Clarence Thomas accepted more gifts from rich benefactors, new report says

[ThunderKiss1965]

Yes, Clarence is running wild

It is more than having rich friends. It is living a wealthy lifestyle on behalf of partisan political donors.
Private jets, helicopters, luxury yachts, free access to elite golf clubs, paid tuition for family members, buying your mothers home and allowing her to live there free.

Sorry Clarence, but it just doesn’t look right.

Change the fucking ethic rules and stop bitching about the Black man not acting the way the Democratic party expects him to.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

That's because Thomas is the most corrupt of the conservative justices.

Did you know Justice Thomas put a pubic hair on Anita Hills coke can?
It’s true! It really really is!

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So going after a person of color for questionable behavior is now racist.

 

[rightwinger]

Change the fucking ethic rules and stop bitching about the Black man not acting the way the Democratic party expects him to.

The Court needs to clean up its act or lose all confidence of the public

The Roberts Court has lost all credibility.
Their arrogance in refusing to convince the public that they are not influenced by special interests makes them irrelevant

 

[2aguy]

No doubt. And as they have already demonstrated in the impeachment processes and J6 Committee smears, they have absolutely no integrity when it comes to ethics, honor, integrity, or constitutional requirement for due process.

Also...by going after Thomas they are sending a warning to that idiot Roberts.....you will be next...

 

[Foxfyre]

How does your accepting gifts from rich people impact your current job? Probably not at all.

But Thomas living a lavish lifestyle and accepting expensive personal gifts from large political donors compromises his integrity as a judge.

If I accept a nice gift from someone who later needs the services I provided, I would need to recuse myself from providing those services as it would appear to compromise the way I did my job. In fact that did happen once and I did turn down the work.

If any of Thomas's generous friends should have a case come before the Court or a court decision could significantly impact that friend in any way, he of course should and I believe would recuse himself from that case. That has thus far never been an issue.

And unless you are applying the same scrutiny and theories to the other eight justices, it is wrong, evil and unethically motivated to assume and claim that Thomas is suddenly compromised and corrupt.

 

[rightwinger]

If any of Thomas's generous friends should have a case come before the Court or a court decision could significantly impact that friend in any way, he of course should and I believe would recuse himself from that case. That has thus far never been an issue.

How many people ever have a case in front of the Supreme Court?

Thomas has rich friends who have a political agenda. They contribute massive amounts to conservative causes of which Thomas’ court has a major impact.

When Thomas makes his decisions he needs to be clear that his decisions are not politically influenced.
He can’t do that when accepting massive gifts from donors

 

[Foxfyre]

How many people ever have a case in front of the Supreme Court?

Thomas has rich friends who have a political agenda. They contribute massive amounts to conservative causes of which Thomas’ court has a major impact.

When Thomas makes his decisions he needs to be clear that his decisions are not politically influenced.
He can’t do that when accepting massive gifts from donors

Repeating the same unsupportable argument does not increase appreciation for politically motivated posts.

 

[rightwinger]

Repeating the same unsupportable argument does not increase appreciation for politically motivated posts.

Ignoring compromised judges does not increase appreciation for politically motivated posts.

I am willing to impose stricter standards for all judges.

You are willing to look the other way for “your guys”

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Then please stop it.

Repeating the same unsupportable argument does not increase appreciation for politically motivated posts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ignoring compromised judges does not increase appreciation for politically motivated posts.

I am willing to impose stricter standards for all judges.

You are willing to look the other way for “your guys”

Not at all. But I prefer to focus on those who have been unethical or the evidence strongly suggests they are compromised. There is zero evidence that Clarence Thomas has been compromised in any way and just WANTING him to be or DECLARING him compromised because that's the assigned Democrat/leftist talking point is not only extremely obvious but is unethical in itself.

Summary: Wanting something to be true does not make it true.

The day that Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself from a case that involves one of his friends, I will definitely criticize that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then please stop it.

When you can show that I cannot support my arguments, I will stop making them. But just making dumb posts makes you look, well. . .

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

None of which prevents Congress from creating a Code of Ethics for SCOTUS and jurisdiction stripping it of appellate review.

Anyone who disagrees does not his or her Constitution.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The Court needs to clean up its act or lose all confidence of the public

The Roberts Court has lost all credibility.
Their arrogance in refusing to convince the public that they are not influenced by special interests makes them irrelevant

Clean up the court, right ? If it was a Liberal voting court you wouldn't give a shit if the Justices were getting "gifts", but a Black Conservative is a sin against the Universe for you loons. A Black person shall have no other thought than what Democratic party dogma demands.

The Court should have strict ethics rules not because of your political bias, but because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You do know that other USSC Justices did the same Ginsberg was one of those ? The Justices don't have the same ethics rules as the rest of the Government. This isn't an ethics issue it's just the same problem you loons have always had. The Black man ain't acting the way you expect him to.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Mysterious $1 Million Prize

When the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted a $1 million prize from a liberal billionaire’s foundation, she pledged to pass the money to a list of designated charities. Four years later, it is unclear where Ginsburg sent that money—an ambiguity that experts say raises...

freebeacon.com

So you are happy to see xome corruption because its your guy in the frame ?
Thats conservatism in action.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You think that Clarence Thomas is "running wild"? Come on, Tommy...that's a bit of a stretch. He has friends that are wealthy and they invite him along on vacations. Do you really want to go down that path? I'm guessing that some of Thomas's liberal colleagues also have wealthy friends who invite them to join them at their vacation homes or at concerts and such things. This isn't about Clarence Thomas running wild...it's about a Supreme Court that isn't leaning liberal. All I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a double standard. By the way...you're claiming that I'm "dense" doesn't offend me...I find the claim rather silly since I've posted about five times.

Its ceating an obligation. It means that he, and any other judge, is compromised. Its wrong on every level.
Banana republican.

 

[rightwinger]

Not at all. But I prefer to focus on those who have been unethical or the evidence strongly suggests they are compromised. There is zero evidence that Clarence Thomas has been compromised in any way and just WANTING him to be or DECLARING him compromised because that's the assigned Democrat/leftist talking point is not only extremely obvious but is unethical in itself.

Summary: Wanting something to be true does not make it true.

The day that Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself from a case that involves one of his friends, I will definitely criticize that.

Accepting lavish gifts from major political contributors leaves you compromised.

It is not just a case where he is only compromised if his friends have a case in front of the court. That standard is unrealistic.

He is compromised on any case that reflects their political agenda.

He should know better

 

[Care4all]

If I accept a nice gift from someone who later needs the services I provided, I would need to recuse myself from providing those services as it would appear to compromise the way I did my job. In fact that did happen once and I did turn down the work.

If any of Thomas's generous friends should have a case come before the Court or a court decision could significantly impact that friend in any way, he of course should and I believe would recuse himself from that case. That has thus far never been an issue.

And unless you are applying the same scrutiny and theories to the other eight justices, it is wrong, evil and unethically motivated to assume and claim that Thomas is suddenly compromised and corrupt.

He didn't disclose his gifts, he hid them.

So no one would know if gift givers had cases before the court....for him to recuse himself from.

Getting the gifts, worth more than his annually salary each year received may not be a problem to you or me even,

But not disclosing them, makes the gift receiving of Thomas, appear to be something Thomas, wanted to hide.... And that's in the very least an ethics problem.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

So you are happy to see xome corruption because its your guy in the frame ?
Thats conservatism in action.

You don't seem to have an issue with Ginsberg getting "gifts" just the Black man that is a Conservative. You loons don't have a problem with the Black community as long as they know their place.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You don't seem to have an issue with Ginsberg getting "gifts" just the Black man that is a Conservative. You loons don't have a problem with the Black community as long as they know their place.

Ethics and standards apply to everyone. Why is that difficult for you to understand ? Apart from your dumb conservatism of course.