Saturday, March 26, 2022

The One About Ginni Thomas

I’m sure she was joking, right? Or drunk tweeting? "Probably" is looking very lost and confused in that sentence. Probably didn’t mean a literal army, right? I wanna see the fight over that subpoena! It’s pretty much the only fight we’re gonna get. I don’t know. Your wife is a crazy seditionist conspiracy nut who thinks an entire political party is evil and should be treated en masse like terrorists, and absolutely anything done to stop them from gaining the White House is justifiable, including ignoring all the laws of the country and raising an army of opponents to that person (remind me again what armies do. Vote? Deliberate? Forcibly establish a debate society?) and your escape hatch as a Supreme Court Justice is: “She has her hobbies”? (And the gap between her crazy and his isn’t that wide, anyway. This isn’t Mary Matalin and James Carville we’re talking about.) Isn’t that like saying my wife is a Satanist but it doesn’t affect my role as a pastor? I’m sure I could convince a congregation of the validity of that argument.

2 comments:

  1. Since so much of what I've been reading about the Supreme Court this week surrounds pretenses of "precedence" and the shifting, now and then, sometimes thing that it is in even official Supreme Court writing, what kind of precedence is letting Ginni and Clarence get away with not having to answer for this going to set for other Supreme Court couples in the future? Only I'm sure that "precedence" will apply differently to different "justices" and their spouses.

    The Supreme Court needs to have real and enforced ethics rules and standards and our Constitutional system doesn't really have a mechanism for that. Hey, maybe the Supreme Court could amend the Constitution by fiat to create one. They do it for the rest of us, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So if Jackson takes a seat on the bench and Thomas resigns how does that affect the right of justices to practice miscegenation?

    ReplyDelete