Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[Rumpole]

From the time that he was nominated for his current position, your side has been making up bullshit accusations, first to stop him from being appointed, and after to try to get him removed.

For more than three decades, your side has been crying “WOLF!” so loudly that if it ever were to happen that any evidence came forth of any actual wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Thomas, no sane person would believe it.

Upon perusing the Pro Publica article concerning the honorable Justice Clarence Thomas, I find myself recalling the testimony of one Anita Hill. In my humble opinion, there is merit to her accusation. However, were it not for that particular incident, I would have had no cause to question the good justice's character.

Now, discovering that he has been the recipient of such substantial gifts over the past two decades, I must admit it casts a rather dubious light on his integrity. One could argue that a Supreme Court Justice, of all people, should maintain a higher standard and resist such temptations.

It is rather disheartening to witness our friends on the right engaging in a game of 'whataboutism' on this forum. I dare say, unless there is another Supreme Court Justice involved, such comparisons lack validity and fail to address the issue at hand.

 

[Rumpole]

that I have never heard of,,

if this is real the whole of the leftist MSM would be all over it,,

It was reported on in MSM, but then the tyranny in Tennessee sucked up all the oxygen.

 

[progressive hunter]

It was reported on in MSM, but then the tyranny in Tennessee sucked up all the oxygen.

well it is a more important topic,,

 

[Rumpole]

You don't understand my comment? You don't think that justices around the country aren't hoping to become a Supreme Court Justice? Remember, they are picked by whom? The President!. Who are they confirmed by? The Senate! Politicians...

I repeat, you apparently do not understand he difference between a Supreme Court Justice and a politician, and that fact, is rather astonishing. Who confirmed them is irrelevant.

 

[Rumpole]

He - an extremely interesting contemporary, and historic figure, with one of the greatest intellects of the 20th and 21st century - was invited on trips by a wealthy man who enjoyed his company.

Except for the minor detail that if he had a modicum of integrity he would have rejected the lavish gifts.

Let me guess: Your panties are in a twist about that, but you could care less which DemoKKKrats were invited on vacations ot Epstein's island?

Your propensity to traffic in sophomoric pejorative labeling, aside, you're ability to guess is rather short of the mark. The only individuals of concern to me regarding Epstein's island are the men who were accused by the young ladies. But that is off topic.

Justice Clarence Thomas is unremarkable or even mediocre as a Supreme Court Justice. To wit:

1. Consistent textualist/originalist approach: Critics argue that Thomas's adherence to a textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution limits the scope of his rulings and can sometimes result in outcomes that don't align with societal progress. For example, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Thomas dissented from the majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage, arguing that it was not the role of the Court to decide such matters.
2. Dissenting voice: While it is true that Justice Thomas has a high rate of dissenting opinions, some argue that these dissents do not always provide substantive legal reasoning or have a significant impact on jurisprudence. For instance, in the case of United States v. Lopez (1995), Thomas wrote a separate concurrence, contending that the federal government had limited power to regulate commerce within the states. Though he made an argument for a stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause, his opinion did not significantly influence future Court decisions on the matter.
3. Reluctance during oral arguments: Thomas is known for his reticence during oral arguments, often going years without asking questions or engaging with the advocates. Critics argue that his silence during these crucial discussions limits his ability to shape legal outcomes and undermines the public's understanding of his judicial philosophy.
4. Stare decisis: Justice Thomas has been open about his willingness to overturn long-established precedents if he believes they were wrongly decided. While some may argue that this demonstrates intellectual independence, others see it as a disregard for the principle of stare decisis, which is essential for maintaining consistency and stability in the law. For example, in the case of Janus v. AFSCME (2018), Thomas joined the majority opinion that overturned a 40-year-old precedent on union fees, potentially destabilizing labor relations in the process.

 

[Cougarbear]

Are you actually suggesting no elected or appointed government official can face criminal charges if a grand jury indicts them? Get out of here with that bullshit.

I’m suggesting the liberal biased democrat run grand jury should face criminal charges along with Bragg. They are committing tyranny.

 

[Cougarbear]

How is it tyranny? Trump, like EVERY OTHER PERSON in the country, can be taken to court for break the law.
You prefer it that Trump suddenly gains immunity and can commit crimes at will? I mean, Nixon got immunity for his crimes, Trump should not have been the first....

For 6 years Trump has been falsely accused of all charges by the commie left. You know that the Democrats want communism to be the economy and political law of the land. They are doing everything they can to destroy our bill of rights and go to a one party rule. Animal Farm in the making but you knuckleheads can’t see it.

 

[Mac1958]

It is rather disheartening to witness our friends on the right engaging in a game of 'whataboutism' on this forum. I dare say, unless there is another Supreme Court Justice involved, such comparisons lack validity and fail to address the issue at hand.

It. Won't. Matter.

I think it's long past time that we start taking these people at their word. They've been telling us that they're "at war", they've been telling us that they're trying to "save" America from "evil", for years. We haven't been taking them seriously because of their cartoonish buffoonery and ignorance, because of clowns like Trump, MTG and Boebert, because of all the should-be-laughable Qanon stuff.

Meanwhile, they really have been at war, and they still are. They really do think they're fighting literal, demonic, evil. They're not speaking figuratively or metaphorically. As such, no rules or standards or laws matter to them now. America's Jihadis. Our very institutions can fall to pieces, and they'd be fine with that. They clearly have no understanding of what that would actually look like.

They're at war. The country has to address this kind of story with that in mind.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Whether he provided opinions in return for trips, travel and vacations is difficult to prove.
What can be proved is he received valuable benefits from a Republican donor and failed to report them as required

Chinese disinformation

 

[pknopp]

Biden is a politician.Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice. I do hope you understand the import of that difference.

No, I don't.

 

[pknopp]

An article suggests? The freaking Country is going down the drain and China is flexing it's muscles over Taiwan but the left is emboldened by the phony Trump indictment so the next easy target is Justice Thomas. " Show me a man and I will show you a crime"....V. Beira, Stalinist secret police.

This is more important than China or Taiwan. This is about this country not some other country that is really none of our business.

 

[Rumpole]

It. Won't. Matter.

I think it's long past time that we start taking these people at their word. They've been telling us that they're "at war", they've been telling us that they're trying to "save" America from "evil", for years. We haven't been taking them seriously because of their cartoonish buffoonery and ignorance, because of clowns like Trump, MTG and Boebert, because of all the should-be-laughable Qanon stuff.

Meanwhile, they really have been at war, and they still are. They really do think they're fighting literal, demonic, evil. They're not speaking figuratively or metaphorically. As such, no rules or standards or laws matter to them now. America's Jihadis. Our very institutions can fall to pieces, and they'd be fine with that. They clearly have no understanding of what that would actually look like.

They're at war. The country has to address this kind of story with that in mind.

I'd say, Mac1958, it appears we have a most malignant growth festering in the very heart of our society – a dreadful canker that threatens to consume the once-proud party of Lincoln. The MAGA movement, I daresay, has set the very foundation of our democracy ablaze, and one cannot deny the incontrovertible evidence of this calamity!


Rumpole.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Corruption is fun as long as the person doing the corruption is on your team

 

[pknopp]

I'd say they are a cancer on society, a veritable rot to the core, and the MAGA movement has destroyed the party of Lincoln. I think the evidence on that point is inescapable. Democracy has it's weaknesses, Repubs voted for representatives who, in turned gave us a conservative court who, on a strict party line vote, gave us Citizens United, which corrupted the vote, giving Republicans power not earned by voters, and they are using that power to grab more power. While they point to 'dems do it, too' where dems have gone it, too, it was a response to Repubs gerrymandering across America on a scale unseen in history, as if the built in advantage of Senatorial representation wasn't enough, they wanted it on the house side, as well. The weakness of Democracy allowed for this to happen, and the only solution that can save America from this disease is Democracy. America is sick, and Trump is the bellows blowing the ill wind across america. I do hope the other prosecutors who have a stronger case than that offered by Bragg, indigct soon. Time is running out.

Citizen United was over McCain/Feingold (I understand that is not the official name). That was a law that absolutely trampled on the rights of individuals. Even Bush said he believed it was unConstitutional but would sign it and let the courts work it out. (Should have been an impeachable offense for a president to sign a law he knew was unconstitutional).

Now the court did expand that in their court ruling which was quite a surprise as they rarely do this but it never happens without the horrible McCain/Feingold.

 

[rightwinger]

He - an extremely interesting contemporary, and historic figure, with one of the greatest intellects of the 20th and 21st century - was invited on trips by a wealthy man who enjoyed his company.

Let me guess: Your panties are in a twist about that, but you could care less which DemoKKKrats were invited on vacations ot Epstein's island?

Powerful and influential politicians are often given benefits “by those who enjoy their company”

I worked for the Federal Government for 33 years and was required to report any such gifts annually. It was stressed we were to avoid any “appearance of impropriety”

Thomas accepting expensive vacations gives that appearance and puts his impartiality into question

 

[Mac1958]

I'd say, Mac1958, it appears we have a most malignant growth festering in the very heart of our society – a dreadful canker that threatens to consume the once-proud party of Lincoln.

That's what this has been about since Escalator Day. Not Trump. He's just the one person who is shameless enough and needy enough to fully tap into it.

This mal-informed malignancy has been growing since the day Limbaugh went national. No one realized how big it was, how intense it was, or how paranoid it was.

We do now.

 

[Blues Man]

One trip Thomas took was alone worth $500,000. This is not a case about dinners, dipshit.

But even dinners have to be reported in financial disclosures of federal officials.

Why don't you fools read the link in the OP before you continue to make asses of yourselves?

Says who? those costs are not only subjective estimates but are also overblown.

I could say that the "gift" of giving a friend a ride to the airport was worth thousands of dollars but in reality it's not.

 

[Blues Man]

Powerful and influential politicians are often given benefits “by those who enjoy their company”

I worked for the Federal Government for 33 years and was required to report any such gifts annually. It was stressed we were to avoid any “appearance of impropriety”

Thomas accepting expensive vacations gives that appearance and puts his impartiality into question

A SCOTUS judge is not a politician.

And how does it do that? No one knows what cases a SCOTUS will hear in any given year.

 

[Blaster]

Really nothing to see here.

 

[Blues Man]

.



What are the laws in your town about financial disclosures?

Don't know don't care.

Besides that I have no children in public school.