Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
@mjs_DC
Jan 8, 2021 • 7 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X
On the morning of Jan. 6, Ginni Thomas—wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—endorsed the protest demanding that Congress overturn the election, then sent her “LOVE” to the demonstrators, who violently overtook the Capitol several hours later. She has not posted since. ImageImage
For background, Ginni Thomas is a conservative lobbyist and avid Trump supporter who campaigned for him. She also routinely spreads fringe conspiracy theories on Facebook. She recently posted: “No one, and I mean no one, has done more to harm America than the Democrats.” ImageImageImageImage
Here, for instance, is a characteristic Ginni Thomas post. She has repeatedly (and falsely) warned that George Soros is funding a sweeping conspiracy against Donald Trump and the United States government.
In July, Ginni Thomas shared this post from a Facebook group flagged for promoting anti-vax conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Bill Gates would use the COVID vaccine to kill people.
Ginni Thomas also led a campaign to identify and oust federal employees whom she deemed disloyal to Trump. She met with the president at the White House to provide him with a list of names she compiled. nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/…
Ginni Thomas is often treated like a joke because she continually spouts deranged conspiracy theories. But there's nothing funny about a sitting justice's spouse endorsing a protest meant to overturn an election—hours before it became an insurrection. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Wow: Ginni Thomas appears to have deactivated or deleted her Facebook page. Truly never thought I’d see the day. lawandcrime.com/high-profile/g…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Apr 1
Today's decision effectively means that abortion is now illegal in Florida beyond six weeks, before most people know they're pregnant.

BUT: The citizens of Florida will have a chance to enshrine permanent abortion protections via ballot initiative in November.
Note that the Florida constitution already provides explicit protections for the "right to privacy." For decades, the Florida Supreme Court held that this guarantee protected access to abortion. The conservative majority just overturned all those precedents.
Sorry, the six-week ban will take effect in one month, not immediately.
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Mar 15
The Supreme Court's third and final opinion of the day is in Pulsifer v. U.S. In a 6–3 opinion, Justice Kagan reads the First Step Act's safety-valve provision narrowly, to prevent many defendants from obtaining relief. Gorsuch, Jackson, Sotomayor dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Today's decision in Pulsifer will be a grave disappointment to many, many individuals seeking relief under the First Step Act from harsh mandatory minimum sentences. It shrinks the law's safety valve by reading the word "and" to mean, in effect, "or." Unfortunate in my view.
In his dissent, Gorsuch explains how the majority effectively rewrites this provision of the First Step Act to make relief far more difficult to obtain. It really does require verbal gymnastics to get there. But six justices did. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Yes, the government’s implicit distribution theory requires a reader to delete words before the em dash. Yes, it requires a reader to reinsert them in three different places where they do not appear. But maybe, the government suggests, Congress implicitly intended for a reader to do all that. Even though what it wrote is susceptible to a far more natural construction requiring none of these gymnastics.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Mar 5
The five-justice majority's opinion in the Trump ballot removal case has a lot of ambiguous language that leaves many questions unresolved. How you read that language, of course, determines how far you think the majority goes to dismantle the insurrection clause. It's debatable!
I tend to think the three liberals are correct that "the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office."

Reading the opinion that way, you easily see how it forecloses any enforcement of the insurrection clause.
But if you want to read the majority opinion more generously—in a way that contradicts what the three liberals claim it says—you certainly can. Such is the nature of ambiguous judicial language.

I agree with @gtconway3d that in some key ways, the opinions just don't line up.
Read 9 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Mar 4
If you double click where it says "JJ." at the top, then copy and paste it, that line reads: SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

And if you do a control-F search for "SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part," it highlights that same line. Image
It looks like the liberals' opinion was originally styled as a partial dissent written by Justice Sotomayor, but got changed to a concurrence in the judgment authored jointly by all three liberals. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
I see that the copy-paste approach doesn't work on every computer, but the control-F approach should.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Mar 4
🚨The Supreme Court overturns the Colorado decision removing Trump from the ballot, holding that only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause against federal candidates. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Image
Despite the unanimous outcome, the reasoning is deeply fractured. The three liberal justices are furious that the majority went too far, attempting "to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Ultimately, under the guise of providing a more “complete explanation for the judgment,” ante, at 13, the majority resolves many unsettled questions about Section 3. It forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision, such as might occur when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score. The majority further holds that any legislation to enforce this provision must prescribe certain procedures “‘tailor[ed]’” to Section 3, ante, at 10, ruling out enforcement under general federal statutes requiring the government to comply with the law. By resolving these ...
To summarize:

All justices agree on reversing the Colorado Supreme Court.

Five justices say only Congress can enforce the insurrection clause.

The three liberals say Colorado can't go it alone, but reject the majority's sweeping holding.

Barrett stays out of that dispute.
Read 6 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Feb 21
The Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos are legally children is worse than a lot of coverage implies. The majority and the chief justice suggest that EVEN IF the Alabama legislature attempts to re-legalize IVF, the state constitution will forbid it. slate.com/news-and-polit…
In a concurrence, however, Chief Justice Tom Parker spelled out the implications. The people of Alabama, he declared, have adopted the “theologically based view” that “life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.” (If the U.S. Supreme Court hadn’t demolished the establishment clause, this opinion would surely violate it.) As a result, Parker continued, the courts have an affirmative duty to protect “the unborn,” including embryos. Any law that “risks the deaths of these little people” is constitutionally suspect. Courts may not engage in the business of “ca...
Instead, the Alabama Supreme Court—and, more explicitly, Chief Justice Parker—laid out an altered version of IVF to protect the dignity of "extrauterine children" (i.e., embryos).

It would be slower, less effective, more painful, and WAY more expensive. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Parker noted that Italy enshrined a similarly restrictive approach into law in 2004. Curiously, though, he failed to note that the country overturned the law five years later because it was a miserable medical failure. It has never been widely practiced in the United States for the same reason. Collura told me that Parker’s approach would radically reduce the quality of Alabama patients’ treatment while increasing the cost exponentially. Why? IVF patients would have to accept the transfer of a single low-quality embryo that is certain to fail—and to do so one embryo at a time. Each transfer...
For IVF to remain legal in Alabama, doctors will have to violate the standards of care and subject patients to inferior treatment opposed by all legitimate health care providers.

Very similar to the devastating impact of abortion bans on obstetrics. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(