Clarence Thomas IS conflicted

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Paul Gigot writes in the Wall Street Journal’s morning editorial report email today”

 

Democrats and progressives now dominate nearly every leading political and cultural institution in America. The most important exception is the U.S. Supreme Court, which after many decades finally has a majority of originalist Justices. This is proving to be intolerable to Democrats and the press corps, which are unleashing a furious political attack on the current Court, especially Justice Clarence Thomas. Our James Taranto has been debunking these attacks, and he shows how the latest—a ProPublica report that Harlan Crow paid tuition for a great-nephew the Justice cared for—is no more a scandal than the others.

 

Gigot links to Taranto’s column “Alinskyites of the Left and Right Attack Thomas and Sotomayor” (behind the Journal’s paywall). Taranto notes that the Daily Caller’s Luke Rosiak has sought to right the balance of the leftist Democrat/media mob that has taken after Justice Thomas:

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/the-sotomayor-exception.php

Hoax. 

15 hours ago, Pokebball said:

You're the antithesis of MAGA, and hardly objective here. When confronted with facts that other SCOTUS have done similar things, you say yeah, but how much or how many times? You don't want to hold Thomas to the same standard others have followed. You want to hold him to your standard.

 

And for context, I didn't vote for Trump either time.

 

Hoax.  If I recall correctly, the confrontation you referred to is hearsay from Ted Cruz (hardly a reliable source even before he became an election denier) and perhaps Tucker Carlson.   

[Pokebball]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Define similar.  And, what two people who aren't there now may or may not have done is not the issue.  The question is the justice who is presently engulfed by a host of self-inflicted ethics issues. 

Define ethics issues. That's the problem before us. It appears to me the SCOTUS ethics system/process is what is in question. Is the current issue whether or not a SCOTUS may do what Thomas did? Is the issue the maximum number of times a SCOTUS can do what he did? Is the issue the maximum of the value of what one receives can be? Are these maximums annual, lifetime, or some other period? Or is the receipt of these not being disclosed the only issue? The system/process is what needs some definition. Your feelings to what those definitions should be are like belly buttons. We all have 'em. And worse yet, you want to apply your feelings or opinions to what the system should be retroactively. You think that's fair? You think that is what is best for America right now? If so, I think your nuts. As I said, that would be the antithesis of MAGA, which you claim to abhor.

 

To your question regarding "similar", if the current system/process allows something, it allows that something. You seem to be focused on the number or quantity, without number or quantity defined . If a friend can put you up for a night, they can put you up for a dozen nights.

 

Rather, I think the question is the process and the lack of definition around that process. I agree with you that the policy needs some work, definition and clarity. And then we apply it prospectively. We can't apply it retroactively like you seem to be suggesting. How's that fair to anyone? Yeah, fairness is really, really important right now with all of the charges of unequal application depending on one's party affiliation.

 

And one final thought. The suggestion that Congress should even be involved in this discussion and solution is most laughable. They are the most corrupt branch of our government, and certainly the least ethical.

17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax. 

Hoax.  If I recall correctly, the confrontation you referred to is hearsay from Ted Cruz (hardly a reliable source even before he became an election denier) and perhaps Tucker Carlson.   

Cruz has been one of many that have reported the other. Nonetheless, you should be considering the truth, not the source.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Pokebball

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, Pokebball said:

Define ethics issues. That's the problem before us. It appears to me the SCOTUS ethics system/process is what is in question. Is the current issue whether or not a SCOTUS may do what Thomas did? Is the issue the maximum number of times a SCOTUS can do what he did? Is the issue the maximum of the value of what one receives can be

Do you think Thomas knew that taking these "gifts" and not reporting them was unethical?  If he doesn't have that level of conscience, how can he ever be a fair and just judge? Should we not expect judges to independently assess what is and is not ethical?  Is that not part of the job?  Thomas failed that test epically especially in the eyes of the public.  Look at the results of the thread poll on a largely conservative site.  He has single handedly cheapened the integrity of the entire court.  Shame on him and anyone who supports him.

Edited May 7, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Pokebball]

41 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Do you think Thomas knew that taking these "gifts" and not reporting them was unethical?  If he doesn't have that level of conscience, how can he ever be a fair and just judge? Should we not expect judges to independently assess what is and is not ethical?  Is that not part of the job?  Thomas failed that test epically especially in the eyes of the public.  Look at the results of the thread poll on a largely conservative site.  He has single handedly cheapened the integrity of the entire court.  Shame on him and anyone who supports him.

Moral ethics? Legal ethics? Or perhaps a perception of one or the other?

 

What's the metric? The SCOTUS' code of conduct? Your personal opinion? My personal opinion? Those that were polled personal opinion? Frankly, if I were polled, my answer would probably be void of any empathy for the justices personally and I'd vote to have the perception of ethics pegged to the highest point possible. My response would honestly be without thoughtful consideration of what is reasonable.

 

Did the SCOTUS have any cases involving the donor. Directly? Indirectly? One of conflicts that has apparently surfaced during these hearings is that the ACLU, who has and always seems to have cases before the SCOTUS, flew Sotomayor on their dime to Puerto Rico (I think I've got the location correct). Without a doubt, a perception of ethical compromise.

 

To seriously answer your questions, I'd need to know much more information about the details involved as well as where your questions are based.

 

The SCOTUS, having members from both of the major parties, I think can monitor their own ethics themselves to a large degree, assuming they share such information with each other. We don't know how, if it all, this may be done? Should we know and consider this? Of course we should.

 

And to counter your opinion about who is responsible for cheapening the integrity of the court, I would say unequivocally, it's the Democrats. Schumer told us he was going to do it from the steps of the capitol three years ago. He's keeping his promise.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Pokebball

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Pokebball said:

Define ethics issues. That's the problem before us. It appears to me the SCOTUS ethics system/process is what is in question. Is the current issue whether or not a SCOTUS may do what Thomas did? Is the issue the maximum number of times a SCOTUS can do what he did? Is the issue the maximum of the value of what one receives can be? Are these maximums annual, lifetime, or some other period? Or is the receipt of these not being disclosed the only issue? The system/process is what needs some definition. Your feelings to what those definitions should be are like belly buttons. We all have 'em. And worse yet, you want to apply your feelings or opinions to what the system should be retroactively. You think that's fair? You think that is what is best for America right now? If so, I think your nuts. As I said, that would be the antithesis of MAGA, which you claim to abhor.

 

To your question regarding "similar", if the current system/process allows something, it allows that something. You seem to be focused on the number or quantity, without number or quantity defined . If a friend can put you up for a night, they can put you up for a dozen nights.

 

Rather, I think the question is the process and the lack of definition around that process. I agree with you that the policy needs some work, definition and clarity. And then we apply it prospectively. We can't apply it retroactively like you seem to be suggesting. How's that fair to anyone? Yeah, fairness is really, really important right now with all of the charges of unequal application depending on one's party affiliation.

 

And one final thought. The suggestion that Congress should even be involved in this discussion and solution is most laughable. They are the most corrupt branch of our government, and certainly the least ethical.

Cruz has been one of many that have reported the other. Nonetheless, you should be considering the truth, not the source.

So, no definition of similar, hearsay is now best evidence, and whatever Cruz said is true, irrespective of the degree of familiarity with the content that he and you may or may not have.  

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

So, no definition of similar, hearsay is now best evidence, and whatever Cruz said is true, irrespective of the degree of familiarity with the content that he and you may or may not have.  

Another self imposed stalemate due to my definition of similar. LOL

[Joe Ferguson forever]

16 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Did the SCOTUS have any cases involving the donor. Directly? Indirectly? One of conflicts that has apparently surfaced during these hearings is that the ACLU, who has and always seems to have cases before the SCOTUS, flew Sotomayor on their dime to Puerto Rico (I think I've got the location correct). Without a doubt, a perception of ethical compromise.

This is irrelevant.  What Thomas did is clearly unethical to the vast majority of unbiased observers or should be.  If Sotomayor is proven to have taken free gifts without reporting them, she should be censored or even removed too.  Your argument is analogous to a kid stealing a candy bar and defending himself by saying that there wasn't a sign in the store saying "don't put a candy bar in your pocket and walk out without paying" except in the case of SCOTUS justices, the consequences are potentially much more dire...

[Pokebball]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

This is irrelevant.  What Thomas did is clearly unethical to the vast majority of unbiased observers or should be.  If Sotomayor is proven to have taken free gifts without reporting them, she should be censored or even removed too.  Your argument is analogous to a kid stealing a candy bar and defending himself by saying that there wasn't a sign in the store saying "don't put a candy bar in your pocket and walk out without paying" except in the case of SCOTUS justices, the consequences are potentially much more dire...

This is not how the law works nor how it should work. We don't get to make our standards after the fact and apply 'em retroactively.

 

The laws against stealing a candy bar have been on the books for a long time. Wasn't it Abe Lincoln?

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

This is not how the law works nor how it should work. We don't get to make our standards after the fact and apply 'em retroactively.

 

The laws against stealing a candy bar have been on the books for a long time. Wasn't it Abe Lincoln?

 

Do you believe ethics and law are identical?

Edited May 7, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Pokebball]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

Do you believe ethics and law are identical?

No

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

No

QED.  or if u want to belabor it, is ethical conduct required and expected from justices?

Edited May 7, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Pokebball]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

QED.  or if u want to belabor it, is ethical conduct required and expected from justices?

Per the standard established by law, yes.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Just now, Pokebball said:

Per the standard established by law, yes.

lying is not illegal.  Kavanaugh knows unwanted sex in high school is not illegal if it can't be proven as are many unethical acts.  Are these acts ok for a justice?

[Doc]

24 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

lying is not illegal.  Kavanaugh knows unwanted sex in high school is not illegal if it can't be proven as are many unethical acts.  Are these acts ok for a justice?

 

Yeah, Blasey-Ford proved that.

[Pokebball]

33 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

lying is not illegal.  Kavanaugh knows unwanted sex in high school is not illegal if it can't be proven as are many unethical acts.  Are these acts ok for a justice?

Have a couple of beers my friend. Beer is good!

[Joe Ferguson forever]

42 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Have a couple of beers my friend. Beer is good!

i wrote this before a long island iced tea.  posts should improve from here.  been to more than a few frat parties.  never considered raping anyone.

Edited May 7, 2023 by redtail hawk

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, Pokebball said:

Another self imposed stalemate due to my definition of similar. LOL

Your definition of similar, to the extent such a definition was provided, is unique. Maybe it’s even idiosyncratic. I think before we go any further in this conversation, we should get a few people together so that perhaps we can have a bake sale to raise funds so that you might someday be able to buy a dictionary. You seem like you desperately need it.

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, Blasey-Ford proved that.

Hmmm.  HCQ man is calling someone else a liar.  Interesting. 

[Pokebball]

1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:

i wrote this before a long island iced tea.  posts should improve from here.  been to more than a few frat parties.  never considered raping anyone.

You and Kav have something in common

[Pokebball]

58 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Your definition of similar, to the extent such a definition was provided, is unique. Maybe it’s even idiosyncratic. I think before we go any further in this conversation, we should get a few people together so that perhaps we can have a bake sale to raise funds so that you might someday be able to buy a dictionary. You seem like you desperately need it.

Hmmm.  HCQ man is calling someone else a liar.  Interesting. 

Or we can ask the few people we get together their opinion of this issue

[SectionC3]

20 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Or we can ask the few people we get together their opinion of this issue

They probably will think you need a dictionary, too.  That much is inevitable.  If you’re taking about the bake sale issue, I generally don’t get in the weeds on such matters. I’d rather defer to the opinion of a glutton.  They typically have the keenest sense for baked goods.