So i'm finding this confusing!

[NotANeocon]

I fully understand why the anti womens rights pro deathers get confused and insist that a pregnant human is two people but refuse to discuss how the reproductive graft part can exercise its rights without enslaving the host part - which is unconstitutional.

Now I am seeing two distinct persons being legally treated as a single entity simply because one is a member of the USSC, I understand the holy babble says that with marriage "the two shall become "as" one, but that is symbolism and not reality. There is no proof that Clarence is doing the crime so he can't be automatically charged with Ginni's crimes.

As Yul Brynner reminded us -

There are times I almost think
Nobody sure of what he absolutely know
Everybody find confusion
In conclusion he concluded long ago
And it puzzle me to learn
That tho' a man may be in doubt of what he know
Very quickly he will fight
He'll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!


But... is a puzzlement!

[SoonerPride]

1. I found this very confusing.

[leftstreet]

2. I'm confused n/t

[woodsprite]

3. Ok, I just sang that! Thanks for the smile today! Nt

[markie]

4. not confusing...

it's what we do

[Bettie]

5. If his wife was involved in the insurrection

he should, at very least recuse from cases about the insurrection.

If you can not see a conflict of interest there, well, think about how loudly the other side (and the media) would be howling if the spouse of one of the more liberal justices had tried to overturn the results of an election.

[Torchlight]

6. I think the difference lies between legal jurisprudence and public sentiment

I think opinions expressed on a message board lack legal consequence and are often filled with visceral and emotional responses. Courts on the other hand, can express consequences in such a way as to remove freedoms.

Much as I recognize (and agree with) the Duggar's legal rights to bear as many children as they wish, I can also express surprise (and even distaste) at and for them for acting in such a manner. It's not a contradiction if we allow for context and nuance.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Could you clarify this word salad?

[NotANeocon]

16. For clarity -

A pregnant woman is one person and should not be treated legally as two people.

The Thomas' are two people and should not be treated as one person.

In applying "guilt" it seems there is a difficulty dealing with each person as a single entity.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. When has the legal system tried to treat them as one person? nt

[ripcord]

8. It is very simple

Clarence is supposed to control his woman.

[NotANeocon]

17. True - but

if Ginni causes harm Clarence should not go to the hoosegow for it.

[multigraincracker]

9. God took a rib from Adam

and then cloned it and then transgendered it into Eve. Now he gives us about one out of every 1,500 births as a hermaphrodite to remind us.
Tune in next week for more Bible Stories. God Bless.

[NotANeocon]

20. In KJV Genesis it says

Man AND woman made he them - so the original was hermaphroditic. Then he separated the man from the woman (possibly found some pronoun trouble in situ).

I suspect the sky fairy regularly produces the same design flaws in hir creatures to this day.

[multigraincracker]

21. KJV is the trusted version as

he was a gay man, or perhaps bi.

[Walleye]

10. Do they have a joint checking account? If so they are one in a entity

Did they file a joint tax return? I think this discussion is a result of overthinking. If a judge is presiding over a trial where his wife is the defendant don’t you think he should recuse himself?Doesn’t a spouse have a legal protection against testifying against the other spouse? What is this based on

[lagomorph777]

11. Perhaps I can help alleviate your confusion.

If there was any doubt over whether Clarence was aware of, approved of, and participated in, the crimes his wife committed, he erased that doubt when he ruled that her text messages should be kept secret. There are 6 hard-right extremists on SCROTUS. Five of them ruled against the Thomases. Only Thomas himself ruled to cover his ass (and his wife's).

[Zeitghost]

13. Her texts/emails

Were never part of a SCotUS case.

[mercuryblues]

12. IMO this is not about what you think it is

His vote on the SC to hide Meadows texts is where the problem is. He voted to hide his wife's involvement in the insurrection. That is corruption, he needs to go.

He was the lone no vote in that decision.

[Zeitghost]

14. This is not true

Her communications to Meadows were already in the J6 committee's possession.

[mercuryblues]

15. There are more documents that they were fighting from being handed over.

Thomas voted to hide those ones. Meadows handed over the texts, we are talking about, then stopped cooperating. Thomas voted to hide any further info from being handed over.

The messages are particularly noteworthy in light of Justice Thomas’ lone dissent, earlier this year, against a ruling that gave the Jan. 6 committee access to documents from Trump’s time in office — documents that could very well include his wife’s communications.

Here’s just a sample of the deranged messages Ginni Thomas and Meadows shared, according to the Post.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/ginni-thomas-mark-meadows-clarence-thomas-rcna21531

[NotANeocon]

18. As I see it -

CT did not break any clearly defined SC rules so his actions as a justice are inviolable. When there is a code of ethics for the SC he will have to change his actions but at this point he is home free. He was not voting to "hide" anything but to refuse to display evidence like Schrödinger's texts.

[lagomorph777]

24. If he participated in the insurrection, he is not invulnerable (or "inviolable").

SCROTUS members are not above the law.

In principle, he can go to jail like anybody else.

Of course, in real life, Republicans don't go to jail for major crimes.

[NotANeocon]

25. Ginni participated Clarence did not -

Therefore he is legally inviolable


MEANING
never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored.
untouchable
unalterable
unchallengeable
unbreakable
impregnable
sacrosanct
sacred
holy
hallowed
intemerate

while Ginni is still jailbait on this issue.

[lagomorph777]

26. Highly unlikely.

Beyond incredible.

No, Clarence was up to his eyeballs in insurrection too.

[FakeNoose]

22. I didn't realize that a fetus has its own rights - OK!

So the next time I'm pregnant I get to vote twice. Once for myself and once for my fetus.

That'll work.

[NotANeocon]

23. Following Texas -

many of the state governments are asking to give rights to combined human gametes - but only Rethug combinations will be granted votes because the new laws are not bi-partizan.