Clarence Thomas in Hot Water (Alito too!)

#251
#251
KB5252 said:
Here you go again. What has he been paid for? You made the as allegation...... Back it up.
Click to expand...


Good lord, ace: He accepted lavish trips and other gifs that he, as a Supreme Court justice, shouldn't have accepted. That is effectively "getting paid." Lavish trips are worth a lot of money, yes? You do get that influence peddling involves just this sort of activity? It doesn't have to be a suitcase full of cash.
 
#252
#252
KB5252 said:
Nevermind, apparently you are that dense.
Click to expand...


You've been exposed. You made an accusation then couldn't back it up. It was more of the "I think this and so it must be true," even if you have no facts to buttress your charge. Much like Maga believing there was election fraud because it allowed itself to get played by a pathologically dishonest and corrupt president/ex-president.
 
#253
#253
turbovol said:
Good lord, ace: He accepted lavish trips and other gifs that he, as a Supreme Court justice, shouldn't have accepted. That is effectively "getting paid." Lavish trips are worth a lot of money, yes? You do get that influence peddling involves just this sort of activity? It doesn't have to be a suitcase full of cash.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure Supreme Court justices are allowed to receive as many gifs as they want.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and VolStrom
#254
#254
Weezer said:
So I just read an article stating that the judge in the Trump case donated $15 dollars to Joe Biden's campaign. Should he recuse himself?
Click to expand...


Maybe. If he's only donated to Democrats, he perhaps should recuse himself.
 
#255
#255
turbovol said:
Maybe. If he's only donated to Democrats, he perhaps should recuse himself.
Click to expand...
Now I believe your argument. Or at least believe you believe your argument. Had to check and see if you really believed it was about ethics or if it was partisan, like it is for some posters. No names <luther> mentioned.
 
#256
#256
turbovol said:
You've been exposed. You made an accusation then couldn't back it up. It was more of the "I think this and so it must be true," even if you have no facts to buttress your charge. Much like Maga believing there was election fraud because it allowed itself to get played by a pathologically dishonest and corrupt president/ex-president.
Click to expand...
He was referring to the accusations surrounding Hunter Biden and his laptop and the Biden connections to China and the Ukraine. I will say I have no idea if the accusations are true, but they are just as deserving of being investigated as all the Trump/Russia stuff was.
 
#257
#257
turbovol said:
Good lord, ace: He accepted lavish trips and other gifs that he, as a Supreme Court justice, shouldn't have accepted. That is effectively "getting paid." Lavish trips are worth a lot of money, yes? You do get that influence peddling involves just this sort of activity? It doesn't have to be a suitcase full of cash.
Click to expand...
My guess is if someone puts the other justices under the microscope, and even some of the justices that have died in the last couple of decades, you'll find similar behavior from at least a few of them. No way Thomas is the only one IMO.
 
#259
#259
ClearwaterVol said:
All politicians are compromised. Judges need a higher standard
Click to expand...
Politicians should face a higher standard, too. We shouldn't just dismiss it as something that happens as you are doing. These are the people who are supposed to be running the country and representing the people. Yet we hold them to such little standard. It's sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#260
#260
Vol423 said:
I’m pretty sure Supreme Court justices are allowed to receive as many gifs as they want.
Click to expand...


Well, apparently until very recently there has been no Code of Ethics for Supreme Court justices, which is astounding. There was a rule that all gifts had to be reported--and then several years ago the LA Time published a story showing that Thomas was accepting a LOT of gifts. Embarrassed by the revelation, Thomas simply stopped reporting the gifts he's been receiving. The Washington Post reported today that he's only reported 2 gifts--or some very low number--in years. Hysterical. The big point here is very basic: Public officials and major decision makers should not be accepting gifts of any kind, because it's influence peddling, and whether there is some specific law banning the acceptance of gifts is really beside the point. It looks bad, and it is bad. We don't want developers or anybody with business before a city to be wining and dining the mayor or giving fur coats to his wife.

It's a fact that Republicans are far more comfortable being unethical than Democrats, as one only has to note that they consistently oppose measures to tighten ethical regulations in the U.S. Congress. That's of course not to say that there haven't been plenty of ethical problems involving Democrats over the years, but Republicans are worse. Always have been. They're big fans of Big Business, and there is tons of corruption involving Big Business--tons.

Look at the gangster (trump): He should have sold his hotel in D.C. when he became president. Did he? No--of course not. And so you had all of these fat cats and foreign officials and diplomats with business before the U.S. government staying at his hotel. That is corruption. He gave his corrupt son-in-law, Kusher, a top White House job--corruption. He spent almost every weekend at a Trump property--putting loads of taxpayer money into his own pocket or that of his real estate business. Profiting from public office is major corruption.
 
#261
#261
turbovol said:
Well, apparently until very recently there has been no Code of Ethics for Supreme Court justices, which is astounding. There was a rule that all gifts had to be reported--and then several years ago the LA Time published a story showing that Thomas was accepting a LOT of gifts. Embarrassed by the revelation, Thomas simply stopped reporting the gifts he's been receiving. The Washington Post reported today that he's only reported 2 gifts--or some very low number--in years. Hysterical. The big point here is very basic: Public officials and major decision makers should not be accepting gifts of any kind, because it's influence peddling, and whether there is some specific law banning the acceptance of gifts is really beside the point. It looks bad, and it is bad. We don't want developers or anybody with business before a city to be wining and dining the mayor or giving fur coats to his wife.

It's a fact that Republicans are far more comfortable being unethical than Democrats, as one only has to note that they consistently oppose measures to tighten ethical regulations in the U.S. Congress. That's of course not to say that there haven't been plenty of ethical problems involving Democrats over the years, but Republicans are worse. Always have been. They're big fans of Big Business, and there is tons of corruption involving Big Business--tons.

Look at the gangster (trump): He should have sold his hotel in D.C. when he became president. Did he? No--of course not. And so you had all of these fat cats and foreign officials and diplomats with business before the U.S. government staying at his hotel. That is corruption. He gave his corrupt son-in-law, Kusher, a top White House job--corruption. He spent almost every weekend at a Trump property--putting loads of taxpayer money into his own pocket or that of his real estate business. Profiting from public office is major corruption.
Click to expand...
You left off the "t". Notice, he said "gifs". Not "gifts".
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and Vol423
#262
#262
turbovol said:
Well, apparently until very recently there has been no Code of Ethics for Supreme Court justices, which is astounding. There was a rule that all gifts had to be reported--and then several years ago the LA Time published a story showing that Thomas was accepting a LOT of gifts. Embarrassed by the revelation, Thomas simply stopped reporting the gifts he's been receiving. The Washington Post reported today that he's only reported 2 gifts--or some very low number--in years. Hysterical. The big point here is very basic: Public officials and major decision makers should not be accepting gifts of any kind, because it's influence peddling, and whether there is some specific law banning the acceptance of gifts is really beside the point. It looks bad, and it is bad. We don't want developers or anybody with business before a city to be wining and dining the mayor or giving fur coats to his wife.

It's a fact that Republicans are far more comfortable being unethical than Democrats, as one only has to note that they consistently oppose measures to tighten ethical regulations in the U.S. Congress. That's of course not to say that there haven't been plenty of ethical problems involving Democrats over the years, but Republicans are worse. Always have been. They're big fans of Big Business, and there is tons of corruption involving Big Business--tons.

Look at the gangster (trump): He should have sold his hotel in D.C. when he became president. Did he? No--of course not. And so you had all of these fat cats and foreign officials and diplomats with business before the U.S. government staying at his hotel. That is corruption. He gave his corrupt son-in-law, Kusher, a top White House job--corruption. He spent almost every weekend at a Trump property--putting loads of taxpayer money into his own pocket or that of his real estate business. Profiting from public office is major corruption.
Click to expand...
The bolded is absolute horse ****. Both sides are comfortable being unethical. FFS. look at the Clintons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and Vol423
#263
#263
turbovol said:
Well, apparently until very recently there has been no Code of Ethics for Supreme Court justices, which is astounding. There was a rule that all gifts had to be reported--and then several years ago the LA Time published a story showing that Thomas was accepting a LOT of gifts. Embarrassed by the revelation, Thomas simply stopped reporting the gifts he's been receiving. The Washington Post reported today that he's only reported 2 gifts--or some very low number--in years. Hysterical. The big point here is very basic: Public officials and major decision makers should not be accepting gifts of any kind, because it's influence peddling, and whether there is some specific law banning the acceptance of gifts is really beside the point. It looks bad, and it is bad. We don't want developers or anybody with business before a city to be wining and dining the mayor or giving fur coats to his wife.

It's a fact that Republicans are far more comfortable being unethical than Democrats, as one only has to note that they consistently oppose measures to tighten ethical regulations in the U.S. Congress. That's of course not to say that there haven't been plenty of ethical problems involving Democrats over the years, but Republicans are worse. Always have been. They're big fans of Big Business, and there is tons of corruption involving Big Business--tons.

Look at the gangster (trump): He should have sold his hotel in D.C. when he became president. Did he? No--of course not. And so you had all of these fat cats and foreign officials and diplomats with business before the U.S. government staying at his hotel. That is corruption. He gave his corrupt son-in-law, Kusher, a top White House job--corruption. He spent almost every weekend at a Trump property--putting loads of taxpayer money into his own pocket or that of his real estate business. Profiting from public office is major corruption.
Click to expand...
You almost had me convinced you were being non-partisan til I read all of this drivel. Shame on you.
 
#264
#264
turbovol said:
Good lord, ace: He accepted lavish trips and other gifs that he, as a Supreme Court justice, shouldn't have accepted. That is effectively "getting paid." Lavish trips are worth a lot of money, yes? You do get that influence peddling involves just this sort of activity? It doesn't have to be a suitcase full of cash.
Click to expand...

What other gifts? Only thing I have seen is trips.
 
#266
#266
turbovol said:
Good lord, ace: He accepted lavish trips and other gifs that he, as a Supreme Court justice, shouldn't have accepted. That is effectively "getting paid." Lavish trips are worth a lot of money, yes? You do get that influence peddling involves just this sort of activity? It doesn't have to be a suitcase full of cash.
Click to expand...

Riding with a friend in their boat or on their plane isn’t unethical. You’re going to need to be specific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#268
#268
Vol8188 said:
Riding with a friend in their boat or on their plane isn’t unethical. You’re going to need to be specific.
Click to expand...


I agree. It's not like Thomas became a conservative because this guy whispered sweet nothings in his ear on a boat. It looks bad that he opted not to disclose it when he easily could have because it gives the impression he didn't want people to know.
 
#269
#269
lawgator1 said:
I agree. It's not like Thomas became a conservative because this guy whispered sweet nothings in his ear on a boat. It looks bad that he opted not to disclose it when he easily could have because it gives the impression he didn't want people to know.
Click to expand...
The thing about being a supreme court justice is, they don't report to the president or the congress, they can tell both to pound sand.
 
#270
#270
VolStrom said:
The thing about being a supreme court justice is, they don't report to the president or the congress, they can tell both to pound sand.
Click to expand...

That’s not exactly true, congress can pass laws that SCOTUS must abide by. Now it would be interesting to see congress pass a law regulating what a SCOTUS judge can do and then SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional.
 
#271
#271
hog88 said:
That’s not exactly true, congress can pass laws that SCOTUS must abide by. Now it would be interesting to see congress pass a law regulating what a SCOTUS judge can do and then SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Tell what laws that congress has passed and the president has signed into law that regulates SCOTUS?
 
#275
#275
Rasputin_Vol said:
Justice Thomas Crushes Left's 'Billionaire-Funded-Trips' Impeachment Dreams | ZeroHedge
Click to expand...

iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top