Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[bripat9643]

“There is reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas willfully failed to file information required,”

Willfully. Why willfully? Because he's a judge. He can't say he didn't know the laws.

The body is comprised of more than two dozen of the top judges from the nation’s district and circuit courts and is headed by Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court.

He clearly needs to step down. That would be so great either before or after Biden wins re election. Either way.

“ was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable,” he said at the time.

This is the most ignorant comment. He can't be that stupid. The guy is a billionaire. The Supreme Court rules in favor of rich people and corporations all the time and against we the people. Especially the conservative judges. So every case where Clarence sided with big business, billionaires had an interest.

I have one perfect example of a case Clarence ruled on that benefited this billionaire Republican. Citizens United. Nuff said.

Clarence has to go.

Ethics Complaints About Justice Clarence Thomas Referred To Top Judicial Panel

It’s unclear how the Judicial Conference, which sets the rules for the federal judiciary, will move forward.

www.huffpost.com

<YAWN!>

Horseshit.

 

[sealybobo]

Like we keep telling you that's just the excuse to pass such a bad decision.

The previous law made it illegal to criticize Hillary. It was a bad law.

A decision that benefits rich people and corporations.

Free speech even applies to rich people.

Let's face it, this is a great example of why Republicans are the party for the rich. They defend Citizens United AND Clarence Unethical Thomas.

If you think we need another law to make it illegal to criticize rich, powerful politicians
by limiting free speech, you should say so.

Post the law here, so we can discuss its constitutionality.

We know you guys can find anything is or isn't constitutional. Slick laywers like the right wingers on the Supreme Court can argue anything they want to justify such a bad decision.



The Supreme Court thought non-candidate spending would be “independent” and therefore non-corrupting. This proposition not only beggars belief, it led to the rise of SuperPACs, which are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts because they don’t contribute directly to candidates and are purportedly independent. These Super PACs, more than 250 of which registered between their creation in 2010 and the end of 2011, have super-charged the influence of the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals.

Justice Kennedy wrongly assumed that disclosure rules would reveal who was spending money to influence elections but donors to groups running political ads remain hidden through technicalities. Even when a particular group discloses its funders, the identity of the real source of the funds can be shielded.

Corporate Money Distorts Democracy​

Court is Blind to Reality of Corruption ​

Citizen Voices are Drowned Out​

 

[sealybobo]

<YAWN!>

Horseshit.

Yea we know. It's how you feel about all the laws Trump broke. You're like a Putin supporter in Russia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We know you guys can find anything is or isn't constitutional. Slick laywers like the right wingers on the Supreme Court can argue anything they want to justify such a bad decision.



The Supreme Court thought non-candidate spending would be “independent” and therefore non-corrupting. This proposition not only beggars belief, it led to the rise of SuperPACs, which are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts because they don’t contribute directly to candidates and are purportedly independent. These Super PACs, more than 250 of which registered between their creation in 2010 and the end of 2011, have super-charged the influence of the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals.

Justice Kennedy wrongly assumed that disclosure rules would reveal who was spending money to influence elections but donors to groups running political ads remain hidden through technicalities. Even when a particular group discloses its funders, the identity of the real source of the funds can be shielded.

Corporate Money Distorts Democracy​

Court is Blind to Reality of Corruption ​

Citizen Voices are Drowned Out​

The Supreme Court thought non-candidate spending would be “independent” and therefore non-corrupting. This proposition not only beggars belief, it led to the rise of SuperPACs, which are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts because they don’t contribute directly to candidates and are purportedly independent.

Free speech......it's the worst.

 

[bripat9643]

Yea we know. It's how you feel about all the laws Trump broke. You're like a Putin supporter in Russia.

What law did he break?

 

[basquebromance]

 

[jbander]

Worm 1 and 2

 

[pknopp]

MSN

www.msn.com

Well there goes that excuse. How do you as a justice not recuse yourself from this case?

 

[Quasar44]

I have to think this will get interesting. Thomas has taken a ton of trips paid for by a billionaire campaign donor.

On the surface this appears to be in violations of federal law when he reported none of them.


IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.....................................

.....................These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

A bought and paid for Supreme Court judge. That's the very definition of a banana republic.

100 percent legal you stooge .
Other Leftist judges do same thing

 

[pknopp]

100 percent legal you stooge .
Other Leftist judges do same thing

Whether other judges do it or not, you recuse yourself when it's a personal acquaintance no matter who it is.

 

[Quasar44]

Whether other judges do it or not, you recuse yourself when it's a personal acquaintance no matter who it is.

They’re human and want to see next year

 

[Quasar44]

This message board has a few
Deep State Plants

 

[bripat9643]

MSN

www.msn.com

Well there goes that excuse. How do you as a justice not recuse yourself from this case?

That's a royal stretch.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether other judges do it or not, you recuse yourself when it's a personal acquaintance no matter who it is.

It doesn't matter if this whining about Thomas is utterly hypocritical?

How beautifully liberal!

 

[pknopp]

That's a royal stretch.

its a very basic idea.

 

[bripat9643]

MSN

www.msn.com

Well there goes that excuse. How do you as a justice not recuse yourself from this case?

" Justice Clarence Thomas said he was advised he didn’t have to disclose private jet flights and luxury vacations paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow because, although a close friend, Crow"

That isn't the reason, douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

its a very basic idea.

That you're an imbecile hypocrite? Yeah, that's pretty basic

 

[Quasar44]

You are a deep state stooge !!!

 

[pknopp]

It doesn't matter if this whining about Thomas is utterly hypocritical?

How beautifully liberal!

nothing I've said has been hypocritical.

Justice Jackson Recused Herself From a Supreme Court Case. Your Move, Clarence Thomas!

Alito, Kagan Top Justices in Supreme Court Recusal ‘Black Box’

 

[bripat9643]

nothing I've said has been hypocritical.

Justice Jackson Recused Herself From a Supreme Court Case. Your Move, Clarence Thomas!

Alito, Kagan Top Justices in Supreme Court Recusal ‘Black Box’

Is she the only justice to have recused herself from a case?

Clarence Thomas Has Recused Himself From Cases Involving His Son — But Not His Wife

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recused himself from cases before the court 54 times since 1993, including 17 times to avoid the potential perception of a conflict of interest created by his son, according to records collected by the group Fix The Court.​