Clarence Thomas IS conflicted

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Yes.  The idea was to create outrage over the impending ruling.  Who (at the SC) would be outraged and where would it get the maximum effect?  Again a liberal and a liberal outlet.

You like to make a lot of assumptions, don’t you?
 

Why leak it to a NatSec reporter and not someone on the SCOTUS beat?

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

You like to make a lot of assumptions, don’t you?
 

Why leak it to a NatSec reporter and not someone on the SCOTUS beat?

 

Your explanation as to why it was a conservative was nothing but assumptions.  Basically you worked back from the premise that since Roberts half-assed the investigation and/or is withholding the leaker, it must be a conservative.  Then you threw-in the off-the-wall theory that Roberts was responsible and/or happy about it because he didn't believe in overturning R v. W. 

 

I boiled it down to the basics: underling of liberal SCJ learns of impending verdict, gets pissed and leaks it to a major liberal site to generate maximum outrage in an attempt to exert public pressure to change the outcome.  No assumption at all.

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Your explanation as to why it was a conservative was nothing but assumptions.  Basically you worked back from the premise that since Roberts half-assed the investigation and/or is withholding the leaker, it must be a conservative.  Then you threw-in the off-the-wall theory that Roberts was responsible and/or happy about it because he didn't believe in overturning R v. W. 

 

I boiled it down to the basics: underling of liberal SCJ learns of impending verdict, gets pissed and leaks it to a major liberal site to generate maximum outrage in an attempt to exert public pressure to change the outcome.  No assumption at all.

I think that the liberal leaker was the obvious assumption off the bat. However, I do not believe Roberts would cover for a liberal clerk if it damaged the court to do so. 
 

Knowing that, it’s hard to square the idea that the investigation didn’t ask the justices to sign statements and didn’t turn up the leaker with the idea that it was a liberal clerk. 
 

At this point, it seems more likely that a Justice was involved than not. We also know of at least one Justice who has previously shared draft opinions with people outside the court before their release. 

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I think that the liberal leaker was the obvious assumption off the bat. However, I do not believe Roberts would cover for a liberal clerk if it damaged the court to do so. 
 

Knowing that, it’s hard to square the idea that the investigation didn’t ask the justices to sign statements and didn’t turn up the leaker with the idea that it was a liberal clerk. 
 

At this point, it seems more likely that a Justice was involved than not. We also know of at least one Justice who has previously shared draft opinions with people outside the court before their release. 

 

Yup, I covered that earlier as to why your whole premise is based solely on that assumption.  I'll admit saying that Roberts covering for a lib colleague is also an assumption on my part, but the rest of my premise isn't assumption and the most logical explanation.

 

And as an aside, do you think the JWHO regrets bringing this suit?

[reddogblitz]

I think it was leaked by a lefty cuz there was an election coming up.  It certainly got the base fired up.

 

Nothing fires up lefties more than telling them they can't abort their fetus.

Edited April 16, 2023 by reddogblitz

[ChiGoose]

44 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yup, I covered that earlier as to why your whole premise is based solely on that assumption.  I'll admit saying that Roberts covering for a lib colleague is also an assumption on my part, but the rest of my premise isn't assumption and the most logical explanation.

 

And as an aside, do you think the JWHO regrets bringing this suit?

No, I don’t think JWHO had much of a choice. I don’t think it’s their fault that SCOTUS decided to go beyond the remedy requested. 

 

39 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

I think it was leaked by a lefty cuz there was an election coming up.  It certainly got the base fired up.

 

Nothing fires up lefties more than telling them they can't abort their fetus.

If it wasn’t leaked, the opinion would have come out in the summer, closer to the election. There would be less time for the issue to fade.

 

In fact, there was concern by some on the left that Dobbs news would be too old to make a big impact in November. 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

No, I don’t think JWHO had much of a choice. I don’t think it’s their fault that SCOTUS decided to go beyond the remedy requested.

 

They could have not sued originally.  My question is, could they have withdrawn the suit before it reached SCOTUS?

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

If it wasn’t leaked, the opinion would have come out in the summer, closer to the election. There would be less time for the issue to fade.

 

In fact, there was concern by some on the left that Dobbs news would be too old to make a big impact in November

 

Perhaps. Unfortunately we will never know since the "investigation" didn't find the leaker.  

 

All we're left with is shade tree theories.

 

You have yours. I have mine.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

isn't the bigger story a sitting SCOTUS justice taking bribes.  What is with the defunct company he's collecting 6 figures from.  He should have resigned yesterday.  wtf?  how much does a SCOTUS justice make?  Can't he live nicely on that?

[ChiGoose]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

 

They could have not sued originally.  My question is, could they have withdrawn the suit before it reached SCOTUS?

I honestly don’t understand trying to blame them for the demise of Roe. 
 

Mississippi enacted an unconstitutional law that harmed JWHO, so they sued to stop it. It’s what literally anyone would and should do. 
 

Instead of upholding the constitutional standard, or alternatively, awarding the state of Mississippi the relief they sought (ruling their law as actually constitutional), SCOTUS decided to go beyond the case at hand and undo almost 50 years of law. 
 

If you’re looking for someone to blame for the end of Roe, judicial activism disguised as “originalism” is staring you right in the face.

 

You’re asking why they didn’t eschew the legal process and play politics instead, and in the process of doing so, bring harm upon the people they serve. I think your question answers itself. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

isn't the bigger story a sitting SCOTUS justice taking bribes.  What is with the defunct company he's collecting 6 figures from.  He should have resigned yesterday.  wtf?  how much does a SCOTUS justice make?  Can't he live nicely on that?

Bribed to do exactly what? 

[Tommy Callahan]

7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I honestly don’t understand trying to blame them for the demise of Roe. 
 

Mississippi enacted an unconstitutional law that harmed JWHO, so they sued to stop it. It’s what literally anyone would and should do. 
 

Instead of upholding the constitutional standard, or alternatively, awarding the state of Mississippi the relief they sought (ruling their law as actually constitutional), SCOTUS decided to go beyond the case at hand and undo almost 50 years of law. 
 

If you’re looking for someone to blame for the end of Roe, judicial activism disguised as “originalism” is staring you right in the face.

 

You’re asking why they didn’t eschew the legal process and play politics instead, and in the process of doing so, bring harm upon the people they serve. I think your question answers itself. 

Miss passed a law that was supported by the politicians voted in by the people of that state. A PAC funded by who knows who, took it to the supreme court.  maybe blame the pac and who funded it?

 

15 weeks would fall in line with every other western nation.  Now states are talking bans and 6 weeks. wouldn't even of gotten here without that PAC's actions, or bankroll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

8 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I honestly don’t understand trying to blame them for the demise of Roe. 
 

Mississippi enacted an unconstitutional law that harmed JWHO, so they sued to stop it. It’s what literally anyone would and should do. 
 

Instead of upholding the constitutional standard, or alternatively, awarding the state of Mississippi the relief they sought (ruling their law as actually constitutional), SCOTUS decided to go beyond the case at hand and undo almost 50 years of law. 
 

If you’re looking for someone to blame for the end of Roe, judicial activism disguised as “originalism” is staring you right in the face.

 

You’re asking why they didn’t eschew the legal process and play politics instead, and in the process of doing so, bring harm upon the people they serve. I think your question answers itself. 

 

SCOTUS would never have had a chance to overturn Roe if JWHO didn't bring the suit.  And as cf said, a 15 week ban is in-line with the majority of the world and a reasonable compromise.  The problem with libs is you want everything your way.  But actions have consequences so they should absolutely be regretting filing that suit and making it worse for everyone everywhere else.

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

SCOTUS would never have had a chance to overturn Roe if JWHO didn't bring the suit.  And as cf said, a 15 week ban is in-line with the majority of the world and a reasonable compromise.  The problem with libs is you want everything your way.  But actions have consequences so they should absolutely be regretting filing that suit and making it worse for everyone everywhere else.

idiots 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Bribed to do exactly what? 

did you ever consider that a guy who is sleazy enough to take $500k trips, have his mothers house bought, report income from a defunct company and throw who seems a perfectly lovely colleague (Anita Hill) to the wolves wouldn't stoop to threatening to vote against some important conservative agenda item if he wasn't paid off?

[Tommy Callahan]

25 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

did you ever consider that a guy who is sleazy enough to take $500k trips, have his mothers house bought, report income from a defunct company and throw who seems a perfectly lovely colleague (Anita Hill) to the wolves wouldn't stoop to threatening to vote against some important conservative agenda item if he wasn't paid off?

So just conjecture and some conspiracy.

 

 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

So just conjecture and some conspiracy.

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

So just conjecture and some conspiracy.

 

 

no, the bribery is documented...

[Doc]

1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:

did you ever consider that a guy who is sleazy enough to take $500k trips, have his mothers house bought, report income from a defunct company and throw who seems a perfectly lovely colleague (Anita Hill) to the wolves wouldn't stoop to threatening to vote against some important conservative agenda item if he wasn't paid off?

 

Almost as sleazy as having your kid on the board of a corrupt natural gas company, in a corrupt country to which you direct billions of dollars.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

42 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Almost as sleazy as having your kid on the board of a corrupt natural gas company, in a corrupt country to which you direct billions of dollars.

two wrongs make a right seems your go to argument.  They don't.