Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
What his wife does is irrelevant.Afraid Thomas makes it clear that they are
The Supreme Court used to make it clear they were above politics and represented Justice on its own merits
Thomas makes it clear he is a Republican operative with his wife’s lobbying on behalf of Republican interests and his accepting of hundreds of thousands in gifts and vacations from a major Republican donor.
That is Thomas’s dilemmaWhat his wife does is irrelevant.
What proof do you have that Thomas' decisions were influenced ?
What decision did he make that specifically favored any of his friends?
That is Thomas’s dilemma
His wife is a major Republican lobbyist. So much so that she has the Presidents Chief of Staffs personal phone number.
Now, we can’t insist that Thomas divorce his wife. But we can expect him to recuse himself from cases that his wife is actively lobbying.
Given the activities that his wife is involved in, you would expect him to bend over backwards to appear politically neutral. Accepting major gifts and vacations from a major Republican donor is not politically neutral.
Now, you are right that it can’t be proven that any of this influenced his decisions. If it did, he would be criminally liable
What it does is gives the appearance of impropriety that impacts a judges credibility with litigants and the public.
Which things has she actively lobbied have ended up in the Supreme Court?
And do you think SCOTUS judges should not have the right to vote? After all just casting a vote is proof of bias.
Why should any judge recuse themselves over the opinions of another person?Ginny Thomas actively lobbied on Trumps stolen election claims while the court was deciding a case on Trumps claims. Thomas should have recused himself.
Lower level judges have strict rules on personal ethics. They include strict reporting of any gifts, avoidance of political contacts and avoiding the appearance of impropriety that impacts the perception of impartiality.
The Supreme Court needs stricter rules on personal ethics Than lower courts……they have none
I think you meant the tranny in Tennessee?It was reported on in MSM, but then the tyranny in Tennessee sucked up all the oxygen.
If someone invited you to a party, you reported that as "a gift?"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
Why should any judge recuse themselves over the opinions of another person?
Maybe we should force all SCOTUS judges to divorce their spouses and cut all ties with their families and friends
If someone invited you to a party, you reported that as "a gift?"
I find that hard to believe.
You recuse yourself if there is an appearance of a conflict of interest.
The actions of his wife create that appearance
Thomas has two choices.
He can encourage his wife to cut back on political activities because they impact his ability to function as a judge or he can recuse himself from cases he has a conflict of interest
When I started with the Federal Government, we literally could not accept a cup of coffee from a Defense Contractor. We had to put a quarter in a cup if we took coffee.
Later the threshold was set at $25
If a Defense Contractor invited me to dinner, a party or a sporting event …I declined so that I would not have to defend it later
If someone invites you to a party, that is "a gift?"Except for the minor detail that if he had a modicum of integrity he would have rejected the lavish gifts.
Really? You are not concerned about powerful DemoKKKrats who were frequent visitors to an island noted for underage sex slaves unless one of the child sex slaves herself braved the dangers of reporting them?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.
I get it. You don't like black men whose achievements surpass your own.Justice Clarence Thomas is unremarkable or even mediocre as a Supreme Court Justice. To wit:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Cry moreThe G in GOP stands for Grifter.
So I wonder what the libtard justices have been up to? Dems better watch where they tread.....There be landmines.
If someone invites you to a party, that is "a gift?"
Really? You are not concerned about powerful DemoKKKrats who were frequent visitors to an island noted for underage sex slaves unless one of the child sex slaves herself braved the dangers of reporting them?
You certainly have an indulgent attitude toward corrupt Democreeps, not withstanding your seeming outrage at someone inviting Clarence Thomas to a weekend visit.
I get it. You don't like black men whose achievements surpass your own.
The talk about Thomas being not as intellectual as his white colleagues is racist nonsense. None of his detractors have ever shown any evidence of an intellectual deficit. The arguments above are based on disagreeing with his making rulings based on the Constitution instead of "societal progress."
But - for the sake of argument - suppose he really is not the thickest book on the shelf. When Marshall retired, everyone knew that his successor would be black, and that would be the first qualification requirement, subordinate to all others.
Once that decision is made, it is silly to complain that you didn't get the best tater in the sack. Are you willing to go on record now to say that we should end all diversity, inclusion, affirmative action, equity, or any other thought process that leads us to take race into account in decisions about employment, promotion, and education?
When Democrooks finally get their wish and Thomas dies, should he be replaced with a black person, or with the most intellectual justice they can find, regardless of demographics?
Harlan Crow is a contractor for the Judicial branch?When I started with the Federal Government, we literally could not accept a cup of coffee from a Defense Contractor. We had to put a quarter in a cup if we took coffee.
Later the threshold was set at $25
If a Defense Contractor invited me to dinner, a party or a sporting event …I declined so that I would not have to defend it later
When you do, that would be the time to start a thread about it. This one is a waste of time.What has he given Jim Crow in exchange for these trips? You know we're going to find out.
