Hey, Bricker? Tangental question. Given that Ms. Thomas is actively campaigning against Obamacare, and getting money to her PAC to do so, is Mr. Thomas obligated to recuse himself if and when it hits the Supremes?
If we make that assumption, then of course the OP is right.
But because the OP said, “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…” we are entitled to approach the analysis with the most favorable assumptions to Thomas.
If the OP had said, “…asssuming Hill is telling the truth…” in place of that phrase, then we would have to make the assumption you do. But the OP goes beyond that: he says that even if we believe Thomas was the victim of deliberate lies, Thomas’ call to Hill was tone deaf.
I don’t agree with that. I think how we view Thomas’ call DOES get influenced by how we view that past event.
I have some rebuttal to that, but since I’m arguing only from the position that since the OP said, “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…” I will decline to confuse you further by offering it.
No.
How would your mathematical analysis change if I could identify a motive got Hill’s perjury?
If, for the sake of discussion, we consider your scenario, then, while the call would still be considered tone-deaf, that characteristic would not stand out as much as other ones, like coming across as misguided, or kinda sad that she hasn’t accepted that Hill would never change her position (in this scenario, Hill has lied but gives no indication of ever acknowledging that - quite the opposite), so it would be up to the Thomases to make their separate peace - and the call would be a clear indication that Ms. Thomas hadn’t done that.
So - I acknowledge your fundamental point that context matters, but in this case, only from the standpoint that it influences which characteristics of the situation are emphasized. I stand by my position that this scenario doesn’t change the basic tone-deafness of the call, but acknowledge that the tone-deafness of it would be less important vs. other characteristics.
Other observation: in this thread, Bricker, you are the champion of context - the judgment of tone-deafness, IYHO, is 100% predicated on context - if Hill lied, then your POV on tone-deaf flips to No. Okay, given the CONTEXT of Ginni Thomas’ political passion and commitment, how can you stand by and claim it has no impact - either as a factor influencing Thomas to call, or as an issue with Justice Thomas and the potential need to recuse himself?
You apply the craft of legal rhetoric - you are a dog with a bone regarding my universal statement of tone-deafness: the very fact that I didn’t consider one scenario obviates the entire statement, you seem to assert (I feel I have argued that the scenario doesn’t change my position, but whatever). Your “letter of the law” analysis via legal rhetoric makes for acrobatic posting - but sometimes you must also step back and regard the basic situation. You sound like the stereotype painted about John Kerry: digging into the facts of the situation with high-toned geekiness, but missing the Big Picture.
Bottom line: Ginni Thomas is a political player; both that fact and the status of the situation (call after 20 years; no change in positions; weird time; worded accusatorily, etc.) look bad on the face of it. And if she and her SCOTUS hubbie were liberals, the Right would be screaming bloody murder - that confluence of politics and the judiciary looks hinky, regardless of your political standing.
So parse the situation to the nth degree all you want; the bottom line remains.
Obviously my whole “analysis” was extremely fuzzy. Why don’t you just explain the motive and let me consider it?
Only if he couldn’t distinguish the pitch of their screams as they plummeted to their deaths.
This requires some elaboration, lest readers conclude you believe the actions of a spouse are irrelevant to the impartiality of a justice.
What, no droppler effect?
The definition of “tone deaf,” for the win! 
Fear Itself, I think you are making the same observation I am: **Bricker **appears to have two views on context that don’t reconcile.
ETA: Bryan Ekers…ouch. 
Could you add post #125 to your consideration too.
Yes, you’ve said this before. I don’t agree, but acknowldge it comes down to the very subjective definition of the phrase “tone deaf.”
I don’t claim it has no impact. But I do claim that when you make such a sweeping claim as “…”…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…" you cede such a huge ground that the other factors fade into irrelevance; if a man is drowning in the ocean, a thimblefull extra of water doesn’t hasten the outcome.
The recusal is a separate issue, and you made no such claims that relate to it.
No: you withdraw the universally sweeping statement. It’s NOT the case that “…”…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past event…" you can reach the conclusion you wish.
Well, YOU can, but I can’t.
So far as I’m aware, the general standard for recusal is: having a financial interest in the parties or outcome, having worked on the case in the past as a lawyer, having a close relative involved as a party or witness, or having previously made statements indicating you were unable to neutrally judge the case.
So far as I’m aware, none of those standards exist here. Purely speculative financial interests, such as “My wife’s organization will become more popular as a result of the outcome…” is not sufficient.
May as well decide who’s right and who’s wrong with a coin-flip.
Just the sort of glib remark I’d expect from a Tailsean.
Bricker, do you get a quarter every time “…regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past events…” is pasted somewhere or something?
Here’s the thing … regardless of politics or one’s personal beliefs about that past events (enjoy your $.25), a proper apology is something that is offered by someone contrite, not something requested by someone butt-hurt. Hence – tone deafness, or whatever you want to call it.
I’ve said it once and quoted it again. Now you’re just being a dick. I’ve come to think of you as stubborn, with a worldview I often disagree with, but generally honorable, if pedantic and nitpicky. The fact that you’re refusing to address any of the points I’ve raised is frustrating and disappointing. But I’ll make them AGAIN, re-fucking-phrased, since you’re deciding to play stupid, when we both know you’re not.
In fact, I’ll just run down the chain of logic of my objection to your main point, leaving aside my other questions with regard to your ridiculous hypotheticals.
1.) Do you agree that Ms. Thomas claimed her VM to have been an olive branch?
2.) Do you agree that the VM could not be classified as such?
3.) If yes and no, respectively, would you agree that there is a disconnect between the intent Thomas is claiming and the actual effect?
4.) If so, would you also agree that there are two possibilities: she was lying about her intentions (not intended as an olive branch), or she was telling the truth (intended as an olive branch)?
5.) If she was lying about her intentions, would you not agree that her purpose must have been shit-stirring? If not, what could it have been?
6.) If she was not lying about her intentions, would you not agree that this demonstrates an inability to predict how your words will be interpreted by others?
7.) Is an inability to predict how your words will be interpreted by others not the definition of being tone deaf? If not, what is your definition?
Not in this fucking thread, he doesn’t. He’s ignoring mine because they’re inconvenient.
Slightly off-topic point - whether or not a search finds anything does not have any bearing on whether it was legal. I think most Americans, and courts, agree that’s a *good *rule.
U.S. Code,
TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 455
Shot From Guns’s post sounds direct and simple enough. So, Bricker, would you care to venture an opinion that Virginia Thomas was disingenous, clueless, some combination?