Rare Unanimous Supreme Court Slaps Down Democrat Attacks On Justice Thomas

[maxipum]

Well, can you show me where I said that? Why can't you stick to the topic?

Go back and read my post about treating government like your favorite sports team.

We get it,you just want those evil conservatives punished to the fullest measure of your imagination.

 

[XMil]

We get it,you just want those evil conservatives punished to the fullest measure of your imagination.

I honestly think you need to seek counseling.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This, if true, could be a problem. Thomas' grandnephew who has lived with the Thomas's since a young age:

Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.

Crow paid for private school for a relative Thomas said he was raising “as a son.” “This is way outside the norm,” said a former White House ethics lawyer.

www.propublica.org

 

[KG1]

This, if true, could be a problem. Thomas' grandnephew who has lived with the Thomas's since a young age:

Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.

Crow paid for private school for a relative Thomas said he was raising “as a son.” “This is way outside the norm,” said a former White House ethics lawyer.

www.propublica.org

I will try to be somewhat intellectually honest here and say the cumulative nature of all of this is a bit eyebrow raising the more that it comes out.

After having said that though i still don't believe that Crow's generosity toward his longtime friends over the pat 25+ years can be linked to attempting to influence legal matters concerning Thomas's opinions and his seat on the USSC.

It is kind of odd the relationship that they've had though and what motivates Crow's generosity toward Thomas and Thomas's willingness to accept all of that.

i think Crow is just enamored with Thomas as a living historical figure. From where he started out to where he is today, and he is honored to be able to call Thomas his close personal friend which it does kind of make one question Thomas about the relationship. is he taking advantage of Crow in light of all of that by accepting all of this generosity? Maybe that might be a bit cynical,. Who knows.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I will try to be somewhat intellectually honest here and say the cumulative nature of all of this is a bit eyebrow raising the more that it comes out.

After having said that though i still don't believe that Crow's generosity toward his longtime friends over the pat 25+ years can be linked to attempting to influence legal matters concerning Thomas's opinions and his seat on the USSC.

It is kind of odd the relationship that they've had though and what motivates Crow's generosity toward Thomas and Thomas's willingness to accept all of that.

i think Crow is just enamored with Thomas as a living historical figure. From where he started out to where he is today, and he is honored to be able to call Thomas his close personal friend which it does kind of make one question Thomas about the relationship. is he taking advantage of Crow in light of all of that by accepting all of this generosity?

I agree, though I would say all of the other stuff was just, yawn!

Paying private school tuition... that's different... IF IT'S TRUE! The MSM has peddled fake documents before to slander people it didn't like... Looking at you Dan Rather!

 

[KG1]

I agree, though I would say all of the other stuff was just, yawn!

Paying private school tuition... that's different... IF IT'S TRUE! The MSM has peddled fake documents before to slander people it didn't like... Looking at you Dan Rather!

I agree simply because Crow has extended the same generosity to many other friends and other causes not exclusive to Thomas.

 

[Libertarian01]

Money has always and will always grant access to politicians.

If Doug calls the White House to schedule an appointment with Pres Biden I'll be politely declined. If Doug calls any sitting Senator or Congressman to schedule an appointment it will be extremely unlikely that I'll get one, and I certainly won't get one with a legislator outside of my state or district.

If either Charles Koch or Peter Thiel (both conservatives) call to schedule an appointment with Pres Biden they are far more likely to get one, even though from an opposing party. If either Koch or Thiel tries with any legislator anywhere they will likely get the meeting.

Money grants access. There is power with it. Even if the legislator doesn't get the money they may convince the billionaire to not give to their opponents.

But power is limited by both presidents and legislators. All they can do is pass legislation. That's it. They can make the rules. The courts interpret those rules. There is a helluva lot of power in interpreting exactly what a rule means. Should anyone disagree with this assessment, that's fine, just tell me why you were so happy (if you were) that Pres Trump got to appoint three (3) supreme court justices?

Should anyone think these "gifts" aren't a legitimate issue consider if the shoe were on the other foot. What would the feelings be if Mark Zuckerberg (multi-billionaire) started to give extravagant gifts of the same type to Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett? Would we accept their independence should they interpret in ways we did not agree with? It wouldn't have to be huge divisive issues like gun control or abortion. It could be simple things like employees rights, or subtle immigration nuances, or police overreach.

I like Justice Thomas. I generally agree with him. But on this issue there is the appearance of rich man's finger on the scales of justice that should be avoided.

Regards,

Doug

 

[KG1]

Money has always and will always grant access to politicians.

If Doug calls the White House to schedule an appointment with Pres Biden I'll be politely declined. If Doug calls any sitting Senator or Congressman to schedule an appointment it will be extremely unlikely that I'll get one, and I certainly won't get one with a legislator outside of my state or district.

If either Charles Koch or Peter Thiel (both conservatives) call to schedule an appointment with Pres Biden they are far more likely to get one, even though from an opposing party. If either Koch or Thiel tries with any legislator anywhere they will likely get the meeting.

Money grants access. There is power with it. Even if the legislator doesn't get the money they may convince the billionaire to not give to their opponents.

But power is limited by both presidents and legislators. All they can do is pass legislation. That's it. They can make the rules. The courts interpret those rules. There is a helluva lot of power in interpreting exactly what a rule means. Should anyone disagree with this assessment, that's fine, just tell me why you were so happy (if you were) that Pres Trump got to appoint three (3) supreme court justices?

Should anyone think these "gifts" aren't a legitimate issue consider if the shoe were on the other foot. What would the feelings be if Mark Zuckerberg (multi-billionaire) started to give extravagant gifts of the same type to Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett? Would we accept their independence should they interpret in ways we did not agree with? It wouldn't have to be huge divisive issues like gun control or abortion. It could be simple things like employees rights, or subtle immigration nuances, or police overreach.

I like Justice Thomas. I generally agree with him. But on this issue there is the appearance of rich man's finger on the scales of justice that should be avoided.

Regards,

Doug

I would agree with this except that Crow has been friends of the Thomas's for over a quarter of a century who happens to be wealthy. He's not some Johnny come lately billionaire just trying to gain access to Thomas. Now THAT would be questionable.

He didn't craft and mold Thomas into his judicial philosophy that he has developed early on and there is no indication that Crow's generosity over the years have influenced Thomas's opinions on legal matters before the USSC. But as innocent as it may be in reality I suppose as you say it all comes down to the political optics that one chooses to view it through.

 

[Libertarian01]

I would agree with this except that Crow has been friends of the Thomas's for over a quarter of a century who happens to be wealthy. He's not some Johnny come lately billionaire just trying to gain access to Thomas. Now THAT would be questionable.

He didn't craft and mold Thomas into his judicial philosophy that he has developed early on and there is no indication that Crow's generosity over the years have influenced Thomas's opinions on legal matters before the USSC. But as innocent as it may be in reality I suppose as you say it all comes down to the political optics that one chooses to view it through.

Yes, but we don't know how Thomas's thinking would have developed over the last quarter century without the generous input/influence of Crow.

Would you be okay in even 10 years if Zuckerberg started such support today with other supreme court justices?

My thought is that who we hang out with can and will, over time, influence our thinking. Hanging out with people who agree with me today will create an echo chamber that reinforces my thinking over the next decade. Were I to hang out with people I don't agree with they may cause my questioning of certain beliefs today that may be altered. It may not. Maybe a good argument I hear today will force me to really think about something I truly believe in.

I guess part of the issue is one of power. You and I and others can have wonderful debates and discussions, but should one of us become a multibillionaire and take the others on world trips on private jets and huge yachts there would be a greater likelihood of influence than just meeting at the Forum and shooting the breeze.

Regards,

Doug

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Were I to hang out with people I don't agree with they may cause my questioning of certain beliefs today that may be altered.

Or they may just irritate the crap out of you.

 

[BJHay]

The thought of congress overseeing the ethics of anyone is hilarious.

I don't know if Roosevelt really said it but it rings true even today:
"WHEN THEY CALL THE ROLL IN THE SENATE, THE SENATORS DO NOT KNOW WHETHER TO ANSWER PRESENT OR NOT GUILTY."

 

[Libertarian01]

Or they may just irritate the crap out of you.

Depending upon their sales pitch, 100% true no argument. However, I do enjoy a good debate and being forced to think and question my current opinions, otherwise I don't see how to grow or improve.

 

[jamil]

Privileged, powerful people protecting their gravy train. I'M SHOCKED!! American politics has been perverted down to sports fans levels of "Us vs. Them:. The number of people that will root for their team, no matter what, is one of our greatest problems.

Agreed.

If Ginsburg were still alive, and this was about her, the outrage from Republicans could be heard on Mars. As it should.

The RNC and DNC should start selling jerseys...

Well. She has had some ethics issues. I don’t recall any complaints. But then there weren’t partisans digging up dirt in witch-hunts to harm justices’ reputations in those days. Well, other than Clarance Thomas, Bork, and other conservative justices in their confirmation hearings.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[bonsaijackson]

Great news but I'm still disappointed with the lack of accountability where the Roe V Wade leaker is concerned.. It's nice to know that they can all agree on something but policing their own house should be a priority also.

In Rare Move, Unanimous Supreme Court Takes Congressional Democrats To Task In Major Pushback After Clarence Thomas Was Targeted For Alleged Ethics Violations

Justices have clearly had enough.

conservativebrief.com

I’m sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I will never understand why people want the Supreme Court, or any judges for that matter, to be partisan. If you were in front of a judge yourself, let’s say as an innocent defendant, would you want the judge to be bias? Or from the opposing party? Would you want your judge to be receiving these exact things he has received from the prosecutor/complainant? The answer is no, if you say yea you’re ok with that, then you’re a lier, period. Objectivity is literally one of the most important defining qualities of a just and fair judge.

All of this super right “I want to win at all costs, even if it means overturning democracy or influencing justice” has become absolutely disgusting to me. Bordering treasonous.

Every person on here 100% knows for fact if this situation was reversed, this thread would be throwing a fit. Every person on here knows if their area were gerrymandered in the opposite direction they would be throwing a fit. Every person on here knows if they were a defendant in front of a judge exposed for receiving extravagant gifts from the opposing party, you would be throwing a fit. Every person on here knows the way to get rid of corruption is transparency and disclosure and accountability from our government. Allowing and defending this behavior, and then turning around and pointing fingers when the dems do it is so ridiculous, childish and hypocritical.

We clutch our guns claiming we need to reserve the right to overthrow tyranny, but at the same time refuse to address tyranny when it’s literally right in front of our face because the result favors us….currently…

Every American should want transparent and fair democracy, and uninfluenced objective justice, even if that means some of the laws aren’t the way you would have them, even if that judge doesn’t rule the way you think he should every time. If you want to influence laws and government, then by all means, use social media, canvas neighborhoods, do everything you can to spread understanding of your position. If at the end of they day though, most of the people don’t like your position, then you’re out of luck, you either need to alter your stance, change your stance entirely, or move on. That is how democracy works. If you aren’t on board with losing sometimes, then you aren’t pro democracy, period. We have to be able to accept some of the things not being the way we want them. Regardless of which party you’re in, at this point we clearly have to focus on truth, accountability, and building systems that prevent corruption from any party, and very importantly, we need to prevent money from affecting politics. The rich on both sides are using their wealth to influence democracy. If anyone thinks those folks care if you’re breathing or not, you’re out of your mind. Great current example is the Fox News lawsuit and Tucker Carlson. Quite clearly caught making fun of us, lying to us, making fun of the potus, while publicly propping him up. Absolutely disgusting, at the end of the day their all still disgustingly rich.

If we lose these two basic foundations (corruption less democracy and uninfluenced justice) our country is finished, and will eventually collapse.

 

[Old Road Dog]

I'm not a big fan of PBS, but I watched a fascinating edition of Frontline last week about Clarence & Ginny Thomas. While I fully expected another left-wing "hit job" I was surprised to see a lot of detail about Justice Thomas's youth & upbringing in Savannah Georgia. His own people mocked & defamed him mercilessly. He studied in a Seminary to be a Catholic Priest but left after MLK was shot. He graduated from Yale Law School, (usually a golden ticket) but got very few job offers. His parents were absent & his Grandfather raised him, then His Grandfather disowned him. It was another whole side to the man.
After all he's endured, It's a disgrace to see him & his wife attacked by the hypocritical left simply because they are Republicans.