Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[bigrebnc1775]

"I GOTTA PROTECT OUR DEAR LEADER!" You keep listening to his lies...and you might end up like the cult member in Utah....DEAD.

Yes you must protect your Biden cult

 

[Hutch Starskey]

But you ignore Joe Biden

Nope.
Just you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope.
Just you.

Yep that's why you posted to my quote

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yep that's why you posted to my quote

Which did not speak of Biden. Only you.

 

[2aguy]

You don't have any evidence on Joe but you have all this evidence on Clarence Thomas and all you have to say is whataboutism?

Yes...we do...we have enough to open a DOJ investigation....but they won't because obama is running the DOJ and won't let them.

 

[bripat9643]

You got proof...not just cause..."I said so."

In other words, you do believe it.

You are so gullible.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks.

When the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted a $1 million prize from a liberal billionaire’s foundation, she pledged to pass the money to a list of designated charities. Four years later, it is unclear where Ginsburg sent that money—an ambiguity that experts say raises conflict of interest concerns.

If true she should have been drug over the coals until every penny was accounted for and like above, it should not be done, period.

You you progtards never did a thing. Saying you "shoulda" is meaningless.

 

[JimH52]

Yes you must protect your Biden cult

You mean the guy that beat the Hell out of your career criminal?

 

[tahuyaman]

You got proof...not just cause..."I said so."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Mysterious $1 Million Prize

When the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted a $1 million prize from a liberal billionaire’s foundation, she pledged to pass the money to a list of designated charities. Four years later, it is unclear where Ginsburg sent that money—an ambiguity that experts say raises...

freebeacon.com

 

[pknopp]

You you progtards never did a thing. Saying you "shoulda" is meaningless.

Sorry, I'll do a big piece in the national news next time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which did not speak of Biden. Only you.

Biden crimes and your dodge and deflection is the very reason why you need to be reminded.

 

[sealybobo]

Perhaps, but we have the proof that Biden is a crook. Biden is destroying this country and corrupting our courts. Jack Smith is the biggest scumbag ever to work for the government.

I love it when conservatives snap and go into a ridiculous tirade like you just did.

Biden is DESTROYING THE COUNTRY. LOL.

Didn't Trump say we won't have a country if you don't fight like hell? You guys seriously need to tone down the rhetoric.

 

[sealybobo]

Thanks.

When the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted a $1 million prize from a liberal billionaire’s foundation, she pledged to pass the money to a list of designated charities. Four years later, it is unclear where Ginsburg sent that money—an ambiguity that experts say raises conflict of interest concerns.

If true she should have been drug over the coals until every penny was accounted for and like above, it should not be done, period.

Why? She disclosed. Then donated the money to charity. Clarence has lived a lavish lifestyle. All he has to do is vote the way that is favorable to billionaires.

In 2019, she donated $1 million to more than 60 charities deriving from her winning of the 2019 Berggruen Prize.

Here are a few of her favorites:

Hand in Hand, a network of integrated public schools where Jewish and Arab children in Israel learn together — and from each another — with the hopes of fostering peace, respect and understanding.

The American Bar Foundation, a preeminent legal research institute. The justice became a fellow of the ABF in 1978.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center where she received treatment for lung and pancreatic cancer.

 

[sealybobo]

Biden crimes and your dodge and deflection is the very reason why you need to be reminded.

Joe Biden hasn't been charged with any crimes. Trump 4 indictments. And not all of them are witch hunts. In fact none of them are.

 

[pknopp]

Why? She disclosed. Then donated the money to charity.

1. Appearance of impropriety

2. It notes it was never documented who or if she actually gave the money to anyone.

 

[sealybobo]

1. Appearance of impropriety

2. It notes it was never documented who or if she actually gave the money to anyone.

I listed the charities she gave the money to. Do any of them dispute it?

That's why she disclosed it. And didn't keep the money. That would have appeared inappropriate.

Please stop trying to compare a liberal foundation awarding her $1 million because of her great work, that she doesn't get to keep, to Clarence and his wife and what they've been doing with/for all these billionaires who want him to vote in ways that are favorable to him.

Without even knowing Clarence was doing this, for YEARS I've pointed out that when it comes to billionaires and corporations, the right wing justices always side with them over we the people. I had no idea they reward him to vote the way he does. I think they are wasting their money because he probably would have voted that way anyways. LOL.

 

[pknopp]

I listed the charities she gave the money to. Do any of them dispute it?

That's why she disclosed it. And didn't keep the money. That would have appeared inappropriate.

Please stop trying to compare a liberal foundation awarding her $1 million because of her great work, that she doesn't get to keep, to Clarence and his wife and what they've been doing with/for all these billionaires who want him to vote in ways that are favorable to him.

Without even knowing Clarence was doing this, for YEARS I've pointed out that when it comes to billionaires and corporations, the right wing justices always side with them over we the people. I had no idea they reward him to vote the way he does. I think they are wasting their money because he probably would have voted that way anyways. LOL.

It gives the appearance of impropriety and of a biased position before the case is ever heard.

If she donates money to any organization and then that organization in any way has any position on any case before the court she has shown a particular bias to that case.

What exactly is the problem with "NO money to Supreme Court justices"?

 

[sealybobo]

It gives the appearance of impropriety and of a biased position before the case is ever heard.

If she donates money to any organization and then that organization in any way has any position on any case before the court she has shown a particular bias to that case.

What exactly is the problem with "NO money to Supreme Court justices"?

If if if. If that happens then she recuses herself.

That's another thing Clarence does wrong. He doesn't recuse himself.

 

[pknopp]

If if if. If that happens then she recuses herself.

That's another thing Clarence does wrong. He doesn't recuse himself.

It's been noted many have not recused themselves in cases they should have.

Recent Times a Justice Failed to Recuse Despite a Conflict of Interest - Fix the Court

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lasr.12090

I don't really expect you to read the second link completely but it does a good job of noting how often Ginsberg refused to recuse herself despite a clear conflict of interest.

What is wrong with NO money to Supreme Court justices?

 

[sealybobo]

It's been noted many have not recused themselves in cases they should have.

Recent Times a Justice Failed to Recuse Despite a Conflict of Interest - Fix the Court

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lasr.12090

I don't really expect you to read the second link completely but it does a good job of noting how often Ginsberg refused to recuse herself despite a clear conflict of interest.

What is wrong with NO money to Supreme Court justices?

I think we agree they need to have a list of rules/ethics and they can not break those rules. If they do they have to go.

Lower courts have these rules and they are bound by them. The Supreme's don't. This is one of the examples that prove this system we have is rigged. Like the electoral college or how a senator of a small state has just as much power as a senator who resides in a much bigger state. How the fuck do the Supreme Court justices not have rules they have to follow?

And another thing. Appointed for life? How about we cut that to 10 years. A lot can change in a country in 20 years. What if we appointed a 30 year old KKK judge in 1963? He'd be a 90 year old judge still on the bench. And before you think that's a stretch. remember RBG was 87 and still on the court.