Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[Rumpole]

That's what this has been about since Escalator Day. Not Trump. He's just the one person who is shameless enough and needy enough to fully tap into it.

This mal-informed malignancy has been growing since the day Limbaugh went national. No one realized how big it was, how intense it was, or how paranoid it was.

We do now.

Yes, and the poisoned ball really got rolling with Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine, allowing Limbaugh to poison the airwaves without challenge, eh? In fact, Limbaugh sent a memo to Reagan thanking him for that repeal.

 

[rightwinger]

A SCOTUS judge is not a politician.

And how does it do that? No one knows what cases a SCOTUS will hear in any given year.

Afraid Thomas makes it clear that they are

The Supreme Court used to make it clear they were above politics and represented Justice on its own merits

Thomas makes it clear he is a Republican operative with his wife’s lobbying on behalf of Republican interests and his accepting of hundreds of thousands in gifts and vacations from a major Republican donor.

 

[Blues Man]

Afraid Thomas makes it clear that they are

The Supreme Court used to make it clear they were above politics and represented Justice on its own merits

Thomas makes it clear he is a Republican operative with his wife’s lobbying on behalf of Republican interests and his accepting of hundreds of thousands in gifts and vacations from a major Republican donor.

What his wife does is irrelevant.

What proof do you have that Thomas' decisions were influenced ?

What decision did he make that specifically favored any of his friends?

 

[rightwinger]

What his wife does is irrelevant.

What proof do you have that Thomas' decisions were influenced ?

What decision did he make that specifically favored any of his friends?

That is Thomas’s dilemma

His wife is a major Republican lobbyist. So much so that she has the Presidents Chief of Staffs personal phone number.

Now, we can’t insist that Thomas divorce his wife. But we can expect him to recuse himself from cases that his wife is actively lobbying.

Given the activities that his wife is involved in, you would expect him to bend over backwards to appear politically neutral. Accepting major gifts and vacations from a major Republican donor is not politically neutral.
Now, you are right that it can’t be proven that any of this influenced his decisions. If it did, he would be criminally liable

What it does is gives the appearance of impropriety that impacts a judges credibility with litigants and the public.

 

[Blues Man]

That is Thomas’s dilemma

His wife is a major Republican lobbyist. So much so that she has the Presidents Chief of Staffs personal phone number.

Now, we can’t insist that Thomas divorce his wife. But we can expect him to recuse himself from cases that his wife is actively lobbying.

Given the activities that his wife is involved in, you would expect him to bend over backwards to appear politically neutral. Accepting major gifts and vacations from a major Republican donor is not politically neutral.
Now, you are right that it can’t be proven that any of this influenced his decisions. If it did, he would be criminally liable

What it does is gives the appearance of impropriety that impacts a judges credibility with litigants and the public.

Which things has she actively lobbied have ended up in the Supreme Court?

And do you think SCOTUS judges should not have the right to vote? After all just casting a vote is proof of bias.

 

[Grumblenuts]

https://bradblog.com/?p=14622

CLICK TO LISTEN OR DOWNLOAD SHOW!...

 

[rightwinger]

Which things has she actively lobbied have ended up in the Supreme Court?

And do you think SCOTUS judges should not have the right to vote? After all just casting a vote is proof of bias.

Ginny Thomas actively lobbied on Trumps stolen election claims while the court was deciding a case on Trumps claims. Thomas should have recused himself.

Lower level judges have strict rules on personal ethics. They include strict reporting of any gifts, avoidance of political contacts and avoiding the appearance of impropriety that impacts the perception of impartiality.

The Supreme Court needs stricter rules on personal ethics Than lower courts……they have none

 

[Blues Man]

Ginny Thomas actively lobbied on Trumps stolen election claims while the court was deciding a case on Trumps claims. Thomas should have recused himself.

Lower level judges have strict rules on personal ethics. They include strict reporting of any gifts, avoidance of political contacts and avoiding the appearance of impropriety that impacts the perception of impartiality.

The Supreme Court needs stricter rules on personal ethics Than lower courts……they have none

Why should any judge recuse themselves over the opinions of another person?

Maybe we should force all SCOTUS judges to divorce their spouses and cut all ties with their families and friends

 

[Seymour Flops]

It was reported on in MSM, but then the tyranny in Tennessee sucked up all the oxygen.

I think you meant the tranny in Tennessee?

Ironic that you would complain about loosing a chance at another high-tech lynching of an uppity black man, due to a gender uncertain person killing children.

Killing children and encouraging people to be transgender are the two main planks of the Democratic Party platform as of now. Dems, you created the Transgender monster, now you complain about it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Powerful and influential politicians are often given benefits “by those who enjoy their company”

I worked for the Federal Government for 33 years and was required to report any such gifts annually. It was stressed we were to avoid any “appearance of impropriety”

Thomas accepting expensive vacations gives that appearance and puts his impartiality into question

If someone invited you to a party, you reported that as "a gift?"

I find that hard to believe.

 

[rightwinger]

Why should any judge recuse themselves over the opinions of another person?

Maybe we should force all SCOTUS judges to divorce their spouses and cut all ties with their families and friends

You recuse yourself if there is an appearance of a conflict of interest.
The actions of his wife create that appearance

Thomas has two choices.
He can encourage his wife to cut back on political activities because they impact his ability to function as a judge or he can recuse himself from cases he has a conflict of interest

 

[rightwinger]

If someone invited you to a party, you reported that as "a gift?"
I find that hard to believe.

When I started with the Federal Government, we literally could not accept a cup of coffee from a Defense Contractor. We had to put a quarter in a cup if we took coffee.
Later the threshold was set at $25

If a Defense Contractor invited me to dinner, a party or a sporting event …I declined so that I would not have to defend it later

 

[Blues Man]

You recuse yourself if there is an appearance of a conflict of interest.
The actions of his wife create that appearance

Thomas has two choices.
He can encourage his wife to cut back on political activities because they impact his ability to function as a judge or he can recuse himself from cases he has a conflict of interest

No you recuse yourself if there actually IS a conflict

and no one has actually proven that.

Thomas's wife gets paid as a lobbyist no matter if what she is lobbying for makes it to the floor of Congress.

Nothing Thomas can do as a justice will affect the legislative process.

And again you could say that any Judge who is a member of any political party should be prohibited from ruling on anything.

 

[Blues Man]

When I started with the Federal Government, we literally could not accept a cup of coffee from a Defense Contractor. We had to put a quarter in a cup if we took coffee.
Later the threshold was set at $25

If a Defense Contractor invited me to dinner, a party or a sporting event …I declined so that I would not have to defend it later

Were you personal friends with defense contractors?

Did you have any sway in which defense contractors were chosen? Somehow I doubt you were making the decisions for the DoD.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Except for the minor detail that if he had a modicum of integrity he would have rejected the lavish gifts.

If someone invites you to a party, that is "a gift?"

Your propensity to traffic in sophomoric pejorative labeling, aside, you're ability to guess is rather short of the mark. The only individuals of concern to me regarding Epstein's island are the men who were accused by the young ladies. But that is off topic.

Really? You are not concerned about powerful DemoKKKrats who were frequent visitors to an island noted for underage sex slaves unless one of the child sex slaves herself braved the dangers of reporting them?

You certainly have an indulgent attitude toward corrupt Democreeps, not withstanding your seeming outrage at someone inviting Clarence Thomas to a weekend visit.

Justice Clarence Thomas is unremarkable or even mediocre as a Supreme Court Justice. To wit:

1. Consistent textualist/originalist approach: Critics argue that Thomas's adherence to a textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution limits the scope of his rulings and can sometimes result in outcomes that don't align with societal progress. For example, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Thomas dissented from the majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage, arguing that it was not the role of the Court to decide such matters.
2. Dissenting voice: While it is true that Justice Thomas has a high rate of dissenting opinions, some argue that these dissents do not always provide substantive legal reasoning or have a significant impact on jurisprudence. For instance, in the case of United States v. Lopez (1995), Thomas wrote a separate concurrence, contending that the federal government had limited power to regulate commerce within the states. Though he made an argument for a stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause, his opinion did not significantly influence future Court decisions on the matter.
3. Reluctance during oral arguments: Thomas is known for his reticence during oral arguments, often going years without asking questions or engaging with the advocates. Critics argue that his silence during these crucial discussions limits his ability to shape legal outcomes and undermines the public's understanding of his judicial philosophy.
4. Stare decisis: Justice Thomas has been open about his willingness to overturn long-established precedents if he believes they were wrongly decided. While some may argue that this demonstrates intellectual independence, others see it as a disregard for the principle of stare decisis, which is essential for maintaining consistency and stability in the law. For example, in the case of Janus v. AFSCME (2018), Thomas joined the majority opinion that overturned a 40-year-old precedent on union fees, potentially destabilizing labor relations in the process.

I get it. You don't like black men whose achievements surpass your own.

The talk about Thomas being not as intellectual as his white colleagues is racist nonsense. None of his detractors have ever shown any evidence of an intellectual deficit. The arguments above are based on disagreeing with his making rulings based on the Constitution instead of "societal progress."

But - for the sake of argument - suppose he really is not the thickest book on the shelf. When Marshall retired, everyone knew that his successor would be black, and that would be the first qualification requirement, subordinate to all others.

Once that decision is made, it is silly to complain that you didn't get the best tater in the sack. Are you willing to go on record now to say that we should end all diversity, inclusion, affirmative action, equity, or any other thought process that leads us to take race into account in decisions about employment, promotion, and education?

When Democrooks finally get their wish and Thomas dies, should he be replaced with a black person, or with the most intellectual justice they can find, regardless of demographics?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The G in GOP stands for Grifter.

Cry more

 

[sealybobo]

So I wonder what the libtard justices have been up to? Dems better watch where they tread.....There be landmines.

If you find anything let us know. Until then, he should step down.

Thomas “has accepted luxury trips virtually every year” from Crow for more than two decades without reporting them, ProPublica reported, citing travel records and interviews. Thomas’ failure to disclose the trips appears to violate a law requiring judges, members of Congress and other federal officials to report most gifts, including private jet flights, according to the article.

What has he given Jim Crow in exchange for these trips? You know we're going to find out.

a progressive judicial advocacy group, called on the Senate to not let “this extraordinary display of corruption and lawbreaking go unanswered.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Thomas should be impeached.
“This is beyond party or partisanship. This degree of corruption is shocking — almost cartoonish,” she wrote on Twitter.

Thomas has already been under fire over ethics issues. He failed to recuse himself in a case brought by President Donald Trump seeking to block the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection from obtaining access to White House documents and communications, even though his wife worked with Trump supporters to undo the 2020 election.

Crow told ProPublica he and his wife never discussed any cases with Thomas, and “never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue.”

RIIIIGHHT.

 

[sealybobo]

If someone invites you to a party, that is "a gift?"


Really? You are not concerned about powerful DemoKKKrats who were frequent visitors to an island noted for underage sex slaves unless one of the child sex slaves herself braved the dangers of reporting them?

You certainly have an indulgent attitude toward corrupt Democreeps, not withstanding your seeming outrage at someone inviting Clarence Thomas to a weekend visit.

I get it. You don't like black men whose achievements surpass your own.

The talk about Thomas being not as intellectual as his white colleagues is racist nonsense. None of his detractors have ever shown any evidence of an intellectual deficit. The arguments above are based on disagreeing with his making rulings based on the Constitution instead of "societal progress."

But - for the sake of argument - suppose he really is not the thickest book on the shelf. When Marshall retired, everyone knew that his successor would be black, and that would be the first qualification requirement, subordinate to all others.

Once that decision is made, it is silly to complain that you didn't get the best tater in the sack. Are you willing to go on record now to say that we should end all diversity, inclusion, affirmative action, equity, or any other thought process that leads us to take race into account in decisions about employment, promotion, and education?

When Democrooks finally get their wish and Thomas dies, should he be replaced with a black person, or with the most intellectual justice they can find, regardless of demographics?

Thomas “has accepted luxury trips virtually every year” from Crow for more than two decades without reporting them. Thomas’ failure to disclose the trips appears to violate a law requiring judges, members of Congress and other federal officials to report most gifts, including private jet flights....

YES THIS IS A GIFT YOU FUCKNUT.

 

[Seymour Flops]

When I started with the Federal Government, we literally could not accept a cup of coffee from a Defense Contractor. We had to put a quarter in a cup if we took coffee.
Later the threshold was set at $25

If a Defense Contractor invited me to dinner, a party or a sporting event …I declined so that I would not have to defend it later

Harlan Crow is a contractor for the Judicial branch?

 

[Seymour Flops]

What has he given Jim Crow in exchange for these trips? You know we're going to find out.

When you do, that would be the time to start a thread about it. This one is a waste of time.