Clarence Thomas IS conflicted

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

What about Sotomayor and Penguin Random House? 

Apparently she presided over cases that involved them as well after receiving several million dollars in advances? 
 

wonder if those book recovered this ‘advances’
 

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Again, he, a conservative judge, was having his conservative votes bought by a conservative donor?  Is that what you're going with?

I’ll help him out since your response probably flew right over.

 

I came up with buying a scoutus Justice might avail you early insight into decision before it hits the news or is even revealed.
 

For decisions with equity implications for example, that could be lucrative. 

[BillStime]

 

 

[Wacka]

14 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

Clarence wreaks of dung from working the fields doing his maters bidding

Bigot says what?

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

19 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

Clarence wreaks of dung from working the fields doing his maters bidding

Brought to by a card carrying member of the Democratic Party.. Americas original racist faction still alive well and prejudiced 

 

oh and tibs loves it too… 

 

no surprise 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Brought to by a card carrying member of the Democratic Party.. Americas original racist faction still alive well and prejudiced 

 

oh and tibs loves it too… 

 

no surprise 

I don't have much respect for Uncle Tom's.  Probably similar to conservatives views of white freedom riders by southerners during the civil rights marches.

[BillsFanNC]

@redtail hawk is a racist? 

 

how shocking. 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

I don't have much respect for Uncle Tom's.  Probably similar to conservatives views of white freedom riders by southerners during the civil rights marches.

this is the Democratic position. PoC are a useful tool to gain power and divide, but those true latent supremacy instincts show themselves viscerally when PoC dares to have a different opinion. 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Tiberius]

So corrupt, a bought and paid for judge 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So corrupt, a bought and paid for judge 

could be, What was bought? Was he pro abortion before? 😂 

 

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

could be, What was bought? Was he pro abortion before? 😂 

 

So this is ok, huh? R by his name, so corruption not bad, sad 

[Westside]

12 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Probably not, but it looks bad. To the American public, it looks like the billionaire elites can buy a Supreme Court Justice.

 

Is that something not worth at least looking into?

If china can buy a president, which you seem not to care about, then I’m sure a judge could be bought as well.

[BillStime]

8 minutes ago, Westside said:

If china can buy a president, which you seem not to care about, then I’m sure a judge could be bought as well.

 

Great talking point... where are the receipts?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Misreading the Court

 

The judiciary is the most important reasoning institution not controlled by the left. Universities are dominated by left-leaning professors, and the media by left-leaning journalists. In a superb article, Ralph Lerner recognized the political importance of the Court’s public reasoning, seeing it as a “republican schoolmaster” articulating the constitutional principles that should guide the polity. But the Court’s opinions are necessarily refracted for most citizens through journalists and academics, almost all of whom today are hostile to its views and to the justices in the majority. As a result, the current Court majority has far more difficulty than past Courts in putting its case to the American people.

 

 

Joan Biskupic’s Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court’s Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences exemplifies the many ways that journalists today hinder the transmission of the Roberts Court’s ideas. Despite presenting itself as an account of the Court’s development since 2016, the book rarely describes the jurisprudential wellsprings behind the Court’s decisions, and when it does describe them, it is incorrect and biased. It also flattens and caricatures the justices most frequently in the majority as political actors who are moving the law in the direction of their political patrons. It also tends to personalize the justices’ disagreements, rather than recognizing the profound and legitimate contests over the nature of law.

 

The difficulties of our partisan times are all the more reason we need Supreme Court reporters who take the time to explain the justices’ reasoning and the jurisprudence that increasingly inspires them, even if they are then critical of that work. Their job demands fair readings of decisions no less than originalism demands fair readings of the Constitution’s text.

 

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/misreading-the-court/

 

 

 

Instead we get gutter pieces designed to influence rather than report.

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, Westside said:

If china can buy a president, which you seem not to care about, then I’m sure a judge could be bought as well.

 

Well, yeah. I don't worry about made up things. 

[ChiGoose]

Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’s wife, urged ‘no mention of Ginni’

 

"In January 2012, Leo instructed the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use that money to pay Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the documents show. The same year, the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in a landmark voting rights case.

 

Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25K,” the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

 

Conway’s firm, the Polling Company, sent the Judicial Education Project a $25,000 bill that day. Per Leo’s instructions, it listed the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting,” the documents show.

 

In all, according to the documents, the Polling Company paid Thomas’s firm, Liberty Consulting, $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012, and it expected to pay $20,000 more before the end of 2012. The documents reviewed by The Post do not indicate the precise nature of any work Thomas did for the Judicial Education Project or the Polling Company."

 

And before the usual crowd tries to spin this into something it's not: it's totally fine for the wife of a Supreme Court Justice to have a job, even one that is in the same legal realm as the Court. But their work should be aboveboard with clear disclosures on where the money comes from.

 

Having a judicial activism organization that picks the nominees for the court and tries to influence the Court's decisions also secretly bankroll the spouse of a member of the court certainly *looks* like corruption. Maybe these kinds of payments should be required to be public so the American people can know where there may be potential conflicts of interest.

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Westside]

9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Well, yeah. I don't worry about made up things. 

Try harder

[BillsFanNC]

The classic @ChiGoose playbook.

 

Everything single thing even hinting at dem malfeasance?

 

That's made up.

 

 

And yes @ChiGoose youre still on ignore. Unfortunately the ignore function doesn't work with quoted posts. Not that you'd know since you can't even figure out how to disable those harassing notifications that you constantly whine about.

 

So people help poor 'ol chigoose out and stop quoting him please. 

 

Quick, now go post another LAMP in the PPP harassment thread.

Edited May 5, 2023 by BillsFanNC

[BillStime]

29 minutes ago, Westside said:

Try harder

 

That would be you.

 

 

17 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

The classic @ChiGoose playbook.

 

Everything single thing even hinting at dem malfeasance?

 

That's made up.

 

 

And yes @ChiGoose youre still on ignore. Unfortunately the ignore function doesn't work with quoted posts. Not that you'd know since you can't even figure out how to disable those harassing notifications that you constantly whine about.

 

So people help poor 'ol chigoose out and stop quoting him please. 

 

Quick, now go post another LAMP in the PPP harassment thread.

 

receipts.... not talking points please.

 

thanks

 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

The left's desire to undermine our system and remove a check is not surprising.

 

Media's complicity in the effort is why they have a worse trust rating than a used car salesman.

 

But worst of all are the participants who otherwise lecture people about norms actively supporting it.

 

So profound, Bonnie AG

 

 

And AG - undermine our system and remove a check????

 

TRUMP DID THAT HIS ENTIRE F'n PRESIDENCY. 

 

jfc - you never think man - you never think.

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

this is the Democratic position. PoC are a useful tool to gain power and divide, but those true latent supremacy instincts show themselves viscerally when PoC dares to have a different opinion. 

when they dare to take bribes from "the man" against the interests of the greater good and for their personal benefit... that's what Uncle Tom means

Edited May 5, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

17 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

when they dare to take bribes from "the man" against the interests of the greater good and for their personal benefit... that's what Uncle Tom means

 

 

And You don’t care about bribes. You ball wash politicians on the take constantly provided they are ‘your’ people. 
 

maybe he is corrupt, it smells fishy (not Biden suitcases of millions of dollars from foreign adversary shell corporation fishy, but fishy), I’d just be interested to know what influence was bought from a conservative judge with a conservative voting record by a conservative businessman.  

[BillStime]

28 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

 

And You don’t care about bribes. You ball wash politicians on the take constantly provided they are ‘your’ people. 
 

maybe he is corrupt, it smells fishy (not Biden suitcases of millions of dollars from foreign adversary shell corporation fishy, but fishy), I’d just be interested to know what influence was bought from a conservative judge with a conservative voting record by a conservative businessman.  

“Independent” says what?

 

Any independent defending this is not an independent - you are a:
 

cc: @Doc

[BillStime]

What would Reagan say?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

The Left's plan is obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SectionC3]

He’s made some poor choices.  His nonsense imperils the credibility of a fine institution.  It’s too bad he couldn’t resist temptation, although that seems to be a theme in his life.  

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Kemp]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:26 PM, Doc said:

 

Again, he, a conservative judge, was having his conservative votes bought by a conservative donor?  Is that what you're going with?

 

He was accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps more, and hiding it. So, you're okay with buying supreme Court Justices?

If there's nothing wrong with what he did, why did he hide it?

If Soros had done the same for a Dem justice, the investigations would already be underway in Congress and you and yours would be throwing hissy fits.

[Kemp]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:58 PM, BillStime said:

 

Both look bad Kemp - no exceptions. 

 

The Supreme Court needs a code of ethics.

 

 

 

Someone shouldn't be able to be paid for writing a book?

Should this apply to all in Congress, as well? 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

19 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

He was accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps more, and hiding it. So, you're okay with buying supreme Court Justices?

If there's nothing wrong with what he did, why did he hide it?

If Soros had done the same for a Dem justice, the investigations would already be underway in Congress and you and yours would be throwing hissy fits.

if soros did this for a dem justice you would have zero issue.   
 

Shocker it sounds like they are all doing it. Scoutus doesn’t pay that much, poor justices…. 

 

my question is what are you buying from a Justice when they are already in your ideological camp and don’t have cases before court? Is it insurance just in case, is it advance insight on rulings? 
 

 

 

[Pokebball]

24 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

if soros did this for a dem justice you would have zero issue.   
 

Shocker it sounds like they are all doing it. Scoutus doesn’t pay that much, poor justices…. 

 

my question is what are you buying from a Justice when they are already in your ideological camp and don’t have cases before court? Is it insurance just in case, is it advance insight on rulings? 
 

 

 

Transparency is occurring in these hearings, showing all of the justices have done similar things. None of them were "hiding" it. It appears the rules for disclosure didn't require reporting, or at best, not clear in certain situations. Perhaps the rules need to be strengthened? 

 

Can we please move on to the business our electeds should be concerned with?

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

47 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Transparency is occurring in these hearings, showing all of the justices have done similar things. None of them were "hiding" it. It appears the rules for disclosure didn't require reporting, or at best, not clear in certain situations. Perhaps the rules need to be strengthened? 

 

Can we please move on to the business our electeds should be concerned with?

 

No

[BillStime]

 

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, Pokebball said:

Transparency is occurring in these hearings, showing all of the justices have done similar things. None of them were "hiding" it. It appears the rules for disclosure didn't require reporting, or at best, not clear in certain situations. Perhaps the rules need to be strengthened? 

 

Can we please move on to the business our electeds should be concerned with?

 

The justices aren’t electeds.
 

Everyone at that institution who has been on the take is wrong.  Plain and simple.  Thomas seems to have been far and away the most egregious offender. 

Edited May 6, 2023 by SectionC3

[Pokebball]

4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

The justices aren’t electeds.
 

Everyone at that institution who has been on the take is wrong.  Plain and simple.  Thomas seems to have been far and away the most egregious offender. 

Offender? It's been shown that RBG and Brier took more trips on a Dems dime. And I'll say again, I believe all, based on what has come to light, have reported consistently, to the existing standard. If we want the standard raised, we can change that prospectively.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Pokebball

[SectionC3]

3 hours ago, Pokebball said:

Offender? It's been shown that RBG and Brier took more trips on a Dems dime. And I'll say again, I believe all, based on what has come to light, have reported consistently, to the existing standard. If we want the standard raised, we can change that prospectively.

More trips or trips of greater value?  I'm sure Ted Cruz and you would have told me if RBG went on a half-million dollar excursion to Indonesia with George Soros or Ron Burkle.  

 

The bottom line is what Clarence Thomas has done is wrong.  Incredibly wrong.  It's bad for the institution.  The truth is that, were the Bush Republicans in charge and were this a Republican administration, the obvious solution would be for him to resign.  But, in a MAGA world and with a Democratic president, MAGA will defend this guy and deflect by trying to find something wrong with someone else. 

[Pokebball]

26 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

More trips or trips of greater value?  I'm sure Ted Cruz and you would have told me if RBG went on a half-million dollar excursion to Indonesia with George Soros or Ron Burkle.  

 

The bottom line is what Clarence Thomas has done is wrong.  Incredibly wrong.  It's bad for the institution.  The truth is that, were the Bush Republicans in charge and were this a Republican administration, the obvious solution would be for him to resign.  But, in a MAGA world and with a Democratic president, MAGA will defend this guy and deflect by trying to find something wrong with someone else. 

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.

 

[SectionC3]

14 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.

 

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. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by SectionC3