Alito's letter to congress may contain false statements

[White 6]

Meaningless twaddle.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html

Supreme Court: Gifts for justices explained in 3 charts

Over the last two decades, U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted 445 gifts valued at over $4 million, a new report suggests.

www.newsweek.com

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The neighbor is an anti Trump Democrat. He can't be trusted if he tells you his name.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

View attachment 963036

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html

Supreme Court: Gifts for justices explained in 3 charts

Over the last two decades, U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted 445 gifts valued at over $4 million, a new report suggests.

www.newsweek.com

What did these gift givers get in return? It isn't selling influence unless there's influence sold.

 

[White 6]

What did these gift givers get in return? It isn't selling influence unless there's influence sold.

Beats me. Overturn of Roe vs Wade, Approval of Trump's redirection of 2.4 Billion Dollars of funds from the Pentagon, to build part of his wall, Congress would not pay for in the budget he signed and celebrated, then redirected by him as if he had line item control (reserved for Congress by the constitution, block by one Federal Judge and the Federal Appeals court for maybe?

The Supremes can do anything, and rule it constitutional.

 

[BackAgain]

View attachment 963036

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html

Supreme Court: Gifts for justices explained in 3 charts

Over the last two decades, U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted 445 gifts valued at over $4 million, a new report suggests.

www.newsweek.com

Zzz.

Receiving gifts is legal. It isn’t unethical. It isn’t bribery.

Accepting bribes is illegal and unethical. But you don’t have any thing at all to support any such contention.

So your post remains twaddle.

 

[White 6]

Zzz.

Receiving gifts is legal. It isn’t unethical. It isn’t bribery.

Accepting bribes is illegal and unethical. But you don’t have any thing at all to support any such contention.

So your post remains twaddle.

Try it, in any other branch of government, any branch, any department. Except for the Supreme court, it is against the law and applicable ethics regulations. Don't fool yourself. You are not fooling anybody else, that has ever held a government position.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Beats me. Overturn of Roe vs Wade, Approval of Trump's redirection of 2.4 Billion Dollars of funds from the Pentagon, to build part of his wall, Congress would not pay for in the budget he signed and celebrated, then redirected by him as if he had line item control (reserved for Congress by the constitution, block by one Federal Judge and the Federal Appeals court for maybe?

The Supremes can do anything, and rule it constitutional.

Can you prove any of those rulings is unconstitutional? Roe was always bad law. It should never have been.

 

[White 6]

Can you prove any of those rulings is unconstitutional? Roe was always bad law. It should never have been.

I have no problem with the change from Roe, actually, but of course, I am a 69 year old male.
By the constitution the power off the purse rests with Congress and presidents do not have line item veto or redirection powers and never have, under our constitution. That is why a Federal Judge blocked it on constitutional ground and why the appeals court denied trumps appeal. Presidents just do not have that power to redirect non-discretionary spending, certainly not in the amount of $2.5 Billion line item assigned and approved by congress. Biden was blocked, attempted to move $1.4 billion. Federal court, said no-way, for the same reason. Biden administration did not appeal, as they knew by our constitution, the Executive branch does not have the power of the purse, but after Trump, it was worth a shot, if for no other reason, than to reestablish control of funding on non-discretionary line item funding does rest with Congress.

Check your freshman high school civic book.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I have no problem with the change from Roe, actually, but of course, I am a 69 year old male.
By the constitution the power off the purse rests with Congress and presidents do not have line item veto or redirection powers and never have, under our constitution. That is why a Federal Judge blocked it on constitutional ground and why the appeals court denied trumps appeal. Presidents just do not have that power to redirect non-discretionary spending, certainly not in the amount of $2.5 Billion line item assigned and approved by congress. Biden was blocked, attempted to move $1.4 billion. Federal court, said no-way, for the same reason. Biden administration did not appeal, as they knew by our constitution, the Executive branch does not have the power of the purse, but after Trump, it was worth a shot, if for no other reason, than to reestablish control of funding on non-discretionary line item funding does rest with Congress.

Check your freshman high school civic book.

Perhaps it's a case of once funds have been approved for national defense, it can be spent on any national defense project. Including a wall.

 

[White 6]

Perhaps it's a case of once funds have been approved for national defense, it can be spent on any national defense project. Including a wall.

It wasn't until his Supremes got a hold of it. It had never been done before, as it was known illegal and unconstitutional. Of course, The Supremes can rule anything constitutional, and there is no appeal, so if you can appoint 3 or so, you can get what you really want, constitutional or not. Obviously, if they accept million dollar gratuities, and you know billionaires, that makes it all the better, as you will always have the ear, there not being any other job where the employers will allow people on the ruling board to have such conflicts of interests.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It wasn't until his Supremes got a hold of it. It had never been done before, as it was known illegal and unconstitutional. Of course, The Supremes can rule anything constitutional, and there is no appeal, so if you can appoint 3 or so, you can get what you really want, constitutional or not. Obviously, if they accept million dollar gratuities, and you know billionaires, that makes it all the better, as you will always have the ear, there not being any other job where the employers will allow people on the ruling board to have such conflicts of interests.

Was it ever proved that the Court gave any favorable rulings to the generous wealthy?

 

[White 6]

Was it ever proved that the Court gave any favorable rulings to the generous wealthy?

Having the ear, to maintain the gratuities not available to anyone else is enough. What? You thought these were men that eschewed high end lifestyles on a government salary? What a joke!

 

[Orangecat]

Alito's letter to congress may contain false statements​

And it may not, as well.
Great bit of reporting there, champ.

 

[BackAgain]

Try it, in any other branch of government, any branch, any department. Except for the Supreme court, it is against the law and applicable ethics regulations. Don't fool yourself. You are not fooling anybody else, that has ever held a government position.

I’m not fooling anyone nor trying.

Accepting gifts is perfectly legal.

You know not. I know. Everyone knows it.

Now, if you imagine that this means you can accept a gift as a quid pro Joe for a particular ruling from a party to that case, then you’re just being deliberately obtuse.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Having the ear, to maintain the gratuities not available to anyone else is enough. What? You thought these were men that eschewed high end lifestyles on a government salary? What a joke!

Whatever can be proved.