Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[Grumblenuts]

Seems quite evident to me that if one really wanted the people's 1st Amendment right to speak protected, they'd go with the most common usage of "corporation" such as that supplied by Oxford Dictionaries first definition:

noun

1. a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Given agreement upon that, we could then logically proceed to discuss whether granting groups of people legal personhood is wise, constitutional, anti-democratic, etc. Perhaps groups of people should be granted some other sort of legal status? Just not "person" - hood.

 

[pknopp]

Seems quite evident to me that if one really wanted the people's 1st Amendment right to speak protected, they'd go with the most common usage of "corporation" such as that supplied by Oxford Dictionaries first definition:

Given agreement upon that, we could then logically proceed to discuss whether granting groups of people legal personhood is wise, constitutional, anti-democratic, etc. Perhaps groups of people should be granted some other sort of legal status? Just not "person" - hood.

Nobody has argued in support of the court expanding on the ruling.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Without the unconstitutional law the ruling never happens. Oddly those who condemn the ruling can't seem to condemn the unconstitutional law that started it all.

No one but you has stated any such thing.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Nobody has argued in support of the court expanding on the ruling.

Your definition?... crickets

 

[pknopp]

No one but you has stated any such thing.

Ignored.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ignored.

Can't discuss the actual topic? Piss off.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't disagree with most of that. (I believe you do the right thing regardless of others not doing the right thing but again, it was McCain that didn't want to take the corporate money).

But then, taking money out of politics can not restrict outside groups from having a say. I reject a position that allows only the parties to have a say.

This sort of reminds me of global warming. You can't bash Gore for having 5 homes and flying on corporate jets.

Feb 15, 2008 — John McCain accuses Barack Obama of backing away from a promise to participate in public financing.

 

[pknopp]

This sort of reminds me of global warming. You can't bash Gore for having 5 homes and flying on corporate jets.

Why not?

Feb 15, 2008 — John McCain accuses Barack Obama of backing away from a promise to participate in public financing.

It wasn't an accusation. It happened.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Perhaps groups of people should be granted some other sort of legal status? Just not "person" - hood.

Such as a "corporation".. or perhaps multiple things.. None containing the term "person."

 

[sealybobo]

Why not?




It wasn't an accusation. It happened.

Because no one man can fix the problem.

I can be for going green but still burn a lot of electricity in my homes. I might even NOT have solar panels on my roof YET. Why? Because one person can't fix this. It has to be mandated.

Or look at Ford. They're going to go 100% electric by 2030. I guess that wasn't mandated by law but that's the kind of thing that needs to happen.

Our future models are more American, and from 2030 they will be all electric,” Ford's marketing chief in Germany Christian Weingaertner told Automotive News Europe in December.

Right now you can get tax breaks for going solar. Now maybe Gore will go green on those 5 houses. Eventually everyone will be solar, wind, battery.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Just to reiterate because it's a fundamental point:

One of the strangest twists in American constitutional law was the moment that corporations gained personhood under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It occurred in a case called Santa Clara County, and what was odd was that the Supreme Court did not really even decide the matter in the actual opinion. It only appeared in a footnote to the case.

A footnote made by courtroom clerk.

 

[sealybobo]

Why not?




It wasn't an accusation. It happened.

It didn't make sense to Obama. I don't blame him. Are you seriously going to complain about broken campaign promises? Didn't Trump say he was going to tax billionaires?

I guess he did. But only blue state billionaires. What a dick! LOL

 

[Grumblenuts]

Because no one man can fix the problem.

I can be for going green but still burn a lot of electricity in my homes. I might even NOT have solar panels on my roof YET. Why? Because one person can't fix this. It has to be mandated.

Or look at Ford. They're going to go 100% electric by 2030. I guess that wasn't mandated by law but that's the kind of thing that needs to happen.

Our future models are more American, and from 2030 they will be all electric,” Ford's marketing chief in Germany Christian Weingaertner told Automotive News Europe in December.

Right now you can get tax breaks for going solar. Now maybe Gore will go green on those 5 houses. Eventually everyone will be solar, wind, battery.

And the technology will rapidly continue getting better and better.. More and more sustainable..

 

[Papageorgio]

Number 2 Uline is a republican

Citadel's billionaire CEO, Ken Griffin

And remember, publically if they donate $25 million to democrats that's called hedging your bet. They gave double to the GOP. Probably dark money. SuperPac money.

Wake up dummy

I was looking at totals for all years dummy.

 

[Papageorgio]

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich​

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

Want to see who Republicans care about? Check their anti-poor budget.​

We asked every Republican in the sample to do their best to imagine that they were a Democrat and sincerely believed that the Democratic Party was best for the country. We asked them to explain their support for the Democratic Party as an actual Democratic voter might. For example, a 64-year-old strong Republican man from Illinois surmised that “Democrats want to help the poor, save Social Security, and tax the rich.”

But most had trouble looking at the world through Democratic eyes. Typical was a a 59-year-old Floridian who wrote “I don’t want to work and I want cradle to grave assistance. In other words, Mommy!” Indeed, roughly one in six Republican voters answered in the persona of a Democratic voter who is motivated “free college,” “free health care,” “free welfare,” and so on. They see Democrats as voting in order to get “free stuff” “without having to work for it” was extremely common – roughly one in six Republican voters used the word “free” in the their answers, whereas no real Democratic voters in our sample answered this way.

Among the Republicans who seemed to try hardest to take the perspective of sincere and patriotic Democratic voters, the most common attributions were related to immigration – a topic made salient by President Trump in his campaign stops during the last month of the election. As in this Republican woman from Washington who said, “Democrats welcome all people into the country whether they are here legally or not.”

Americans not only divided, but baffled by what motivates their opponents - The McCourtney Institute for Democracy

democracy.psu.edu

You've been brainwashed by the right.

Now what we think about you guys is true.

Democrats inferred that Republicans must be “VERY ill-informed,” or that “Fox news told me to vote for Republicans.” Or that Republicans are “uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.”

Many also attributed votes to individual self-interest – whereas GOP voters feel Democrats want “free stuff,” many Democrats believe Republicans think that “I got mine and don’t want the libs to take it away,” or that “some day I will be rich and then I can get the benefits that rich people get now.”

Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side. Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, “I like a dictatorial system of Government, I’m a racist, I hate non-whites.”

Gee, a far left site blaming Republicans, that is so crazy.

 

[Rumpole]

Clarence Thomas must be removed from the Supreme Court!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concealed decades of lavish, expensive gifts from a Republican donor. He has ties to insurrectionists via his wife Ginni Thomas and voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. His continued presence threatens the credibility of the nation's highest court. SIGN THE...

sign.moveon.org

Damning new reports show that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has concealed decades of expensive gifts he received from billionaire Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.

These new revelations add a new level of corruption to Thomas's profile. We already knew that Thomas has abused his position—from refusing to recuse himself from cases regarding his wife's involvement in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election to crusading on behalf of his right-wing allies to overturn abortion access and so much more.

It has become clear that his wife—longtime conservative activist Ginni Thomas—was actively urging the White House to overturn election results both leading up to January 6 and after the deadly insurrection. Thomas' failure to recuse himself from cases about January 6 warrants immediate investigation and heightened alarm. And it's only the latest in a long history of conflicts of interest in the service of a right-wing agenda and mixing his powerful role with his conservative political activism. He has shown he cannot be an impartial justice and is more concerned with covering up his wife's coup attempts than the health of the Supreme Court.

Thomas—who sided with the majority on overturning Roe and removing nationwide legal protections for abortions—made it clear in that ruling what the right-wing court could do next: overturn high court rulings that establish gay rights and contraception rights.

And while he carries this right-wing agenda, he accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from a right-wing megadonors.

Ever since his confirmation hearings more than 30 years ago, the public has questioned Thomas's ethics and behavior. His abuse of power, his conflicts of interest, and his secrecy about his financial and political ties make him unfit to serve.

He must resign—or Congress must immediately investigate and impeach.

It's time to impeach Thomas. Why? If his confirmation hearing and credible testimony from Anita Hill of sex predation wasn't bad enough, and for not recusing himself over his wife's involvement with the 1/6 conspirators, and now, his receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of 'things of value' trips, jet jaunts to exotic places, hotels, yachts, fabulous times, all from a billionaire, an failing to report it, an abuse of the rule that they don't have to report occasional gifts from friends, it's time to impeach; clearly this is a violation of the spirit of this rule, not to mention the concept that Supreme Court justices really need to be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I recall (I think in an interview, I forget) that he claims he got positive reinforcement from others, but did he ask one of the other liberal justices? Of course not, and the fact that he didn't is testament to why he should be impeached.

I can only imagine if this were one of the liberal justices, I mean, the right would be foaming with outrage, but now they are defending Thomas. Hell, they won't ask Trump, who how has committed crimes in front of God and everyone, why would they impeach Thomas?

And who is this billionaire who has literally been subsidizing Thomas's life? He is Harland Crow, Chairman of Crow Holdings, and on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank heavily invested in promoting conservative causes.

You think the AEI would have an interest in purchasing a vote from Thomas?

Check out their website: Home

This is the one justice whom they no doubt selected because he's a pervert (Anita Hill is credible, in my opinion and after watching her testify, there is no way she is lying), and perverts are the easier to corrupt.

And what face does Thomas want us to believe about who he is?

You know, I don’t have any problem with going to Europe. But I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States. I prefer going across the rural areas. I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that. I prefer being around that. --Justice Clarence Thomas, from the documentary, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas, in his own words".

And wouldn't you know? That documentary was financed by, you guessed it, Harlan Crow

WHEN A JUSTICE’S LIFESTYLE IS BEING SUBSIDIZED BY THE RICH AND FAMOUS, IT ABSOLUTELY CORRODES PUBLIC TRUST. QUITE FRANKLY, IT MAKES MY HEART SINK.

—Virginia Canter, former government ethics lawyer

It's time to impeach this corrupt justice. And, FYI, Propublica has documented everything, receipts, travel vouchers, the works, they dug deep on this story.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges’ conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said.

“It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

 

[odanny]

What I would find most amusing were if this to be attempted, the rightwing in these United States accusing those calling for his impeachment to be guilty of "racism" would be gold, and that would be worth the cost of a ticket.

 

[Auld Phart]

Clarence Thomas must be removed from the Supreme Court!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concealed decades of lavish, expensive gifts from a Republican donor. He has ties to insurrectionists via his wife Ginni Thomas and voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. His continued presence threatens the credibility of the nation's highest court. SIGN THE...

sign.moveon.org

It's time to impeach Thomas. Why? If his confirmation hearing and credible testimony from Anita Hill of sex predation wasn't bad enough, and for not recusing himself over his wife's involvement with the 1/6 conspirators, and now, his receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of 'things of value' trips, jet jaunts to exotic places, hotels, yachts, fabulous times, all from a billionaire, an failing to report it, an abuse of the rule that they don't have to report occasional gifts from friends, it's time to impeach; clearly this is a violation of the spirit of this rule, not to mention the concept that Supreme Court justices really need to be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I recall (I think in an interview, I forget) that he claims he got positive reinforcement from others, but did he ask one of the other liberal justices? Of course not, and the fact that he didn't is testament to why he should be impeached.

I can only imagine if this were one of the liberal justices, I mean, the right would be foaming with outrage, but now they are defending Thomas. Hell, they won't ask Trump, who how has committed crimes in front of God and everyone, why would they impeach Thomas?

And who is this billionaire who has literally been subsidizing Thomas's life? He is Harland Crow, Chairman of Crow Holdings, and on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank heavily invested in promoting conservative causes.

You think the AEI would have an interest in purchasing a vote from Thomas?

Check out their website: Home

This is the one justice whom they no doubt selected because he's a pervert (Anita Hill is credible, in my opinion and after watching her testify, there is no way she is lying), and perverts are the easier to corrupt.

And what face does Thomas want us to believe about who he is?

You know, I don’t have any problem with going to Europe. But I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States. I prefer going across the rural areas. I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that. I prefer being around that. --Justice Clarence Thomas, from the documentary, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas, in his own words".

And wouldn't you know? That documentary was financed by, you guessed it, Harlan Crow

WHEN A JUSTICE’S LIFESTYLE IS BEING SUBSIDIZED BY THE RICH AND FAMOUS, IT ABSOLUTELY CORRODES PUBLIC TRUST. QUITE FRANKLY, IT MAKES MY HEART SINK.

—Virginia Canter, former government ethics lawyer

It's time to impeach this corrupt justice. And, FYI, Propublica has documented everything, receipts, travel vouchers, the works, they dug deep on this story.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges’ conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said.

“It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

 

[basquebromance]

you might think that Thomas would be mandated to disclose these gifts—perhaps under the post-Watergate Ethics in Government Act or the disclosure filing instructions of the federal Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which stipulate that gifts aggregating more than $415 in value annually from any one source were generally required to be reported.

But there’s a loophole, at least a partial one—an exception for “personal hospitality of any individual.” In his statement Friday, Justice Thomas referred to the vacations as “personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court.” Likewise, the real estate magnate Crow, in a statement of his own, said he’d extended “hospitality” to the Thomases “over the years.”

So there you have it. Justices must disclose gifts that exceed $415 except for $500,000 gifts of “hospitality” from individuals. But note, the hospitality must be “at the personal residence of that individual or . . . on property or facilities owned by that individual” (emphasis added).

(Can you just hear Crow’s invitation: “Clarence, how would you like to fly with me to Indonesia on one of my facilities?”)

Apparently, because to a textualist like Justice Thomas the language wasn’t clear enough, last month, new filing instructions from the Administrative Office of the Courts expressly stated the obvious: that free “transportation”—say, on a yacht or private jet—is more than “hospitality” and must be reported.

 

[Hossfly]

Clarence Thomas must be removed from the Supreme Court!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concealed decades of lavish, expensive gifts from a Republican donor. He has ties to insurrectionists via his wife Ginni Thomas and voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. His continued presence threatens the credibility of the nation's highest court. SIGN THE...

sign.moveon.org

It's time to impeach Thomas. Why? If his confirmation hearing and credible testimony from Anita Hill of sex predation wasn't bad enough, and for not recusing himself over his wife's involvement with the 1/6 conspirators, and now, his receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of 'things of value' trips, jet jaunts to exotic places, hotels, yachts, fabulous times, all from a billionaire, an failing to report it, an abuse of the rule that they don't have to report occasional gifts from friends, it's time to impeach; clearly this is a violation of the spirit of this rule, not to mention the concept that Supreme Court justices really need to be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I recall (I think in an interview, I forget) that he claims he got positive reinforcement from others, but did he ask one of the other liberal justices? Of course not, and the fact that he didn't is testament to why he should be impeached.

I can only imagine if this were one of the liberal justices, I mean, the right would be foaming with outrage, but now they are defending Thomas. Hell, they won't ask Trump, who how has committed crimes in front of God and everyone, why would they impeach Thomas?

And who is this billionaire who has literally been subsidizing Thomas's life? He is Harland Crow, Chairman of Crow Holdings, and on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank heavily invested in promoting conservative causes.

You think the AEI would have an interest in purchasing a vote from Thomas?

Check out their website: Home

This is the one justice whom they no doubt selected because he's a pervert (Anita Hill is credible, in my opinion and after watching her testify, there is no way she is lying), and perverts are the easier to corrupt.

And what face does Thomas want us to believe about who he is?

You know, I don’t have any problem with going to Europe. But I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States. I prefer going across the rural areas. I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that. I prefer being around that. --Justice Clarence Thomas, from the documentary, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas, in his own words".

And wouldn't you know? That documentary was financed by, you guessed it, Harlan Crow

WHEN A JUSTICE’S LIFESTYLE IS BEING SUBSIDIZED BY THE RICH AND FAMOUS, IT ABSOLUTELY CORRODES PUBLIC TRUST. QUITE FRANKLY, IT MAKES MY HEART SINK.

—Virginia Canter, former government ethics lawyer

It's time to impeach this corrupt justice. And, FYI, Propublica has documented everything, receipts, travel vouchers, the works, they dug deep on this story.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges’ conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said.

“It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

Thanks for the information. Thomas is guilty as sin. Let's form a lynching tonight, cut off his nuts and put his wife in jail.