Clarence Thomas in Hot Water (Alito too!)

#201
#201
Weezer said:
Except the nomination system we have is completely partisan and biased. The entire court is tainted by politics because of that nomination system. Should we impeach the entire court?
Click to expand...

You cannot get rid of all bias, but judges accepting extravagant gifts can be eliminated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VFFL@THE BEACH
#202
#202
Sudden Impact said:
Yes they are....and if they are not (Which they are) they are now and totally unethical anyway you look at it.

It makes no difference... Geez Judge in your pocket. A lot of questions for someone who thinks he is innocent. Regardless of the number of Cases before the Supreme court that he has heard he broke ethics law regarding the receiving of gifts...LOL
Click to expand...

Now they are covered by the law passed this year. Prior to that they weren't. Roberts has said the ethics and reporting did not apply to SCOTUS previously.
 
#204
#204
ClearwaterVol said:
You cannot get rid of all bias, but judges accepting extravagant gifts can be eliminated.
Click to expand...
So do you support a deep dive investigation on ALL the justices? Seems unfair just to target one. Definitely comes across as a political hit job.
 
#205
#205
Weezer said:
So do you support a deep dive investigation on ALL the justices? Seems unfair just to target one. Definitely comes across as a political hit job.
Click to expand...
I think the actions of Thomas and his wife have established him as the appropriate starting point. His wife's actions alone should have been enough.
 
#206
#206
Weezer said:
So do you support a deep dive investigation on ALL the justices? Seems unfair just to target one. Definitely comes across as a political hit job.
Click to expand...

They just want to get rid of Thomas before the elections next year so Joe can appoint 1 more. He's the easiest target, none of them are interested in judicial integrity. If they were they would have been all over Roberts in 2012 and demanding all of them be investigated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#210
#210
hog88 said:
They just want to get rid of Thomas before the elections next year so Joe can appoint 1 more. He's the easiest target, none of them are interested in judicial integrity. If they were they would have been all over Roberts in 2012 and demanding all of them be investigated.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the true motivation.
 
#211
#211
hog88 said:
Now they are covered by the law passed this year. Prior to that they weren't. Roberts has said the ethics and reporting did not apply to SCOTUS previously.
Click to expand...
Are Supreme Court Justices Federal Employees?
 
#215
#215
I'm for fair, unbiased investigation of every member of SCOTUS, every member of Congress, the President, the Vice President, the entire cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other government employee of significance. I'm pretty sure dirt could and would be found on most of them, if the investigations were fair and not partisan hackery. And I'm talking on both sides of the aisle. We elect the shittiest of people to run this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, luthervol and hog88
#216
#216
Weezer said:
I'm for fair, unbiased investigation of every member of SCOTUS, every member of Congress, the President, the Vice President, the entire cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other government employee of significance. I'm pretty sure dirt could and would be found on most of them, if the investigations were fair and not partisan hackery. And I'm talking on both sides of the aisle. We elect the shittiest of people to run this country.
Click to expand...
Look. Hogg and I both gave you a like.
If we could actually do this we would be able to line them up on a continuum from dirtiest to cleanest and draw that arbitrary line where we collectively say, that's about as dirty as we are willing to tolerate.....and start getting rid of those on the dirtiest side.
 
#218
#218
luthervol said:
I have no idea, but that's obviously the question that needs to be answered.
Click to expand...
Thomas is too far along the originalism continuum for my taste, but his jurisprudence has been extremely consistent. I think Alito, Sotomayor, and Thomas tend to adhere to partisan views more uniformly than the others (Jackson/Barret TBD) but I don’t think it’s because that is who gives them perks.

I read the article and Politico admits they can’t show any swings to favor this guy. He’s never had a case before the court. The guy denies using his access to influence (tifwiw). The whole “the court rules on real estate stuff” is too tenuous for me.

I think there is some Sorosing going on in the article. It’s the kind of broad brushing that marginal right wing media likes to do. This guy’s donor history makes him GOP man so he’s connected to the GOP and everything he does and touches must be tarred as connected to the GOP or part of some devious plot to advance all things GOP and that connection runs backwards so every GOP related thing must also be connected to this man. I don’t subscribe to that.

What @ClearwaterVol says about the appearance of impropriety is a real consideration, but I think case-specific recusal is the best remedy to that. Because of the above, I’m not willing to say that accepting gifts from GOP Man warrants recusal from even politically charged cases where GOP Man isn’t a party.

A functional congress would ideally pass laws that set rules for the justices governing when they have to recuse, what gifts they can accept, and what they have to disclose. I’m not sure what good that does because dysfunctional congress can’t enforce those rules.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol, 85SugarVol and hog88
#219
#219
Did Thomas do anything wrong? Probably not. Should he have put himself in that position? Hell no.

Let Saban take some of the top SEC officials out for a lavish vacation or outing and watch the heads explode over on the football forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#220
#220
RockyTop85 said:
Thomas is too far along the originalism continuum for my taste, but his jurisprudence has been extremely consistent. I think Alito, Sotomayor, and Thomas tend to adhere to partisan views more uniformly than the others (Jackson/Barret TBD) but I don’t think it’s because that is who gives them perks.

I read the article and Politico admits they can’t show any swings to favor this guy. He’s never had a case before the court. The guy denies using his access to influence (tifwiw). The whole “the court rules on real estate stuff” is too tenuous for me.

I think there is some Sorosing going on in the article. It’s the kind of broad brushing that marginal right wing N likes to do. This guy’s donor history makes him GOP man so he’s connected to the GOP and everything he does and touches must be tarred as connected to the GOP or part of some devious plot to advance all things GOP and that connection runs backwards so every GOP related thing must also be connected to this man. I don’t subscribe to that.

What @ClearwaterVol says about the appearance of impropriety is a real consideration, but I think case-specific recusal is the best remedy to that. Because of the above, I’m not willing to say that accepting gifts from GOP Man warrants recusal from even politically charged cases where GOP Man isn’t a party.

A functional congress would ideally pass laws that set rules for the justices governing when they have to recuse, what gifts they can accept, and what they have to disclose. I’m not sure what good that does because dysfunctional congress can’t enforce those rules.
Click to expand...
Excellently articulated and thought provoking. You and I do not always agree, but I appreciate the thought you inspire. Wish others were as capable.
 
#223
#223
ClearwaterVol said:
I’m fine with that. They need to be above reproach.
Click to expand...
I think the ship of trust has already sailed away from the dock.

I would like to discuss the public's perception of our legal system and get your perspective.
 
#224
#224
Weezer said:
So do you support a deep dive investigation on ALL the justices? Seems unfair just to target one. Definitely comes across as a political hit job.
Click to expand...

How can you say it's a political hit job. It's a report done by a public interest not for profit entity, unaffiliated with either party, it is progressive in its perspective. It has won 6 Pulitzers.

Besides, if it's true, how is it a hit job?

But I've got no problem checking the justices' financial relationships, all of them. They are the most powerful people on earth and they don't really answer to anyone. I think they should all go through periodic financial audits.
 
#225
#225
hog88 said:
yes but as you should be aware of by now, not all rules apply equally across the board.
Click to expand...
Determining application of law must be a matter of which party appointed you? The 1978 law is pretty simple.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top