Probably off-topic, below is a photo of her with Beavis and Butthead. Her primary credential appears to be her previous employment by Ginni Thomas. Although she did clerk for two federal judges I couldn't find any significant accomplishments in her background such as participation in Law Review when she was in law school. Maybe it's just me but it looks like her two previous clerkships as well as her selection by Thomas are based almost entirely on her political orientation and connections rather than her credentials.
I also don't know anything about her credentials, so I can't say. I do know that Bill Pryor is a pal of Clarence Thomas, so it seems rather likely that she got all of these positions because of her close friendship with Ginni Thomas.
Aren't the clerks of Supreme Court Justices typically a former law review president at an Ivy or equivalent law school? George Mason law school is ranked #32 in the US and she wasn't even a member of their law review. I was suspicious of the appointment before I knew she was a bigot. What are the chances that she, Clarence and Ginny are a throuple?
Not always. Generally, they're a top student at a top law school. I'll give Thomas this. He has a history of looking outside the elite law schools for clerks. I commend him for that. Some others do it on occasion, but Thomas is the least snooty of them all. That said, when he does it, it's usually to take the top student from a good law school (like UF, UGA, Alabama, etc.). They're always conservative, but they do have elite credentials.
Give it a few more blatantly corrupt decisions and SCOTUS approval rating, currently 18%, will drop below even that of Congress at 15%!
It's going to be a "wild time" next week if Democrats storm the Supreme Court building and/or set up an "alternate" Court with some fake justices.
Not sure I would say that about scotus but most everyone agrees on Thomas. Caveat: I dig JO but not able to watch 30 min video.
You are wrong again. I saw enough to know there was absolutely nothing in the first ten minutes that directly tied a court decision to corruption. I then watched the rest in fast forward and learned just as much as at regular speed. I saw a comedy sketch mostly with inferences but no direct evidence. Just SCDS. The comedian did use the term "scandal" quite a bit but obviously does not know the meaning of the word.
I think the court as a whole itself suffers now from an overall appearance of impropriety (too many litmus tests for each side and the ridiculous influence of The Federalist Society) but that Thomas himself is a full of shit grifter extraordinaire who acts like the common man -"we like to sleep in our RV in Walmart parking lots" while forgetting to mention "we're sleeping in a $300,000 RV paid for by someone else" and also while his wife plots to stop the electoral count of a lawful election.
