Joan Biskupic is a CNN legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer, so now we’re curious what her biography of Justice Clarence Thomas would sound like, because she certainly has no reading comprehension when it comes to Thomas’s writings. She tweeted this week that Thomas had “revealed some sympathy for Trump’s baseless fraud claims” in his dissent.
Justice Clarence Thomas aligns with Trump on baseless election fraud claims: https://t.co/hwjyWTJkOR
— Joan Biskupic (@JoanBiskupic) February 22, 2021
What? He claimed election fraud is a threat to America?
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday claimed election fraud is a threat to America, revealing in a forceful dissent some support for former President Donald Trump and Republicans who have refused to accept the result of the 2020 election.
A longtime conservative, Thomas’ legal views naturally aligned with the Trump administration. But his dissent stands out for how much it subscribed to the Trump worldview of fraud, a notion debunked by election law experts and that has failed overwhelmingly in dozens of state and federal court challenges.
“We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud. But that observation provides only small comfort,” Thomas said, dissenting as the court rejected a long-pending challenge to Pennsylvania mail-in voting procedures.
“An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence,” Thomas wrote.
Gasp! The Supreme Court is fortunate that many of the cases they’d seen didn’t allege fraud, he said. Now we really want to see her biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to see if she’s described as “a longtime liberal.”
Lying jackass
— Robert Faulhaber (Parler: @faulhaber) (@rfaulhaber) February 25, 2021
That is a gross misleading interpretation of Justice Thomas dissent.
— M. A. Saunders (@LLLLegz) February 25, 2021
If that's what you got out of his dissent, you're a complete moron.
— Business Master Crapplefratz (@Crapplefratz) February 25, 2021
This is misinformation.
— Brian (@bhg70) February 24, 2021
It’s fine, I’m sure @CNN will issue a retraction of this blatant misinformation in a couple of days with a tiny footnote that no one will ever see, after the damage is done. Par for the course. Disgraceful.
— PortNowhere (@NowherePort) February 25, 2021
Can't wait to see how this is spun into him being a closet white supremacist
— Richard Nelson (@Richard_Nelson7) February 24, 2021
No person with a IQ above room temperature could read what Thomas wrote and come to tbis conclusion
— Chris (@ChrisMears00) February 24, 2021
Unfortunately, that still provides an excuse for virtually every CNN employee.
— JonBlack (@JonBlac72793049) February 25, 2021
That's at best an exceptionally dishonest and disingenuous attempt to spin Thomas' dissent, and at worst, a blatent attempt to misinform for the sake of generating partisan outrage, and judging by the reactions in the comment thread, I'd say it's succeeding in the latter pic.twitter.com/TSfeWYMvOy
— Joe Townsend (@Jtownsend95) February 24, 2021
“Legal analyst”
— Michael (@gamecocklaw) February 24, 2021
This is a false framing of Thomas’s dissent. @CNN you should retract. https://t.co/d8AmZhVqlG
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) February 24, 2021
Joan you should rewrite your piece. You know the case was about the independent state legislature doctrine and has nothing to do with Trumpian conspiracy theories.
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) February 24, 2021
Strange how there’s no fake news tag from Twitter on this blatantly false article.
— James (@KieselguhrKid) February 24, 2021
Please show me textually where he lines up with Trump. I’ve read every word of his dissent and I’m not seeing it.
Thanks,
— Itzik Basman (@ItzikBasman) February 24, 2021
Whispers… "You didn't really read his opinion did you?"
— Troy Hinrichs (@YourmanGodfrey) February 24, 2021
What an incredibly dumb take for a supposed legal expert.
— Tom Sawyer's Unpainted Fence (@SawyerFence) February 25, 2021
That's a completely dishonest framing. Or you're completely ignorant. Oh, you're a journalist. I get it now.
— KilroyFSU (@KilroyFSU) February 24, 2021
This case & Thomas’ opinion had nothing to do with Trump’s election fraud claims. In fact, Thomas expressly stated that a decision in favor of the Trump campaign (pertaining to matters of PA election law) would not have changed the result in Pennsylvania. CNN should retract.
— Robert Brookman (@RBrookman34) February 24, 2021
That is what you call 100% incorrect bullshit.
— Insurgent General Master Muppet ™ (@muppet_mastertm) February 25, 2021
Maybe you should have read the dissent before posting this disingenuous take.
— Cincinnatus (@humblelockean) February 25, 2021
Someone didn't read the dissent and parroted media narrative.
Yikes.
— Scottie Binyons (@B82Scottie) February 24, 2021
You are embarrassing.
— Mike Buckiso (@MikeBuckiso) February 24, 2021
This is way beyond mischaracterization
— Good House People (@goodhousepeople) February 25, 2021
@TwitterSupport this is gross misinformation
— Dr. J Parker, WD-40 (@jsparker31) February 25, 2021
You are either reading challenged or lying. Thomas wrote that there was no evidence that the election problems were sufficient to have changed the outcome of the election. It is undisputed that some courts and state election officials changed the rules inconsistent w/ state law.
— Jeffrey W. Ludwig (@jwludwig) February 25, 2021
Exactly why @CNN is referred to as FAKE NEWS.
— Vance Williamson (@VanceJohnvancew) February 25, 2021
For a legal analyst your conjecture and editorializing is remarkable.
— Twin Super Sleuth Canon (@twinsuper1) February 25, 2021
CNN with wall to wall disinformation. Seems like there is nothing that CNN will not lie about.
— lmkwin (@lmkwin) February 25, 2021
This is BS. He specifically notes in his opinion (if you read it!) there is no evidence a challenge would change the result, but he wants the rules to be set regarding changes in election law in advance of the 2022 elections
— Michael Brennan (@MikeBrennan330) February 24, 2021
Are you supposed to be a professional? You don't come across that way.
— Wheelie Car Man (@LeroyOrtiz19) February 24, 2021
Did you even read it Joan? Can you read Joan?
— Rosie memos (@almostjingo) February 25, 2021
This post is embarrassingly off point
— ???~?????~???? 2.0 (@BillzBiz) February 24, 2021
You didn't even read it, did you? That's what we expect from a CNN head, and frequent John Roberts dinner guest.
— HarloweWilcox (@HarloweWilcox) February 24, 2021
Here’s your typical CNN viewer who didn’t read past the headline:
Clarence Thomas would eagerly nullify the 13th Amendment at the first chance he got a case challenging it, then he'd dance a happy jig as he's lead off the bench in chains to go work at Massuh Trump's plantation.
— What A Lovely Day (@WhatALovelyDa12) February 23, 2021
Related:
This sh*t is bananas: CNN's Kaitlan Collins peddles fake news to take swipe at Clarence Thomas https://t.co/vtdKz45THW
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) October 9, 2018
