Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Institute - KeyWiki
 
Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Institute - KeyWiki

He is a busy man
 
If you can show where others have done the same, I'd condemn them also.

But along the same lines. Hillary took millions from the banks for her speeches. Now these were reported, we knew they happened but she refused to divulge what she promised the banks in these speeches.

I condemned her endlessly for that.
Ok, then.

If you are really that unbiased, you must have noticed how vicious the attacks on Clarence Thomas have been compared to criticism of of other conservative justices. The only one who came close was Kavanaugh.

The reason for the attacks was and is that he is a black conservative who replaced a black liberal on the court. Kavanaugh was attacked because he solidified the constutionalist majority on the court. Dems knew better than others that following the Constitution would be the end of Roe v. Wade.
 
Ok, then.

If you are really that unbiased, you must have noticed how vicious the attacks on Clarence Thomas have been compared to criticism of of other conservative justices. The only one who came close was Kavanaugh.

There has been. I believe the criticism has shaped his views over the years. Just an opinion.


The reason for the attacks was and is that he is a black conservative who replaced a black liberal on the court. Kavanaugh was attacked because he solidified the constutionalist majority on the court. Dems knew better than others that following the Constitution would be the end of Roe v. Wade.

What others do has nothing to do with me. It's shameful the Supreme Court has no ethic rules.
 
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5–4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

It gives dark money and corporations more influence in our politics.

I believe they said it wasn't fair that unions could be involved in politics but corporations couldn't?

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government"

The decision remains highly controversial, generating much public discussion and receiving strong support and opposition from various groups. Senator Mitch McConnell commended the decision, arguing that it represented "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights".[3] By contrast, former President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington".[4] The ruling represented a turning point on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions, and setting the stage for Speechnow.org v. FEC, which authorized the creation of "Independent Expenditure Committees", more commonly known as Super PACs

Clearly the Republicans on the Supreme Court were wrong to rule the way they did.
I think you (Democrats) might have had a chance to prevent corporations from making large donations if you had included labor unions in the rules. The American people still have a sense of fairness, and allowing heavily Democratic Party unions to donate unlimited amounts to Democratic Party politicians while using the power of a temporary legislative majority - brought about by those donations - was patently unfair.

Perhaps you will find comfort in the wokeness fad among so many corporations. They now have their freedom of speech restored and will be a great asses in your quest to transgenderize childrent and stigmatize being white.
 
I think you (Democrats) might have had a chance to prevent corporations from making large donations if you had included labor unions in the rules. The American people still have a sense of fairness, and allowing heavily Democratic Party unions to donate unlimited amounts to Democratic Party politicians while using the power of a temporary legislative majority - brought about by those donations - was patently unfair.

Perhaps you will find comfort in the wokeness fad among so many corporations. They now have their freedom of speech restored and will be a great asses in your quest to transgenderize childrent and stigmatize being white.

Corporations did not bring the lawsuit.
 
There has been. I believe the criticism has shaped his views over the years. Just an opinion.
Interesting. You could be right.
What others do has nothing to do with me. It's shameful the Supreme Court has no ethic rules.
No ethics rules? The whole point of the article that started this angst is that there are ethics rules for the judicial branch. Those rules were recently changed and Clarence Thomas past behavior would not have complied with the new ethics rules.

Therefore - according to Dems - he was not a good n________ like Toby.

Even the old plantation master would not have made a new rule on Friday and then whipped a hard-working field hand for not following the rule the previous Wednesday.
 
Interesting. You could be right.

No ethics rules? The whole point of the article that started this angst is that there are ethics rules for the judicial branch. Those rules were recently changed and Clarence Thomas past behavior would not have complied with the new ethics rules.

Therefore - according to Dems - he was not a good n________ like Toby.

Even the old plantation master would not have made a new rule on Friday and then whipped a hard-working field hand for not following the rule the previous Wednesday.

There were rules. Unfortunately the justices decided that they were going to ignore them. They have been posted in this thread.
 
a67bd12a8f8b386129a2298ffe9dcb82_768x0.png
 
except take millions in illegal gifts from the wealthy elite deep state that controls the entire GOP.

I think you need to look up the definition of nothing, because what he did certainly is not nothing. he should be in prison.
Trump lost money when he was in office.
 
There were rules. Unfortunately the justices decided that they were going to ignore them. They have been posted in this thread.
That has been repeated over and over, but I must have missed the post in which a rule was posted with evidence that Justice Thomas broke it. Since so many have said that, I looked through the thread, but I still could not find it.

What was the post number?
 
Changes nothing that I said in the post you replied to.

The lawsuit was brought by the people. Hence "Citizens United". It was never about Corporations or Unions. It was about squashing the voice of the people not under the two parties control.
 

Forum List

Back
Top