Clarence Thomas in Hot Water (Alito too!)

[hog88]

The climate is too tribal right now, for any regulatory action to be taken, and you know it.

Republicans in Congress don't simply think of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice. They think of him as being an arm of the Republican Party. Regardless of what he does, they aren't going to allow him to be removed from the bench, any more than they would have allowed Trump to be removed from office. You have to understand that. Your argument is intellectually dishonest.

It's my understanding there is some debate on what ethics rules congress can impose on the courts and Alito has said nobody can tell them what to do.

Amend the constitution to include an ethics rule for SCOTUS and there isn't a damn thing any justice can do about it,

U.S. Senate: Amending the Constitution.

Good luck with that.

These are the posts that lead up to the one you quoted. None of the involved parties were talking about removing CT, we were talking about a constitutional amendment imposing ethics standards on SCOTUS.

Now, what about that intellect?

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Gifts or no gifts, serving as a supreme court justice is on the bucket list.

 

[BowlBrother85]

These are the posts that lead up to the one you quoted. None of the involved parties were talking about removing CT, we were talking about a constitutional amendment imposing ethics standards on SCOTUS.

Now, what about that intellect?

Okay. Fair enough. I hadn't read any prior posts to get the full context. My fault.

However, I'm sure you would agree that as it stands right now, Republicans in Congress have no incentive to pursue amendments or adopt additional ethical standards for the Supreme Court. They have the Court they have always wanted. They don't want to change a thing ... and so nothing will be changed.

 

[hog88]

Okay. Fair enough. I hadn't read any prior posts to get the full context. My fault.

However, I'm sure you would agree that as it stands right now, Republicans in Congress have no incentive to pursue amendments or adopt additional ethical standards for the Supreme Court. They have the Court they have always wanted. They don't want to change a thing ... and so nothing will be changed.

And neither do the democrats.

 

[BowlBrother85]

And neither do the democrats.

Huh?

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Okay. Fair enough. I hadn't read any prior posts to get the full context. My fault.

However, I'm sure you would agree that as it stands right now, Republicans in Congress have no incentive to pursue amendments or adopt additional ethical standards for the Supreme Court. They have the Court they have always wanted. They don't want to change a thing ... and so nothing will be changed.

Ketanji Brown Jackson needs to be replaced with a biologist.

 

[volinbham]

Okay. Fair enough. I hadn't read any prior posts to get the full context. My fault.

However, I'm sure you would agree that as it stands right now, Republicans in Congress have no incentive to pursue amendments or adopt additional ethical standards for the Supreme Court. They have the Court they have always wanted. They don't want to change a thing ... and so nothing will be changed.

Congress should work on it's own ethical standards before it moves on to another branch

 

[hog88]

Huh?

The democrats have no incentive to act either.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Ketanji Brown Jackson needs to be replaced with a biologist.

Clarence Thomas needs to be replaced with someone who isn't on the take.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The democrats have no incentive to act either.

Against a 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court? That doesn't make any sense. The two biggest ethics offenders right now, are both conservative (Thomas and Alito). Democrats have already made efforts to impose oversight features to the Supreme Court which Chief Justice John Roberts has denounced, and Republicans in Congress have rejected.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

The DOJ has emails between Trump's legal team in the late 2020, early 2021 time frame saying they can only get a favorable ruling from CT. Why would they send such details to each other?

 

[hog88]

Against a 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court? That doesn't make any sense. The two biggest ethics offenders right now, are both conservative (Thomas and Alito). Democrats have already made efforts to impose oversight features to the Supreme Court which Chief Justice John Roberts has denounced, and Republicans in Congress have rejected.

The two that are being reported, let's be clear on that. None of the media is digging into the 3 on the other side. Hell RBG was famous for taking trips on other peoples dimes and nobody cared. It wasn't a damn issue until now.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Congress should work on it's own ethical standards before it moves on to another branch

No argument there.

But it is sad to see where the Supreme Court is headed. The American public used to hold the Court in high esteem. 10 years from now, they will be thought of no differently than the House of Reps. Just another political body ... vulnerable to the same influences of lobbyists and big money as every other politician in Washington.

 

[hog88]

No argument there.

But it is sad to see where the Supreme Court is headed. The American public used to hold the Court in high esteem. 10 years from now, they will be thought of no differently than the House of Reps. Just another political body ... vulnerable to the same influences of lobbyists and big money as every other politician in Washington.

How many decades ago was that?

 

[BowlBrother85]

How many decades ago was that?

I would go up to when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died in 2005 ... I thought he made a great Chief Justice, even though he was conservative. Roberts has been weak, by comparison.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Admittedly, this doesn't implicate Clarence Thomas in any wrongdoing, and may even have more to do with his attention-whore wife than it does with him, but still ...

Trump's lawyers wanted Clarence Thomas to review their 2020 election lies, saying he was their 'only chance' of stopping Biden's victory

... it does speak volumes about what steps Republicans think Clarence Thomas was willing to take, in order to help them politically. Republicans absolutely do consider Clarence Thomas to be a major political asset.

Why did the Trump attorneys single out Clarence Thomas, instead of Roberts, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh or Alito?

 

[volfanhill]

Admittedly, this doesn't implicate Clarence Thomas in any wrongdoing, and may even have more to do with his attention-whore wife than it does with him, but still ...

Trump's lawyers wanted Clarence Thomas to review their 2020 election lies, saying he was their 'only chance' of stopping Biden's victory

... it does speak volumes about what steps Republicans think Clarence Thomas was willing to take, in order to help them politically. Republicans absolutely do consider Clarence Thomas to be a major political asset.

Why did the Trump attorneys single out Clarence Thomas, instead of Roberts, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh or Alito?

The answer is obvious. Which States does Thomas oversee circuit courts?

 

[85SugarVol]

These are the posts that lead up to the one you quoted. None of the involved parties were talking about removing CT, we were talking about a constitutional amendment imposing ethics standards on SCOTUS.

Now, what about that intellect?

Oh good. I’m just in time for BB’s witching hour.

He’s already coming in hot, erroneously scolding others.
Won’t be long until he’s hurling derogatory epithets.

 

[turbovol]

The two that are being reported, let's be clear on that. None of the media is digging into the 3 on the other side. Hell RBG was famous for taking trips on other peoples dimes and nobody cared. It wasn't a damn issue until now.

You have no idea what investigative work the media has done or is doing.

It was always clear that C. Thomas was a complete lightweight and a hack. But now he's just a total disgrace--not just a hack but a deeply
corrupt and politicized one as well.

As a whole, Republicans have more ethical problems--and are more resistant to ethical reforms--than Dems. Why? Cronyism is a big thang
with the GOP.

 

[85SugarVol]

It was always clear that C. Thomas was a complete lightweight

What does this mean? What are you trying to say.

 

[BowlBrother85]

What does this mean? What are you trying to say.

1) He literally went 10 years (from 2006 to 2016) without ever asking a question of an attorney during oral arguments.

2) Has never reigned in his activist wife, who was trying to help Trump overturn the outcome of his own defeat in the 2020 Presidential Election. (No wonder Trump's attorneys viewed him as a political asset.)

3) Has no qualms with accepting benefits from billionaire Republican Party donors, who have or have had business before the Supreme Court.

4) Has failed to properly disclose receiving such benefits.

 

[volfanhill]

1) He literally went 10 years (from 2006 to 2016) without ever asking a question of an attorney during oral arguments.

2) Has never reigned in his activist wife, who was trying to help Trump overturn the outcome of his own defeat in the 2020 Presidential Election. (No wonder Trump's attorneys viewed him as a political asset.)

3) Has no qualms with accepting benefits from billionaire Republican Party donors, who have or have had business before the Supreme Court.

4) Has failed to properly disclose receiving such benefits.

Your second point is not relevant. Not his job to reign in his wife. I sure as **** dont try to reign mine. Two different people who just happen to love each other.

Can you imagine the gasket that would explode if a conservative suggested a liberal reign his wife in? Good lord. Hypocrisy.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Your second point is not relevant. Not his job to reign in his wife. I sure as **** dont try to reign mine. Two different people who just happen to love each other.

Can you imagine the gasket that would explode if a conservative suggested a liberal reign his wife in? Good lord. Hypocrisy.

Guys who think that a wife can be reigned traditionally don’t have one.

 

[85SugarVol]

1) He literally went 10 years (from 2006 to 2016) without ever asking a question of an attorney during oral arguments.

2) Has never reigned in his activist wife, who was trying to help Trump overturn the outcome of his own defeat in the 2020 Presidential Election. (No wonder Trump's attorneys viewed him as a political asset.)

3) Has no qualms with accepting benefits from billionaire Republican Party donors, who have or have had business before the Supreme Court.

4) Has failed to properly disclose receiving such benefits.

You forgot one you called him out for earlier -

5) He’s a race traitor

 

[85SugarVol]

Your second point is not relevant. Not his job to reign in his wife. I sure as **** dont try to reign mine. Two different people who just happen to love each other.

Can you imagine the gasket that would explode if a conservative suggested a liberal reign his wife in? Good lord. Hypocrisy.

He called her a whore a few posts back