Clarence Thomas IS conflicted

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Just making an observation that Thomas has been a Conservative for longer than he's known Crow.

But you don't think it's wrong this guy is pouring money into his pockets, right? It's all good, he has  an R by his name. 

 

I'm out of here have a good rest of the day 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:

Yup.  I'll bet everyone interpreted that from your vulgar post.

 

Just quoting Hak.

 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

But you don't think it's wrong this guy is pouring money into his pockets, right? It's all good, he has  an R by his name. 

 

I'm out of here have a good rest of the day 

 

He's been a conservative all his life.  But if he took improper payments, let the process play out.

[ChiGoose]

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

He's been a conservative all his life.  But if he took improper payments, let the process play out.

The process playing out:

 

The Chief Justice, coming off of his sham investigation of the Dobbs leak, does absolutely nothing of substance but releases a statement saying he has full confidence in Thomas. Maybe throws in another token sham investigation to pretend he looked into it and cleared him. 
 

The Dems, instead of using the Senate judiciary committee to investigate whether or not there is even more corruption or improper behavior from Thomas or any other Justice, point to Roberts’ statement as a justification for doing nothing. 
 

Thomas keeps on raking it in. 
 

The rest of us wonder how many other justices have been bought and paid for (who paid off Kavanaugh’s debts?).

[Doc]

15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The process playing out:

 

The Chief Justice, coming off of his sham investigation of the Dobbs leak, does absolutely nothing of substance but releases a statement saying he has full confidence in Thomas. Maybe throws in another token sham investigation to pretend he looked into it and cleared him. 
 

The Dems, instead of using the Senate judiciary committee to investigate whether or not there is even more corruption or improper behavior from Thomas or any other Justice, point to Roberts’ statement as a justification for doing nothing. 
 

Thomas keeps on raking it in. 
 

The rest of us wonder how many other justices have been bought and paid for (who paid off Kavanaugh’s debts?).

 

Great question.  And the answer to the question is "his family."

[Tiberius]

Crow bought a Justice 

Why didn’t Thomas report the transaction on his financial disclosure forms? And did Thomas’s mother pay Crow rent as he improved the home and paid taxes on it? ProPublica posed this question to Crow, but he did not answer.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Crow bought a Justice 

Why didn’t Thomas report the transaction on his financial disclosure forms? And did Thomas’s mother pay Crow rent as he improved the home and paid taxes on it? ProPublica posed this question to Crow, but he did not answer.

 

Crow "bought" a long-standing conservative justice...to keep him being conservative?

[Tiberius]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Crow "bought" a long-standing conservative justice...to keep him being conservative?

Rewards 

[Andy1]

If the court had a liberal majority and a liberal Justice had those allegations against them, Fox entertainment would be running nonstop programming about how corrupt the court is. They would demand his resignation claiming he cannot impartially fulfill his role on the court.

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

It’s time for CT to go

 

 

[Andy1]

 Corrupt with no worries of consequences.

[Andy1]

 

[Kemp]

Clarence Thomas finally offers up a true defense.
 

 

[BillStime]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:49 PM, Doc said:

 

Just making an observation that Thomas has been a Conservative for longer than he's known Crow.

This reminds me of you freaks trying to justify how long Trump knew Epstein - lmao 

 

Always the best people with you independents lol 

[BillStime]

On 4/10/2023 at 6:59 PM, BillsFanNC said:

Still looking for the opinion leaker at the SC or nah?

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

Has he been removed yet?

[ChiGoose]

32 minutes ago, Doc said:

Has he been removed yet?

He won’t be removed, censured, or even investigated because the Dems are chickenshit and Roberts is corrupt. 

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

He won’t be removed, censured, or even investigated because the Dems are chickenshit and Roberts is corrupt. 

 

What is making the Dems afraid?  And maybe this is a favor for Roberts not exposing the liberal intern over Dobbs?

[BillStime]

34 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

chickenshit

That’s not true 

 

 

[BillStime]

28 minutes ago, Doc said:

liberal intern over Dobbs?

Source?

 

lmao

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

What is making the Dems afraid?  And maybe this is a favor for Roberts not exposing the liberal intern over Dobbs?

Because the Dems almost always find a way not to do the hard thing, even if it’s right.
 

And if the Dobbs leak was a liberal clerk, it would already be public. That was a sham of an investigation. If Roberts could have nailed a liberal clerk to the wall, he would have. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

16 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Because the Dems almost always find a way not to do the hard thing, even if it’s right.
 

And if the Dobbs leak was a liberal clerk, it would already be public. That was a sham of an investigation. If Roberts could have nailed a liberal clerk to the wall, he would have. 

 

Why would a conservative clerk leak it? 

[Tiberius]

I believe Anita Hill was telling the truth about this guys 

[ChiGoose]

46 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Why would a conservative clerk leak it? 

I’ll preface this with the fact that when Dobbs was first leaked, I assumed it was a liberal clerk. But the fact that we don’t know who it was by now, and that the investigation seemed to have been half-assed, combined with what we know about the law and the dynamics within SCOTUS, makes me think that the liberal clerk theory is no longer the most likely explanation. 
 

I think that Roberts (and maybe Kavanaugh) was trying to grant the relief asked for in the case (weakening Roe and allowing for the 15 week ban) without going for a full overturning of Roe. 
 

That fits his M.O. as an institutionalist who prefers to slowly boil the frog and avoid generating public outcry with a big decision. He likely wanted to cut Roe apart piece by piece over the years, avoiding the big headlines and the mess the GOP finds itself in today. 
 

The Dobbs opinion itself is very poorly written. It reads more like an online screed than a court opinion. It also grants relief that really wasn’t sought in the case itself (a full overturn of Roe).

 

I think the initial vote had 6 justices voting for Mississippi but that Roberts was trying to shift the final outcome away from Alito’s screed (which he knew would damage the court and cause problems for the GOP) for a more “moderate” outcome of allowing the 15 week ban. 
 

Knowing this, I think someone on the conservative side leaked the draft to lock the votes in place. If Roberts, Kavanaugh or anyone else changed their votes after the leak, it would imply that leaking opinions can change votes, something Roberts would be very much against. 
 

At this point, most of the legal experts seem to believe the leak was from the conservative side for the above reasons (plus a couple other reasons).

Edited April 16, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Andy1]

Perhaps the full overturn of Roe was best in the long run rather than the death by a thousand cuts approach that was likely the inevitable alternative. At least now the nation can have a national debate on this most difficult topic. Representatives of both parties have to defend their positions to the voters and we find out on what side they stand.

[ChiGoose]

Seems bad!

 

 

[Doc]

30 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I’ll preface this with the fact that when Dobbs was first leaked, I assumed it was a liberal clerk. But the fact that we don’t know who it was by now, and that the investigation seemed to have been half-assed, combined with what we know about the law and the dynamics within SCOTUS, makes me think that the liberal clerk theory is no longer the most likely explanation. 
 

I think that Roberts (and maybe Kavanaugh) was trying to grant the relief asked for in the case (weakening Roe and allowing for the 15 week ban) without going for a full overturning of Roe. 
 

That fits his M.O. as an institutionalist who prefers to slowly boil the frog and avoid generating public outcry with a big decision. He likely wanted to cut Roe apart piece by piece over the years, avoiding the big headlines and the mess the GOP finds itself in today. 
 

The Dobbs opinion itself is very poorly written. It reads more like an online screed than a court opinion. It also grants relief that really wasn’t sought in the case itself (a full overturn of Roe).

 

I think the initial vote had 6 justices voting for Mississippi but that Roberts was trying to shift the final outcome away from Alito’s screed (which he knew would damage the court and cause problems for the GOP) for a more “moderate” outcome of allowing the 15 week ban. 
 

Knowing this, I think someone on the conservative side leaked the draft to lock the votes in place. If Roberts, Kavanaugh or anyone else changed their votes after the leak, it would imply that leaking opinions can change votes, something Roberts would be very much against. 
 

At this point, most of the legal experts seem to believe the leak was from the conservative side for the above reasons (plus a couple other reasons).

 

Law of parsimony says to me it's more likely that someone on the liberal side leaked it to cause outrage and force at least 2 of the conservative judges to change their minds.  And I think that Roberts did the leaker and/or his colleague under who the leaker served a solid, probably because he didn't agree with overturning R v. W.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Doc

[ChiGoose]

43 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Law of parsimony says to me it's more likely that someone on the liberal side leaked it to cause outrage and force at least 2 of the conservative judges to change their minds.  And I think that Roberts did the leaker and/or his colleague under who the leaker served a solid, probably because he didn't agree with overturning R v. W.

I think the reason that the only people not required to sign affidavits as part of the investigation were the justices themselves is because Roberts suspects that actually finding the leaker would implicate a Justice. 
 

And the only thing worse than not actually finding the leaker is the public finding out that a Justice was involved. 

[BillsFanNC]

Sure a conservative clerk leaked the Dobbs opinion to.....Politico.

 

 

Can't make it up!

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I think the reason that the only people not required to sign affidavits as part of the investigation were the justices themselves is because Roberts suspects that actually finding the leaker would implicate a Justice. 
 

And the only thing worse than not actually finding the leaker is the public finding out that a Justice was involved. 

 

It would implicate a Justice in that it was his/her underling who did it and there would be major fallout.  Remember that despite being at odds on issues, they're all friends. 

 

6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Sure a conservative clerk leaked the Dobbs opinion to.....Politico.

 

 

Can't make it up!

 

Yup.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

It would implicate a Justice in that it was his/her underling who did it and there would be major fallout.  Remember that despite being at odds on issues, they're all friends. 

 

 

Yup.

We know at least one Justice who has discussed draft opinions to people outside the court. It’s not unlikely that it happened again when certain justices were on the cusp of achieving their biggest goal.

 

I don’t see any reason Roberts wouldn’t go after a liberal clerk if they were the leaker.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

We know at least one Justice who has discussed draft opinions to people outside the court. It’s not unlikely that it happened again when certain justices were on the cusp of achieving their biggest goal.

 

I don’t see any reason Roberts wouldn’t go after a liberal clerk if they were the leaker.

 

Sure you do.  Again as I said, to protect a fellow Justice. 

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

Seems bad!

 

 

 

Supreme Court justice breaks law early and often.

The defense offered is either "Was that wrong?" and/or  "You're racist for pointing it out".

[Doc]

Clear "dog whistle."

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Sure you do.  Again as I said, to protect a fellow Justice. 

You think that Roberts would decline to take action against a clerk who severely damaged the court’s reputation simply because it might hurt the feelings of the Justice for whom the clerk worked?

 

I just don’t buy it. He’s too much of an institutionalist to value the career of one clerk over the reputation of the Court. 

[Doc]

16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

You think that Roberts would decline to take action against a clerk who severely damaged the court’s reputation simply because it might hurt the feelings of the Justice for whom the clerk worked?

 

I just don’t buy it. He’s too much of an institutionalist to value the career of one clerk over the reputation of the Court. 

 

To protect a colleague?  Sure.  Nothing he could have done publicly would have changed the leak happening.  And again, leaking it to Politico tells you all you need to know.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

At least Ben Carson was only inappropriate in purchasing office furniture.  small mercies.

[Tommy Callahan]

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

At least Ben Carson was only inappropriate in purchasing office furniture.  small mercies.

Why does the narrative about supreme court Thomas involve Ben Carson?  Ben wasn't a judge?  

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

.And again, leaking it to Politico tells you all you need to know.

No, it doesn’t. Unless you believe that someone would only leak it to a media outlet they viewed as being on their side.

 

Do you think that if it was a conservative leaker, they’d only give it to an outlet like National Review or Fox?

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

No, it doesn’t. Unless you believe that someone would only leak it to a media outlet they viewed as being on their side.

 

Do you think that if it was a conservative leaker, they’d only give it to an outlet like National Review or Fox?

 

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.