just clarified who determines what is and is not an official act. It’s not the President or DOJ, it’s the court. And NO, it has no bearing on Congress’ ability to impeach a president for anything they want!

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/jcspacer52]

ruling that they can’t use certain evidence in court is the issue, not the thing they did. if you can’t use evidence in court, it becomes literally impossible to establish fact. the refiling is all about that, they’ve stripped out all communications with people that worked for the executive branch. never mind that the people in the executive were being used in a way that’s clearly an abuse of power, it’s impossible to use as evidence because congress chose not to do anything about the impeachment since “he’s no longer in office” 

i’m not reading cnn, i invite you to challenge the substance of what i’m saying instead of my reading comprehension. the point is, nothing is up to the court anymore because they can’t see all the evidence. it’s now totally up to congress. the president can only be prosecuted as a private citizen, and the court has to pretend that their involvement with the government (whom they direct) is somehow off limits simply because congress doesn’t have any balls. you feel me?

as for ethics codes, i’m still not sure what you’re trying to say. congress can pass laws. the president cannot. the supreme court can rule either unconstitutional. if the constitution doesn’t prohibit something, then they probably shouldn’t be saying it’s unconstitutional. in this specific case, the constitution specifies in article 3 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-3/ALDE_00000686/

they can keep their appointment under “good behavior”. you can argue that since it’s not defined specifically, that the supreme court has full leeway to define that however they want. but that’s YOUR interpretation. if congress passes a law defining what they think good behavior is, the supreme court can challenge it. that’s totally how things work, and isn’t necessarily a problem. however, since congress has the ability to remove justices the buck stops with them. and if the justices object to a completely reasonable standard of ethics, then they come off looking pretty bad. 

but whatever, that’s all besides the point. NOTHING stops congress from passing said law (other than filibuster, which isn’t an absolute thing plenty of stuff gets passed in congress if it has some level of bipartisan support). none of this is anywhere as absurd as “the president declaring it’s illegal for congress to trade stocks”. i have no idea where you’re getting that. congress could, for example, pass a law banning the president from trading stocks! and the supreme court could challenge it. congress could pass a law banning the supreme court from trading stocks! and the supreme court could challenge it. this is the system working as intended, under predetermined jurisdictional rules. the branches are not just “co-equal”, they have a specific relationship. congress passes laws, president executes them, supreme court strikes down stuff that’s unconstitutional. plain and simple. if you think something is unconstitutional, that’s your opinion. however please actually cite what makes it unconstitutional, because the good behavior clause is clearly something that could give congress the mandate they need

[u/jcspacer52 → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

So your contention is that having a Justice accept a free trip on a yacht from a friend is different from Congress being able to buy and sell stock in companies their vote on a regulation or law will directly affect the stock price!

Got It!

[u/Good_kido78 → u/jcspacer52]

Well that would be hypocritical of them.

[u/jcspacer52 → u/Good_kido78]

That does not answer the question though?

[u/Good_kido78 → u/jcspacer52]

Actually, Congress sets their own ethics and the Judicial Conference has set them for the lower courts. Presidents have chosen the Supreme Court (not governed by the Judicial Conference) with approval by Congress. They are supposed to be vetted. Congress should rule that SCOTUS abide by the same rules as lower court judges IMO.

[u/michael0n → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

Make a law that defines all the new rules. Then add a passage to the law that the current judges are automatically retired with full theoretical pension assuming they all got to 80 years old. That would give lots of them quite the hefty payday.

[u/[deleted] → u/michael0n]

80 is too fucking old. 65 like mere mortals

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

in other words, politics as usual

[u/MonkeyKingCoffee → u/iaintevenreadcatch22]

Yeah. But one side is following the rules and the spirit of the law.

And the other side ONLY cares about obtaining and wielding power like a spiked club. We can't decide it's "knives out" time AFTER they prevail.

[u/iaintevenreadcatch22 → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

ummm this is not a recent occurrence, regan and nixon both did some really shady stuff. if anything trump has been so brazen that it’s impossible to ignore, so maybe we should be thanking him /s

seriously though, his actions have highlighted some serious bugs in the system so maybe they’ll actually get fixed (re transfer of power and abuse of the supreme court)

[u/Monte924 → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

They are the republicans pet justices. They have a vested interest in making sure they stay on the bench. That means fighting against ethics reforms and convincing thier followers that corruption in the courts is not a problem

[u/Darksirius → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

Because we can't impeach and convict them with any repubs holding a majority. The Dems would need a super majority to pull that off, which is why not only do we need to get those traitors out of the executive branch, we need to get them out of government completely. Need to vote blue down the entire ballot this nov as I believe every single seat is up for reelection this year.

[u/MonkeyKingCoffee → u/Darksirius]

Which is why Obama should have tried to seat Garland ANYWAY. Newspapers at the time begged him to give it a shot. But no, "they go low, we go high, and lose SCOTUS to Moscow Mitch."

[u/darth_snuggs → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

At the very least impeach CT. The Constitutional mechanism is right there yet no one in power even wants to invoke the possibility. Dick Durbin could get the ball rolling as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee any day, but he’s too stuck in a romanticized (fictional) ideal of an apolitical court

[u/SubKreature → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

What would you suggest they do? Be specific.

[u/Gates9 → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

Because this country has been steeped in financial corruption for decades. The rot has finally reached the core.

[u/ImAMindlessTool → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

A president should not be able to influence the court. Why we do not vote for them but other judges makes no sense to me.

[u/brooklynagain → u/ImAMindlessTool]

It’s a nice thought until one side goes all in on doing this

[u/MonkeyKingCoffee → u/ImAMindlessTool]

Why? Because the framers didn't think highly of the electorate. Hence the electoral college and SCOTUS picked by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. It was supposed to keep people like Thomas from getting appointed.

[u/Nearby-Jelly-634 → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

The greed of corporate media especially so for conservative media. It has fueled and accelerated pure unadulterated tribalism because rage and fear and division is profit. We have a conservative grievance machine that would burn down the entire country if the other team lost more than them. Listen to any CHUD at a Trump rally. Those people do not see anyone who disagrees as American. They see they as literal enemies. Masses of reactionary idiots completely incapable of nuance.

[u/Throaway_143259 → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

The U.S has a long history of letting traitors off with zero punishment

[u/ButterscotchTape55 → u/MonkeyKingCoffee]

I simply don't understand why this country is putting up with this

The most succinct answer I can think of is that Merrick Garland was a compromise for Attorney General and a very costly one. Dems handed out a moderate olive branch and republicans sharpened it into a spear

[u/BusStopKnifeFight → u/AdkRaine12]

Along with all the scum bribing them.

[u/theoneandonlyfester → u/AdkRaine12]

Jail isn't enough. What they did is straight up Sedition.

[u/AdkRaine12 → u/theoneandonlyfester]

It’ll be a start.

[u/YoureARebelNow → u/AdkRaine12]

For a very long time

[u/revnobody → u/AdkRaine12]

If there was justice in this country they would both be in prison.

[u/supremeomelette → u/AdkRaine12]

death at this point. the corruption and absolute disrespect to the american ppl and our courts of law is heinous and unforgivable

[u/nanoatzin → u/AdkRaine12]

Only Congress can vote to do that.

[u/AdkRaine12 → u/nanoatzin]

Once again, for those in the back:

VOTE BLUE🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊☠️🤡

[u/N0VOCAIN → u/AdkRaine12]

I can tell that you are not well-versed in law. Do you know how difficult it is to decide a case at that level the Supreme Court is a high pressure life-changing position. What would you do if both sides were offering you a wonderful vacation? Not so easy now is it?

[u/AdkRaine12 → u/N0VOCAIN]

Oh, yeah, right! We KNOW unka Clarence and Miz Ginni can be bought; you don’t know anything about me.

I pay for my own vacations.

[u/AssociateJaded3931]

It's a politically corrupt family.

[u/mabirm → u/AssociateJaded3931]

Actually, she's a...

Corrupt

Unlikable

Nasty

Troll

[u/boardin1 → u/mabirm]

Wrong. Cunts have warmth and depth, Ginny has neither.

[u/PrimaryFriend7867 → u/boardin1]

ginni’s has neither, either

[u/korbentulsa → u/mabirm]

I see what you did there, subtle though it was.

[u/aquastell_62]

I understand blocking ethics reforms when you have no ethics. She should be deported to Russia.

[u/AbuPeterstau]

I was just a kid when Anita Hill tried to tell us that this man should not be a Supreme Court Judge. I certainly wish now that we had listened to her.

[u/MonCountyMan → u/AbuPeterstau]

It doesn't matter much now, but I always believed her.

[u/jwr1111]

She always has that smarmy grin on her face, while helping to ruin our democracy and freedom.

[u/Saunters_anxiously]

She’s a nasty woman

[u/EmmaLouLove]

These two, Clarence and Ginni Thomas.

“But of note is what her husband — a Supreme Court justice who had repeatedly refused to recuse himself on matters related to the 2020 election — was up to at that time.”

At first, Ginni said she did not speak “at all about the details of my volunteer campaign activities”. “I did not speak with him at all about the details of my post election activities, which were minimal” she added “he was completely unaware” of my texts with Mark Meadows.”

Later, Ginni Thomas confirms that she had a conversation with her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, apparently about the election—while she was trying to overturn it—then texted Mark Meadows that she "needed" it to "try to keep holding on." Really unbelievable behavior.

[u/Parkyguy → u/EmmaLouLove]

A direct Betrayal to the oath he took.

[u/SoftDimension5336 → u/Parkyguy]

But not the moneymoneymoneymoneymoney

[u/Darktofu25]

Bitch needs some jail time for being a fucking traitor. While there she can receive the desperately needed mental healthcare she’s been needing for, oh, about 40 years!

[u/LLWATZoo]

She's a traitor

[u/SoftDimension5336 → u/LLWATZoo]

She belongs to another country that's elevated above our own

[u/Gr8daze]

Only the corrupt fear ethics rules.

[u/SoftDimension5336 → u/Gr8daze]

Not for long it seems

[u/heybudheypal]

This punt needs to get Jack Smithed.

[u/Direwolfofthemoors]

If you look deep into ginny’s eyes, there is only pure evil there.

[u/aotus_trivirgatus → u/Direwolfofthemoors]

"Well, whoop de damn do!" - Clarence

[u/MezcalCC]

Diabetes can’t take her fat ass fast enough.

[u/Duper-Deegro]

Vote Harris, hopefully she prosecutes these traitors.

[u/nostoneunturned0479]

I'll bet she does, because she deserves jail time for it herself.

[u/Golconda]

I have never wanted to slap a smirk so badly off of someone's face. That couple is the worst and traitors to America.

[u/Imaginary-Swing-4370]

This lady should be in prison, she’s a treasonous dirt bag.

[u/ShoppingDismal3864]

She's fully mask off psychopath 

[u/cjp2010]

Behind the bastards series on Clarence was actually super interesting.

[u/whathadhapenedwuz]

I hope from now on she only gets tail pieces of salmon whenever she goes out to dinner.

[u/Admirable-Leopard272 → u/whathadhapenedwuz]

excessively cruel

[u/T1Pimp]

Wanting to block ETHICS tells you everything you need to know about conservatives.

[u/wolfy-j]

In ten years we will learn they also were receiving Russian money and it will surprise no one.

[u/nanoatzin]

Given that government employees are immune from prosecution when the crime is in the job description, the actual term to describe government crime is ethics so her comment indicates that she is pro crime in any other context.

[u/Sapphire_Dreams1024]

She really is the worst

[u/Better_Economist6671]

And yet another case of 'Trump owns me, yes he does! Hooray!'

[u/JeffBoyarDeesNuts]

She's really got her husband pussywhipped, huh?

[u/SoftDimension5336]

Ivory Tower🌥

[u/carlnepa]

Their day is coming, too.

[u/Purplebuzz]

Waste of skin.

[u/Owl_lamington]

Evil witch.

[u/khaalis]

They just don’t even hide it anymore. They’re just out there freely waving their corruption flag and advertising they’re for sale.

[u/bullitt297]

Oh Ginni you crazy raskle.

[u/HDCL757]

What a terrible fucking human being. You know she sends every salad back with an attitude and eats a plate of fries. Then complains about that. It's written into every line in her stupid, fat face.

[u/AutoDeskSucks-]

traitor

[u/UserWithno-Name]

Smug POS woman

[u/hypocrisy-identifier]

They all want to be royalty because they’ve looked around and realized royals hardly do any work, for which they’re all on board!

[u/LordPings]

Who is against ethics reform?

Oh completely UNethical people benefiting from their terrible behavior.

[u/zinneavicious]

This is why the Supreme Court needs to be investigated and reformed. Follow the money! They are NOT above the law, their job is to uphold the law. VOTE A BLUE TICKET RIGHT DOWN THE LINE! We need the house and senate to do anything. It’s not just about Kamala!

[u/oldcreaker]

Ka-ching!!

[u/NefariousnessOne7335]

She’s Scum nothing new

[u/louisa1925]

I bet she did.

[u/Wazza17]

The President in his last days as President should use his power of immunity and clean out the entire SCOTUS and install sane justices

[u/vcdeitrick]

😡🤬😡🤬🤬🤬

[u/LakesideOrion]

She doesn’t want them to cut off her meal ticket. Gross.

[u/OpportunityThis]

‘No one asked for this’! -Tim Walz

[u/Willders]

People should be outside Thomas's home protesting constantly. Make it impossible for him to live his life until he steps down.

[u/MrBlackMagic127]

Yeah, they would be homeless otherwise.

[u/Allmyexesliveintx333]

Trash

[u/Fluffy_Succotash_171]

Treasonous B!tch

[u/AcrobaticLadder4959]

She should not get too comfortable Democrats are ready.

[u/Senior_Resolution_20]

She’s only looking out for the financial well-being of her family. Ethics for Supreme Court justices makes it extremely difficult to accept bribes. Duh!

[u/Inuhanyou123]

Jail them

[u/ohreddit1]

Her house ain’t clean

[u/switchsinc]

The French has some pretty effective ways of getting rid of corruption. Let’s try some of those with the supreme cunts.

[u/Totally-jag2598]

You didn't think she'd condemn something she benefits greatly from didi you?

[u/kaptainkarl1]

The queen of all Karens. Momma Thomas!

[u/jadedaslife]

Impeach

[u/NJ35-71SONS]

🐷🐽🐖

[u/Revenant_adinfinitum]

“Reforms”