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. 

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

You don't put weed in your baked goods. I would have swore you did and had a few before posting

[Doc]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

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

 

This is dumb.  Even for you.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, Pokebball said:

You and Kav have something in common

except he's a d!ck..

[SectionC3]

17 hours ago, Doc said:

 

This is dumb.  Even for you.

I would have a wittier response, but I’m preoccupied this morning with thinking about all of those poor fools who had COVID and to whom you recommended taking a mouthful of HCQ with a pinch of zinc.  I hope they’re still alive.  But if they’re not I hope they’re having a nice chat with Jesus about the importance of guns and rationalizing their love for the Prince of Peace with their support for casual possession of military-grade weaponry by the populous.  Maybe one of those kids who had their face blown off in Texas can chime in up there, too.  

17 hours ago, Pokebball said:

You don't put weed in your baked goods. I would have swore you did and had a few before posting

The combination of weed and baked goods lends itself to the question whether two wrongs make a right.  I don’t use baked goods, and I have never used weed.  I don’t intend to take up either habit in the future.  So I’m not the one to comment.  But I bet your MAGA pals would respond to the issue by saying something along the lines of “a Democrat one time at band camp ate a hash brownie, so it’s OK if Clarence Thomas takes a luxury vacation financed entirely by a person who may or may not have pending litigation before him!”  MAGA logic.  Gotta love it.  

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I would have a wittier response, but I’m preoccupied this morning with thinking about all of those poor fools who had COVID and to whom you recommended taking a mouthful of HCQ with a pinch of zinc.  I hope they’re still alive.  But if they’re not I hope they’re having a nice chat with Jesus about the importance of guns and rationalizing their love for the Prince of Peace with their support for casual possession of military-grade weaponry by the populous.  Maybe one of those kids who had their face blown off in Texas can chime in up there, too.  

 

As opposed to taking...what?  Tell me what was available in the early stages of Wuhan virus?  Masks and 6 feet?  LOL!  Once the vaccines came out it was a different ballgame, sport.  

[SectionC3]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

As opposed to taking...what?  Tell me what was available in the early stages of Wuhan virus?  Masks and 6 feet?  LOL!  Once the vaccines came out it was a different ballgame, sport.  

Those who peddle false hope must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  Responsibility and caution were available in the early stages of COVID-19.  The misinformation with respect to the benefits of HCQ assuredly encouraged some to avoid that caution, to expose themselves and others to illness, to unnecessarily clog medical facilities, and, in some instances, to die.  So you can play your games about Wuhan this and zinc that.   But the reality is that you were an ardent purveyor of false hope and snake oil cures.  And you were dead wrong.  

[B-Man]

 

REMINDER: what this is REALLY about.

 

The Left-Wing Assault on the Supreme Court

 

 

Activists have concluded that since they lack ideological control over the Court, it must be delegitimized.

 

From the New Deal to well past the Reagan era, progressives serenely regarded the United States Supreme Court, and thus the third branch of government overall, as being securely in their hands. The pieties they mouthed during this period — about the sacredness of Marbury v. Madison and the importance of judicial independence to a vital republic — had the distinct virtue of being true.

 

But this language was equally a means to a rhetorical end during an era when the rulings of the Court’s liberal majority securely tended towards the expansion and centralization of federal government power or the passage of nationwide social legislation via judicial fiat, as in Roe v. Wade. The Court’s legitimacy was not to be questioned because the Court was accomplishing progressive goals in sweeping fashion and often with minimal theoretical attachment to inconvenient constitutional text or history.

 

Once progressives began, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, to realize they might one day lose this all-important preeminence, their attitude toward the Court began to shift. Their initial tactic was pitiless defense: The politicization of Supreme Court confirmation battles is an ongoing chapter in our national politics that began with the infamous 1987 Robert Bork confirmation hearings, in which Ted Kennedy demagogued one of America’s most conscientious legal scholars into a cartoonish demon for no other reason than that Roe v. Wade was thought to be on the line. (He was not wrong: The replacement nominee for Bork was none other than Anthony Kennedy, who soon joined the incoherent Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision reaffirming Roe.)

 

This continues to the present day. Democratic Supreme Court nominees inevitably sail through confirmation with minimum procedural fuss and the required political theatrics; Republican nominees receive invasive exams from the media and get accused of everything from sexual harassment (Thomas) to gang rape (Kavanaugh) to Catholicism (Barrett).

 

 

 

But now that Dobbs has shown not only that the Supreme Court has been definitively lost to progressives for the immediate future but also that the justices cannot be intimidated out of their constitutional principles, progressives have shifted to offense. It is a deeply ominous development for the country. The apocalyptic tone of left-wing commentary since the Court overturned Roe has now evolved into a smear campaign against the integrity of the originalist wing of the Court, a rash of stories all curiously appearing in serial rollout suggesting financial compromise or corruption on the part of Justices Gorsuch, Roberts, and Thomas. That the claims are spurious when not outright farcical is beside the point; the point is to throw enough dust into the air to trigger a “where there’s smoke there must be fire” instinct in low-information voters.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/the-left-wing-assault-on-the-supreme-court/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BringMetheHeadofLeonLett]

He's not conflicted, he's totally compromised.  He needs to step down.  

[BringMetheHeadofLeonLett]

45 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

REMINDER: what this is REALLY about.

 

The Left-Wing Assault on the Supreme Court

 

 

Activists have concluded that since they lack ideological control over the Court, it must be delegitimized.

 

From the New Deal to well past the Reagan era, progressives serenely regarded the United States Supreme Court, and thus the third branch of government overall, as being securely in their hands. The pieties they mouthed during this period — about the sacredness of Marbury v. Madison and the importance of judicial independence to a vital republic — had the distinct virtue of being true.

 

But this language was equally a means to a rhetorical end during an era when the rulings of the Court’s liberal majority securely tended towards the expansion and centralization of federal government power or the passage of nationwide social legislation via judicial fiat, as in Roe v. Wade. The Court’s legitimacy was not to be questioned because the Court was accomplishing progressive goals in sweeping fashion and often with minimal theoretical attachment to inconvenient constitutional text or history.

 

Once progressives began, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, to realize they might one day lose this all-important preeminence, their attitude toward the Court began to shift. Their initial tactic was pitiless defense: The politicization of Supreme Court confirmation battles is an ongoing chapter in our national politics that began with the infamous 1987 Robert Bork confirmation hearings, in which Ted Kennedy demagogued one of America’s most conscientious legal scholars into a cartoonish demon for no other reason than that Roe v. Wade was thought to be on the line. (He was not wrong: The replacement nominee for Bork was none other than Anthony Kennedy, who soon joined the incoherent Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision reaffirming Roe.)

 

This continues to the present day. Democratic Supreme Court nominees inevitably sail through confirmation with minimum procedural fuss and the required political theatrics; Republican nominees receive invasive exams from the media and get accused of everything from sexual harassment (Thomas) to gang rape (Kavanaugh) to Catholicism (Barrett).

 

 

 

But now that Dobbs has shown not only that the Supreme Court has been definitively lost to progressives for the immediate future but also that the justices cannot be intimidated out of their constitutional principles, progressives have shifted to offense. It is a deeply ominous development for the country. The apocalyptic tone of left-wing commentary since the Court overturned Roe has now evolved into a smear campaign against the integrity of the originalist wing of the Court, a rash of stories all curiously appearing in serial rollout suggesting financial compromise or corruption on the part of Justices Gorsuch, Roberts, and Thomas. That the claims are spurious when not outright farcical is beside the point; the point is to throw enough dust into the air to trigger a “where there’s smoke there must be fire” instinct in low-information voters.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/the-left-wing-assault-on-the-supreme-court/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No B-Man, it's about a man who no longer has the moral ground to serve in a position which demands, by its own existence ,the best traits humanity can possibly present.   Clarence Thomas has chosen to hide actions he knew were very questionable. 

[B-Man]

 

34 minutes ago, SUNY_amherst said:

 

 

36 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said:

 

 

 

He is not going to step down.

 

Despite all of the fairy tales being spun.

 

Not ONE example of a case that his opinion has been 'compromised' on  has been given.

 

Why is that ?

 

 

Don't bother, there isn't any.

 

 

.

[Doc]

49 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Those who peddle false hope must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  Responsibility and caution were available in the early stages of COVID-19.  The misinformation with respect to the benefits of HCQ assuredly encouraged some to avoid that caution, to expose themselves and others to illness, to unnecessarily clog medical facilities, and, in some instances, to die.  So you can play your games about Wuhan this and zinc that.   But the reality is that you were an ardent purveyor of false hope and snake oil cures.  And you were dead wrong.  

 

Peddled false hope?  As opposed to no hope, much less treatments at the time?  Just masks and social distancing?  No wait Trump had stock in HCQ and it was dangerous.  You moron.

 

Tell me how great Joke did with Wuhan virus.  Did he "shut it down"?  Did he even do the same as Trump despite vaccines and treatments?  

 

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

He is not going to step down.

 

Despite all of the fairy tales being spun.

 

Not ONE example of a case that his opinion has been 'compromised' on  has been given.

 

Why is that ?

 

 

Don't bother, there isn't any.

 

Yup, he's not going anywhere.

[SectionC3]

29 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Peddled false hope?  As opposed to no hope, much less treatments at the time?  Just masks and social distancing?  No wait Trump had stock in HCQ and it was dangerous.  You moron.

 

Tell me how great Joke did with Wuhan virus.  Did he "shut it down"?  Did he even do the same as Trump despite vaccines and treatments?  

 

 

Yup, he's not going anywhere.

You’ve sacrificed the moral high ground by resorting to personal insults.  But it’s no surprise you’ve turned to an ad hominem attack given the indefensibility of your position.  You believed HCQ was an effective treatment for COVID and, without scientific support, you promoted the idea.  You misled, or at least attempted to mislead people, into believing that if they contracted COVID, then a reasonable treatment (HCQ) was available.  In point of fact, that was false.  Contrary to your misguided logic, false hope for an immediate effective treatment is much worse than no hope for such immediate treatment.  On this point, you were very wrong.  And, quite possibly, dead wrong.  

[sherpa]

49 minutes ago, SUNY_amherst said:

the supreme court is on increasinly thinner ice with the american people to begin with. the last thing they need is a pay for play scandal with Clarence Thomas like this.

 

Republicans should be asking for his resignation. It is highly important for the court to maintain its integrity

 

 

I believe this is a nonsense subject.

His integrity has never been challenged in any legitimate argument, and the absolute idiocy of Congress playing the holier than thou card when accepting donations in all this,  and far more, is scandalously hypocritical.

A joke.

Edited May 8, 2023 by sherpa

[Tiberius]

When Conservatives used to nominate and put judges on the court many of them turned much more liberal. Now with a steady stream of funding heading their way from Conservative mega donors, they are paying to keep the court Conservative., 

 

That's what is happening. Creating economic dependence 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

You’ve sacrificed the moral high ground by resorting to personal insults.  But it’s no surprise you’ve turned to an ad hominem attack given the indefensibility of your position.  You believed HCQ was an effective treatment for COVID and, without scientific support, you promoted the idea.  You misled, or at least attempted to mislead people, into believing that if they contracted COVID, then a reasonable treatment (HCQ) was available.  In point of fact, that was false.  Contrary to your misguided logic, false hope for an immediate effective treatment is much worse than no hope for such immediate treatment.  On this point, you were very wrong.  And, quite possibly, dead wrong.  

 

Again, tell me how Joke "shut down the virus."  And why not?

[nedboy7]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Again, tell me how Joke "shut down the virus."  And why not?

 

Just drink some bleach.  You still stressing over covid? 

[sherpa]

12 minutes ago, SUNY_amherst said:

 

It is not hypocritical because we can vote congressmen out in the next election if we don't like that they are accepting kickbacks. (thank God and the people who fought to make that happen)

 

Clarence Thomas has a lifetime position and as such should be holding himself to a higher standard

 

Yet. Still. Nobody has ever challenged his "standards," or questioned his integrity.

Could you be the first?

 

Our Congress' people accept all manner of political donations and have become rich in office, with no reasonable explanation.

Of course they can be voted out, but it is the reason we have people like Pelosi, Feinstein and a host of others way beyond their productivity age precisely because of political money that they leverage into life-long influence, not because they are "smart."

 

If people want to go after Thomas, impeach him and provide evidence.

If not, shut up.

Edited May 8, 2023 by sherpa

[Doc]

11 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

Just drink some bleach.  You still stressing over covid? 

 

Oh so now it's "drink some bleach."  LOL!

 

And no, not stressing.  I just want an answer as to why Joke was worse with Wuhan virus despite vaccines and treatments.  But 3rd chair will deflect because he knows that answering truthfully will mean he can't blame Trump for Wuhan virus.

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Oh so now it's "drink some bleach."  LOL!

 

And no, not stressing.  I just want an answer as to why Joke was worse with Wuhan virus despite vaccines and treatments.  But 3rd chair will deflect because he knows that answering truthfully will mean he can't blame Trump for Wuhan virus.

That’s not the issue.  This began as an exchange with respect to your peddling of dangerous misinformation with respect to the viability of HCQ as a treatment for COVID.  Your complaint with respect to the handling of the COVID-19 issue by a certain political administration has nothing to do with your campaign of misinformation and your repeated deflection of responsibility for your actions.  I believe MAGA calls your approach gaslighting.  Whatever the proper nomenclature, the point remains that you were an unabashed peddler of dangerous information with respect to the viability of HCQ as an effective treatment for COVID-19. 

11 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Yet. Still. Nobody has ever challenged his "standards," or questioned his integrity.

Could you be the first?

 

Our Congress' people accept all manner of political donations and have become rich in office, with no reasonable explanation.

Of course they can be voted out, but it is the reason we have people like Pelosi, Feinstein and a host of others way beyond their productivity age precisely because of political money that they leverage into life-long influence, not because they are "smart."

 

If people want to go after Thomas, impeach him and provide evidence.

If not, shut up.

Wouldn’t you want the evidence to precede the impeachment?  I realize that MAGA has some strangle ethics and many warped beliefs, but your process is a little odd even for the red hat crew.  Unless, of course, this is some sort of Trojan horse for a MAGA plan to later impeach a certain official (say, President Biden), and then to manufacture evidence sufficient to support a conviction.  

 

MAGA is many things.  One of them is illustrative of the importance of a sound civics education, and of the danger in people who never paid attention in school suddenly believing themselves to be experts in such things as the federal constitution and procedural law.  

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, SUNY_amherst said:

the supreme court is on increasinly thinner ice with the american people to begin with. the last thing they need is a pay for play scandal with Clarence Thomas like this.

 

Republicans should be asking for his resignation. It is highly important for the court to maintain its integrity

 

I completely agree with this.  The institution is under duress.  If there were a republican administration, then I suspect there would be calls for him to go.  Everything this Court does with a majority vote from Thomas is subject to criticism.  And, if I was looking to dump precedent decades from now (generally a very bad approach, to be clear), I’d cite pay to play as a reason to change the law.