Justice Thomas Draws Fire for Revisiting Baseless Trump Claims in Dissent

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

A blistering dissent in a high-profile election case written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas prompted blowback Monday from Democrats who accused one of the court's most conservative members of embracing baseless claims of voter fraud promoted by President Donald Trump after the November election.

Posted by Corky at 09:31 AM | 28 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I"n an 11-page dissent from the court's decision not to take up a challenge to the expanded use of mail ballots in Pennsylvania, Thomas acknowledged that the outcome of the election was not changed by the way votes were cast in the battleground state.

But he raised questions about the reliability of mail-in voting that echoed many of the same arguments Trump raised in the weeks before and after the election.

In the end, despite the partisan rancor over the issue and a bevy of lawsuits, there were too few ballots at issue to make a difference in the outcome in the Keystone State. But Thomas and two other conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the legal questions should have been taken up by the high court to guide future elections.

But much of the pushback against Thomas was focused on another argument of his dissent in which he appeared to cast doubt on the reliability of mail-in ballots more broadly.

Critics said Thomas' argument played into an idea espoused by Trump and others that fraud could have existed, even though the former president did not ever prove it. Groups such as the Brennan Center for Justice have found voter fraud is exceedingly rare." excerpts

.
Perhaps he needed to make his wife happy? She was hawking Trump's same claims before the election.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2021-02-22 08:32 PM | Reply

You guys are playing right into the hands of those who claim "Russian election interference was a hoax!"

#2 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 10:44 AM | Reply

Judge Pubic Hair has lost his damned mind. He quoted obvious lies told by Dotard and his supporters in a SCOTUS dissent about a case that had nothing to do with fraud. The sooner he goes the better it will be for the country. He obviously has a serious conflict of interest with his insane wife and her far reich activities.

#3 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2021-02-23 11:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#2 How so?

#4 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2021-02-23 11:52 AM | Reply

2 How so?

#4 | POSTED BY SUNTZUMEOW

It's not so.

Just sentinel spouting Trumpy lies.

There was only Trumpy and his lies. It was always only the Trumpy and his lies.

And in this case the evidence of direct collusion is not enough to prove conspiracy.

Not that there wasn't evidence of collusion.

There was tons of it. For example there were 200 direct contacts with Russian operatives by the Trump campaign.

How many direct contacts of Russian operatives by the Biden campaign?

Zero

And Zero direct contacts between Hillary and the Russians.

And 17 intelligence agencies agreed.

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-02-23 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I've been wondering how long it would take for Trump to start squeezing the Supreme Court Justices for something, ANYTHING, he could cherry-pick at his rallies that would make him look like he wasn't a complete loser.

#6 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-02-23 12:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd like Et_Al's insight into prior Justices putting completely ------- crazy stuff into their opinions.

Is this kind of nonsense commonplace? Completely unprecedented? Or somewhere in between...

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-23 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Just sentinel spouting Trumpy lies."

As usual, you've grabbed the wrong stick, DonnerPartyOfOne.

I'm not one of those people who claimed the Russia collusion was a hoax.

I did say the Democrats overegged and oversold it, which helped Trump to undermine the investigation.

Now both shoes are on the other feet.

People on the right are behaving exactly like the people they called losers for raising concerns about the integrity of elections, while people on the left are behaving just like the people they called traitors for not wanting to be proactive about election integrity.

#8 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 01:53 PM | Reply

"Justice Thomas Draw Fire"

Is Justice Thomas plural now?

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 01:55 PM | Reply

one of the worst of the SCOTUS appointees...
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO brazenly political...

#10 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-02-23 02:01 PM | Reply

We all agree that partisan hack, activist judges suck, right?

#11 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 02:03 PM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

This has got to be one of the biggest piles of nonsense I've seen on here in a long time.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-23 02:39 PM | Reply

#12 | POSTED BY JPW

In related news, Extremist Brains Can't Do Complex Mental Tasks...

#13 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 02:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In related news, Extremist Brains Can't Do Complex Mental Tasks...

#13 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Your inability to cogently express rational thought isn't a reflection of my mental abilities.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-23 02:53 PM | Reply

Your inability to recognize that I am cogently expressing rational thought is. Or you're just being extremely childish and petty, because you know what I wrote was right but don't want to admit it.

#15 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 02:58 PM | Reply

You certainly expressed your Bothsiderism.

It just isn't a cogent rational thought.

This is about Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court justice, buying into QAnon conspiracy theories and making them part of the official record. People on "the left" don't have anything to do with it.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-23 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Your inability to recognize that I am cogently expressing rational thought is. Or you're just being extremely childish and petty, because you know what I wrote was right but don't want to admit it.

#15 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

LOL the response to your post from multiple people was "WFT are you talking about?"

Which means you're not expressing yourself well or you're making a piss poor point to begin with.

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-23 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is about Clarence Thomas, a partisan hack Supreme Court justice, behaving like a judicial activist and baiting "the left".

And you guys walked right into it. (No pun intended.)

#18 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 03:13 PM | Reply

the response to your post from multiple people was "WFT are you talking about?"

LOL, more proof that Extremist Brains Can't Do Complex Tasks...

#19 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 03:14 PM | Reply

This is about Clarence Thomas, a partisan hack Supreme Court justice, behaving like a judicial activist and baiting "the left".

LOL sure thing SSentake.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-23 03:14 PM | Reply

LOL, more proof that Extremist Brains Can't Do Complex Tasks...

#19 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

When you're in a room of people and you're along in your "thoughts" the problem is generally you.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-23 03:15 PM | Reply

And he isn't acting like a judicial activist.

He's acting like a bad jurist and using irrational and false reasoning.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-23 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21, so if you're in a room of *QAnoners then the problem is you? Yeah, no. You're being intellectually dishonest here, and you know it..

#23 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 03:20 PM | Reply

This is about Clarence Thomas, a partisan hack Supreme Court justice, behaving like a judicial activist and baiting "the left".
And you guys walked right into it. (No pun intended.)
#18 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

This makes no sense at all.
We didn't walk into anything.
We live here.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-23 03:26 PM | Reply

#21, so if you're in a room of *QAnoners then the problem is you? Yeah, no. You're being intellectually dishonest here, and you know it..

#23 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

LOL touche.

Still don't see how Thomas' argument means lefties are walking into whatever the idiots who claim Russian interference was a hoax.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-23 03:56 PM | Reply

I think I explained it clearly in #8, but I cannot force horses to drink water, especially if they're inside of it. I regularly see partisan hacks mirroring the behavior of other partisan hacks to "point out the hypocrisy" until they're both baiting and pointing at each other's hypocrithy which is an inversion of their own hypocrisy. Did I mention that I think Thomas is a partisan hack? Oh yeah, I did.

#26 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-23 06:18 PM | Reply

I regularly see partisan hacks mirroring the behavior of other partisan hacks to "point out the hypocrisy" until they're both baiting and pointing at each other's hypocrithy which is an inversion of their own hypocrisy

You're not the only one who sees that.

It's the reason why the hypocrisy argument is usually pointless.

But that doesn't explain why "You guys are playing right into the hands of those who claim "Russian election interference was a hoax!""

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-24 09:18 AM | Reply

Oh well. It just seems like common sense to me, but YMMV.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-02-24 09:28 AM | Reply