Mike Luckovich for April 14, 2023

“Oh heck, let’s both do it some more!”

Lowlives!

What a creepy pair.

Both of you

Who is genny renting clarence out to next, have gavel for higher, submit request to currept/genny.com

All hail Aunt Ginni and Uncle Clarence in the corporate state…not!

Speaking of Ginni and her boy, Heather gives us the latest:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-13-2023

Luckovich nailed her insipid condescending grin.

It has just been revealed that Thomas failed to reveal a 2014 real estate deal in Georgia in which he sold properties to the wealthy donor who provided him with the freebies. Such failure is a violation of the law.

I think she’s always in charge.

They should be censured but how have they subverted democracy? Why should we treat them any different than career politicians from both parties, who get rich at the federal trough?

Throw them both in prison.

It’s nice when couples share a hobby.

They take turns? They don’t stop trying to subvert democracy.

She wouldn’t ask him, she’d TELL him.

My opinion is that people who comport themselves as these two do, trying to subvert the government that pays and provides their lifestyle, suffer from a lack of shame. We need to find a way to bring back shame. Scarlet letters anyone?

You’re impeached!

Very bad people.

Oops! “Taking turns” would be too democratic.

Your Both Fired!

Who’s Ginni?

It’s always the Republicans’ turn . . .

The Roberts court will go down in history as the sleaze court. One where the rights of American citizens were reduced, not protected, or expanded.

Supreme Court Justice is the Dream Job; you’re hired for life, no oversight, and you can even sleep through the proceedings. It’s like retirement with benefits. /s

Yes, they do make a fine WWF team. I am hearing some kind of wild shrieking from G, dressed up as the Q Anon Shaman………………………………………a lil’ help here for more ideas:

“Subvert” is too weak a word.

Ginni, have you or any of our rich BFF’s decided any of my rulings for today?

The republican controlled Extreme Court has done more to subvert democracy in the last 50 years than any other branch of our government. They are evil and must be destroyed.

Alexander Hamilton was right about an independent judiciary, well-paid and appointed for life. But he also thought that the executive and legislative vetting process would select the most moral, most ethical, most empathic, and most intelligent for the Supreme Court. And he also thought that criticism of character would reform any poor choices. Oops.

There’s never going to be significant support for packing the Supreme Court, but here’s something that’s easy to understand, would work just as well for those willing to take the long view, and could be achieved by simple legislation:

 The tenure of the most senior justice on the Supreme Court shall end on June 30 of each odd-numbered year.

Given 9 justices, each would serve for 18 years and then leave. This would mean that each president would normally get to appoint 2 of them per term, purposely in the off-election years. This would make the appointees slightly more representative of the popular will (as expressed second-hand thru presidential elections), less likely to favor outdated cultural norms, and far less subject to the random whims of the Grim Reaper.

It would take a bit of transition time before the 18-year pattern would take effect. If it were to be adopted today, the proposal’s effect on the current court would be to retire …

 • Clarence Thomas in 2023, after 32 years

 • John Roberts in 2025, after 20 years

 • Samuel Alito in 2027, after 21 years

 • Sonia Sotomayor in 2029, after 20 years

 • Elena Kagan in 2031, after 21 years

 • Neil Gorsuch in 2033, after 16 years

 • Brett Kavanaugh in 2035, after 17 years

 • Amy Coney Barrett in 2037, after 17 years

 • Katanji Brown Jackson in 2039, after 17 years

Since we can’t go after clarence how about we go after ginni?

 Blast from the past. I saved this blurb of mine from September of 2020:

The replacement for gaping hole on the Supreme Court left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Amy Coney Barrett. While she’s obviously female and obviously conservative, she’s less obviously a super-Catholic (viz: her 7 kids), and her ascension to the highest court in the land moved it from a 6-3 split between Catholics and Jews to 7-2.

This is spectacularly unrepresentative of America. According to Wikipedia, Catholics account for 20% of the US population and Jews for 2%. Not represented at all on the Supreme Court are the nation’s 43% Protestants, 26% unaffiliated, 2% Mormons, 1% each Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, or 5% “other”.

And Barrett is on record as saying that public policy should be based on “God‘s law” (similar to Clarence Thomas’s deference to “natural law”, and in both cases based on what they learned from “the nuns” — no, not those “nones”). Any sense now of why feminists and liberals are worried sick about the future of Roe v. Wade?

They could do it together.

As if they take turns… more like it’s a competition.

The gifts and trips don’t really bother me, though Thomas should know the appearance of conflict of interest is as bad as the actual conflict. I’ll accept that Thomas didn’t sit on a case involving Crow directly, but I really want to know all the people he met on those trips. That could prove very interesting.

The Thomas’s. Two terrible people who don’t think the rules apply to them.

Ginni Thomas vows not to let her husband’s problems interfere with her work on the Supreme Court:

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ginni-thomas-vows-not-to-let-husbands-problems-interfere-with-her-work-on-supreme-court?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Humor_041423&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9fed73f92a404693a6ef4&cndid=51317291&esrc=right_rail_daily_hum&utm_term=TNY_Humor

No matter which one’s, it’s always the GQP’s turn.

…& don’t forget: in 2000 while SCOTUS was hearing Bush v Gore, GINNI WAS ON the COMMITTEE FOR W’s INAUGURATION CEREMONY!

The US court system, from state circuit courts up through the Supreme Court, is supposed to be nonpartisan and adherent to ethical standards. Clarence Thomas is woefully deficient in both areas. And his wife is a certifiable lunatic.

…And to think that Chief Justice Roberts was concerned that the leaks regarding Roe v. Wade would tarnish the reputation of SCOTUS.

She should be pursued for her January 6 collusion to overthrow the government, and he should be impeached for ruling as she directs.