martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 82,824
- 34,186
- 2,300
They aren't "blanket stock accusations"..they are pretty pertinent.
If Thomas didn't sit on the supreme court, the conflict of interest issues would have removed him from his court.
Same with Scalia. I don't know how you defend that nonsense with a straight face.
I find it comical you equate conflict of interests basically with any position you disagree with. If there were coherent cases to be made against either, they would have happened already.
But all you have is your two minute hate against the strict constructionist leaning justices, because we all know people like you love to shit on the constitution when you don't agree with it, and these two call you on it.
Dude..you are something else..you know that?
The group was formed with a $500,000 anonymous donation that came as the Supreme Court was considering Citizens United, a case that ultimately resulted in loosening the restrictions on corporate giving to political campaigns. The anonymous donor was later revealed to be Harlan Crow, the Texas real estate developer. Crow was also a friend of Clarence Thomas', and he was later linked to a scandal involving the justice's failure to publicly disclose gifts from the developer and trips aboard his private jet. (It didn't help that Justice Thomas had also failed to include his wife's $150,000 annual salary from Liberty Central on his financial disclosure forms, which he later had to amend.) In January 2011, the good-government group Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Justice Thomas should have recused himself from Citizens United based on his wife's role at Liberty Central. (Common Cause also asked the IRS to revoke Liberty Central's nonprofit status. Nothing came of either request.)
Is Ginni Thomas' Expanding Activism a Problem for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? | Mother Jones
Justice Thomas is judging cases which outcomes personally benefit him.
That's called "Conflict of Interest". It's in place for a reason. Because it taints the objectivity of the judge.
Supreme Court Justices are not bound by the rules.
That, should be reprehensible to anyone who cares about the law.
So he's the only justice who has had a similar conflict of interest? or do you just point out his because you don't like him?
How about you go and dig into Ginsberg or Sotomeyer's possible COI's similar to this.
The fact still stands you only care about it because you hate Thomas.