Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[rightwinger]

But….but……Some guy said it was OK to do so

 

[okfine]

I think it's time for Thomas to pack his bags.

 

[Votto]

Clarence Thomas must be removed from the Supreme Court!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concealed decades of lavish, expensive gifts from a Republican donor. He has ties to insurrectionists via his wife Ginni Thomas and voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. His continued presence threatens the credibility of the nation's highest court. SIGN THE...

sign.moveon.org

It's time to impeach Thomas. Why? If his confirmation hearing and credible testimony from Anita Hill of sex predation wasn't bad enough, and for not recusing himself over his wife's involvement with the 1/6 conspirators, and now, his receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of 'things of value' trips, jet jaunts to exotic places, hotels, yachts, fabulous times, all from a billionaire, an failing to report it, an abuse of the rule that they don't have to report occasional gifts from friends, it's time to impeach; clearly this is a violation of the spirit of this rule, not to mention the concept that Supreme Court justices really need to be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I recall (I think in an interview, I forget) that he claims he got positive reinforcement from others, but did he ask one of the other liberal justices? Of course not, and the fact that he didn't is testament to why he should be impeached.

I can only imagine if this were one of the liberal justices, I mean, the right would be foaming with outrage, but now they are defending Thomas. Hell, they won't ask Trump, who how has committed crimes in front of God and everyone, why would they impeach Thomas?

And who is this billionaire who has literally been subsidizing Thomas's life? He is Harland Crow, Chairman of Crow Holdings, and on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank heavily invested in promoting conservative causes.

You think the AEI would have an interest in purchasing a vote from Thomas?

Check out their website: Home

This is the one justice whom they no doubt selected because he's a pervert (Anita Hill is credible, in my opinion and after watching her testify, there is no way she is lying), and perverts are the easier to corrupt.

And what face does Thomas want us to believe about who he is?

You know, I don’t have any problem with going to Europe. But I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States. I prefer going across the rural areas. I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that. I prefer being around that. --Justice Clarence Thomas, from the documentary, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas, in his own words".

And wouldn't you know? That documentary was financed by, you guessed it, Harlan Crow

WHEN A JUSTICE’S LIFESTYLE IS BEING SUBSIDIZED BY THE RICH AND FAMOUS, IT ABSOLUTELY CORRODES PUBLIC TRUST. QUITE FRANKLY, IT MAKES MY HEART SINK.

—Virginia Canter, former government ethics lawyer

It's time to impeach this corrupt justice. And, FYI, Propublica has documented everything, receipts, travel vouchers, the works, they dug deep on this story.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges’ conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said.

“It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

Racist

 

[Rumpole]

Thanks for the information. Thomas is guilty as sin. Let's form a lynching tonight, cut off his nuts and put his wife in jail.

No thanks, a formal impeachment will suffice just fine.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Votto]

I think it's time for Thomas to pack his bags.

Why not indict him?

 

[Oddball]

Clarence Thomas must be removed from the Supreme Court!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concealed decades of lavish, expensive gifts from a Republican donor. He has ties to insurrectionists via his wife Ginni Thomas and voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. His continued presence threatens the credibility of the nation's highest court. SIGN THE...

sign.moveon.org

It's time to impeach Thomas. Why? If his confirmation hearing and credible testimony from Anita Hill of sex predation wasn't bad enough, and for not recusing himself over his wife's involvement with the 1/6 conspirators, and now, his receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of 'things of value' trips, jet jaunts to exotic places, hotels, yachts, fabulous times, all from a billionaire, an failing to report it, an abuse of the rule that they don't have to report occasional gifts from friends, it's time to impeach; clearly this is a violation of the spirit of this rule, not to mention the concept that Supreme Court justices really need to be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I recall (I think in an interview, I forget) that he claims he got positive reinforcement from others, but did he ask one of the other liberal justices? Of course not, and the fact that he didn't is testament to why he should be impeached.

I can only imagine if this were one of the liberal justices, I mean, the right would be foaming with outrage, but now they are defending Thomas. Hell, they won't ask Trump, who how has committed crimes in front of God and everyone, why would they impeach Thomas?

And who is this billionaire who has literally been subsidizing Thomas's life? He is Harland Crow, Chairman of Crow Holdings, and on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank heavily invested in promoting conservative causes.

You think the AEI would have an interest in purchasing a vote from Thomas?

Check out their website: Home

This is the one justice whom they no doubt selected because he's a pervert (Anita Hill is credible, in my opinion and after watching her testify, there is no way she is lying), and perverts are the easier to corrupt.

And what face does Thomas want us to believe about who he is?

You know, I don’t have any problem with going to Europe. But I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States. I prefer going across the rural areas. I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that. I prefer being around that. --Justice Clarence Thomas, from the documentary, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas, in his own words".

And wouldn't you know? That documentary was financed by, you guessed it, Harlan Crow

WHEN A JUSTICE’S LIFESTYLE IS BEING SUBSIDIZED BY THE RICH AND FAMOUS, IT ABSOLUTELY CORRODES PUBLIC TRUST. QUITE FRANKLY, IT MAKES MY HEART SINK.

—Virginia Canter, former government ethics lawyer

It's time to impeach this corrupt justice. And, FYI, Propublica has documented everything, receipts, travel vouchers, the works, they dug deep on this story.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges’ conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said.

“It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

Must be a racist!

 

[Polishprince]

Supreme Court Justices aren't allowed to have wealthy friends to hang out with?

BTW, Mr. Crow has never had a single case before the Supreme Court during Thomas' reign. What's the problem?

You can't have friends any more, else its an "impeachment"?

 

[okfine]

Why not indict him?

Why not?

 

[basquebromance]

from the book "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas In His Own Words":

Chapter Seven: Supreme Court Nomination
MP: How did Senator Biden treat you during the hearings?

CT: When I got nominated to the D.C Circuit, Joe Biden told me I would be confirmed—he was chairman of the committee—but that if I was nominated to the Supreme Court, basically all bets were off, that I would be treated differently.

MP: Didn’t Biden promise to start the hearings with a softball question?

CT: Joe Biden promised a lot of things and said a lot of things. Before the beginning of the hearings, he took us to the hearing room, which was the Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building. And he showed us around, and he explained that there would be a round of opening statements that would take some time, and then he would ask the first question, that it would be a softball question, and then he would just get me warmed up because it would be very difficult for me to get used to that setting.

I don’t recall exactly what the question was, but it had to do with the speech that I gave at the Pacific Legal Foundation.16 And he misquoted it. I was perplexed because I didn’t remember the speech. I’ve given lots of speeches, but it didn’t sound right. It was not what I believed. And it seemed it was the opposite. You’re flustered a little bit, because you’re waiting for the softball, and it turns out to be a beanball.

MP: Senator Biden claimed you were praising Professor Stephen Macedo’s views on property rights and that the Supreme Court should be activist in re-asserting property rights.

CT: I said that even if I agreed with Macedo you couldn’t do that because either the law or the Constitution would actually be the determining factor; that the court shouldn’t be activist. In the next sentence I disagreed with Macedo’s point of view.17

MP: They did that a few times, taking your statement out of context. Eventually, it gets corrected, but they must feel they have gotten somewhere just by putting it on the table in a distorted manner.

CT: This is not an information exchange. People can say things. There could be insults, there can be slights, there can be innuendos. There could be an effort to unnerve you, to rattle you, to get you to look bad. So there are all these other things that are going on. There’s a lot of this “gotcha,” to get you to say something that leads to something else.

My view when I was at the EEOC is to just say what you think and to be consistent. And if people lay these traps, then so be it. But at least you have the comfort of knowing that what you said is what you believe. And if they have a problem with it, I think it’s up to them to say explicitly and forthrightly what that problem is.

MP: Senator Biden was very focused on natural law.

From the documentary Created Equal
Senator Biden: Finding out what you mean when you say that you would apply the natural law philosophy to the Constitution is, in my view, the single most important task of this committee.… I just want to make sure we all know what we are talking about here. That you and I know, at least, what we are talking about here.
There is a fervent… and aggressive school of thought that wishes to see natural law further inform the Constitution than it does now. Argued against by the positivists, led by Judge Bork. Now again, that may be lost on all the people, you know and I know what we are talking about.… Someone may apply it in a way, like Moore, who leads him in a direction that is, quote, “liberal.” You may apply it in a way that leads you in a direction that is conservative, or you may, like many argue, not apply it at all.
But it is a fundamental question that is going to be almost impossible for non-lawyers to grasp in an exchange, but you know and I know it is a big, big deal.
MP: How did you respond?

CT: Who knows. I have no idea what he was talking about.

MP: He was suggesting that natural law theory was an open sesame for you to just use natural law arguments to impose your opinions on issues like abortion.

CT: I have to be perfectly honest with you: You sit there, and you have no idea what they are talking about. People may in the end, after the fact, figure out what he was talking about at the time. I have no clue. All I know is that he was asking me these questions about natural law. I had looked at natural law. One, I was really interested in the Founding, and you can’t deny that natural law was an important part of that. The Framers understood natural law and natural rights a certain way, and it is the underpinning of our Declaration, which then becomes the basis for the foundation for the Constitution.

The distinction that we made was the Constitution is the positive document. The Declaration may set out the architecture for it, the reasons for it, but here’s the Constitution. The positivists say, “Ignore that and use this.” But the Declaration informs the Constitution. It shines a light on the Constitution. It reaffirms why you have these things.

MP: Yes, Senator Biden seemed a bit confused about it all himself.

CT: One of the things you do in hearings is you have to sit there and look attentively at people you know have no idea what they’re talking about. And it was fine. I understood what he was trying to do. I didn’t really appreciate it, but I had no idea what he was talking about minute by minute. And I couldn’t get caught up in that sort of confusion.

I think what Bob Bork’s mistake was, he’d try to sort it out and make sense of it. My granddaddy had another saying; he said, “Boy, it don’t make no damn sense, because it don’t make no damn sense.” And I’m not going to sit here and make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. So if he doesn’t understand it, then I am not going to try to understand it. I know why I did what I did. Here’s why I’m trying to do this: I had my reasons. I know what Ken [Masugi] and John [Marini] and I were working on. I know what I was thinking about. I know what I think. Now what he thinks I think is used to confuse me about what I think.

 

[rightwinger]

Supreme Court Justices aren't allowed to have wealthy friends to hang out with?

BTW, Mr. Crow has never had a single case before the Supreme Court during Thomas' reign. What's the problem?

You can't have friends any more, else its an "impeachment"?

Of course they are…

But as responsible jurists they have a responsibility to report gifts and special favors

It removes the appearance of partiality

 

[JWBooth]

Clarence Thomas must be removed from the Supreme Court!

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concealed decades of lavish, expensive gifts from a Republican donor. He has ties to insurrectionists via his wife Ginni Thomas and voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. His continued presence threatens the credibility of the nation's highest court. SIGN THE...

sign.moveon.org

It's time to impeach Thomas. Why? If his confirmation hearing and credible testimony from Anita Hill of sex predation wasn't bad enough, and for not recusing himself over his wife's involvement with the 1/6 conspirators, and now, his receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of 'things of value' trips, jet jaunts to exotic places, hotels, yachts, fabulous times, all from a billionaire, an failing to report it, an abuse of the rule that they don't have to report occasional gifts from friends, it's time to impeach; clearly this is a violation of the spirit of this rule, not to mention the concept that Supreme Court justices really need to be avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I recall (I think in an interview, I forget) that he claims he got positive reinforcement from others, but did he ask one of the other liberal justices? Of course not, and the fact that he didn't is testament to why he should be impeached.

I can only imagine if this were one of the liberal justices, I mean, the right would be foaming with outrage, but now they are defending Thomas. Hell, they won't ask Trump, who how has committed crimes in front of God and everyone, why would they impeach Thomas?

And who is this billionaire who has literally been subsidizing Thomas's life? He is Harland Crow, Chairman of Crow Holdings, and on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank heavily invested in promoting conservative causes.

You think the AEI would have an interest in purchasing a vote from Thomas?

Check out their website: Home

This is the one justice whom they no doubt selected because he's a pervert (Anita Hill is credible, in my opinion and after watching her testify, there is no way she is lying), and perverts are the easier to corrupt.

And what face does Thomas want us to believe about who he is?

You know, I don’t have any problem with going to Europe. But I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States. I prefer going across the rural areas. I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that. I prefer being around that. --Justice Clarence Thomas, from the documentary, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas, in his own words".

And wouldn't you know? That documentary was financed by, you guessed it, Harlan Crow

WHEN A JUSTICE’S LIFESTYLE IS BEING SUBSIDIZED BY THE RICH AND FAMOUS, IT ABSOLUTELY CORRODES PUBLIC TRUST. QUITE FRANKLY, IT MAKES MY HEART SINK.

—Virginia Canter, former government ethics lawyer

It's time to impeach this corrupt justice. And, FYI, Propublica has documented everything, receipts, travel vouchers, the works, they dug deep on this story.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges’ conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said.

“It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

Racist seeking to deny a man of color his right to freely associate with affluent white people.

 

[Votto]

Why not?

Is it because you lynch black folk and indict white folk......or I should say, orange folk?

 

[Polishprince]

Of course they are…

But as responsible jurists they have a responsibility to report gifts and special favors

It removes the appearance of partiality

Crow has NEVER has a case heard in the Supreme Court , so "partiality" isn't an issue.

BTW, what gifts have the liberal justices reported over the years?

Or are they exempt from that?

The late Justice Ginzberg was alleged to have been a card-carrying member of the Far Left ACLU, did they ever give her any gifts? Did she recuse herself when they were involved?

 

[okfine]

Is it because you lynch black folk and indict white folk......or I should say, orange folk?

My name isn't Pence.

 

[The Banker]

A large percentage of the Democrats were behind the war in Iraq also.

not true at all.

Fox news and the republicans attacked any dem that did not support the war and called them unpatriotic.
Max Cleland, a wounded Vietnam vet, was called unpatrtiotic by the GOP.

Republicans have a very convenient way of forgetting all the things they did and said in 2002-2004. The war in Iraq was a GOP plan policy and failure

Attacks on war heroes’ patriotism could backfire on GOP

BOSTON – Max Cleland is a man on fire, passionate, persuasive, determined to oust George W. Bush from the White House. A triple amputee from Vietnam and former U.S. senator, Mr. Cleland was d…

www.baltimoresun.com

 

[rightwinger]

Crow has NEVER has a case heard in the Supreme Court , so "partiality" isn't an issue.

BTW, what gifts have the liberal justices reported over the years?

Or are they exempt from that?

The late Justice Ginzberg was alleged to have been a card-carrying member of the Far Left ACLU, did they ever give her any gifts? Did she recuse herself when they were involved?

Does’t matter

The guy is a major GOP donor and provides access to Thomas for his Republican buddies

Thomas was obligated to report the gifts and services

 

[Meister]

not true at all.

Although the war would not begin until March 2003, the House passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Iraq in October 2002. The vote was 296 to 133. 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted for it. 126 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent (Sanders) voted against it.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Although the war would not begin until March 2003, the House passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Iraq in October 2002. The vote was 296 to 133. 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted for it. 126 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent (Sanders) voted against it.

.

It was an authorization
Bush pulled the trigger

 

[Meister]

It was an authorization
Bush pulled the trigger

My point was that 81 democrats voted for it.
Bush was wrong, we shouldn't have gone in....but it was definitely bipartisan.

 

[Polishprince]

Does’t matter

The guy is a major GOP donor and provides access to Thomas for his Republican buddies

Thomas was obligated to report the gifts and services

How do you know that Thomas provides any access at all?

Did he tell you that he did? Did Mr. Crow say anything to you?

Lots of people are donors to the Republican Party, aren't they allowed to associate with each other and hang out?