No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people say what they actually want or expect to happen to Thomas? Why aren't more Democrats calling for his impeachment?

Seems like everything is a dead end, like this article.

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-can-essentially-do-whatever-he-wants-scotus-impeachment-2023-4

Moderate democrats really do not see anything with the supreme court. They see it as a way to check the AOC/Pelosi lefties. There is no call for reform or action against Thomas. Just ask Kyrsten Sinema.

So is this just a quirk of our constitutional system? And this stuff is essentially allowable because nothing can be done right now? Is the limit to this type of behavior essentially the luck of the political winds or the amount of shame a particular Justice can muster?

30 years ago he would have to resign. Now he is fine. Nothing will come of these. Democrats are too scared of being calls names and the republicans love Thomas.

The Supreme Court needs to be expanded to about to about 54 judges and elected to 6 year terms.

45 years ago Abe Fortas did resign in a very similar scandal.

Those were the days that there was a respectable Republican party, not the GQP that we have now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people say what they actually want or expect to happen to Thomas? Why aren't more Democrats calling for his impeachment?

Seems like everything is a dead end, like this article.

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-can-essentially-do-whatever-he-wants-scotus-impeachment-2023-4

Moderate democrats really do not see anything with the supreme court. They see it as a way to check the AOC/Pelosi lefties. There is no call for reform or action against Thomas. Just ask Kyrsten Sinema.

So is this just a quirk of our constitutional system? And this stuff is essentially allowable because nothing can be done right now? Is the limit to this type of behavior essentially the luck of the political winds or the amount of shame a particular Justice can muster?

30 years ago he would have to resign. Now he is fine. Nothing will come of these. Democrats are too scared of being calls names and the republicans love Thomas.

The Supreme Court needs to be expanded to about to about 54 judges and elected to 6 year terms.

45 years ago Abe Fortas did resign in a very similar scandal.

Those were the days that there was a respectable Republican party, not the GQP that we have now.

Fortas was a democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can people say what they actually want or expect to happen to Thomas? Why aren't more Democrats calling for his impeachment?

Seems like everything is a dead end, like this article.

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-can-essentially-do-whatever-he-wants-scotus-impeachment-2023-4

Moderate democrats really do not see anything with the supreme court. They see it as a way to check the AOC/Pelosi lefties. There is no call for reform or action against Thomas. Just ask Kyrsten Sinema.

So is this just a quirk of our constitutional system? And this stuff is essentially allowable because nothing can be done right now? Is the limit to this type of behavior essentially the luck of the political winds or the amount of shame a particular Justice can muster?

30 years ago he would have to resign. Now he is fine. Nothing will come of these. Democrats are too scared of being calls names and the republicans love Thomas.

The Supreme Court needs to be expanded to about to about 54 judges and elected to 6 year terms.

45 years ago Abe Fortas did resign in a very similar scandal.

Those were the days that there was a respectable Republican party, not the GQP that we have now.

Fortas was a democrat.

That explains it. His party was going to impeach him as it’s the right thing to do; we can expect no such responsibility from the Republicans. DP.

[Anonymous]

I think part of the reason that bipartisanship of the sort that contributed to the resignations of Nixon and Fortas had to do with the political realignment of the country going on the time. White southerners were going from Democrat to Republican in opposition to Civil Rights. And there was a corresponding movement from Republican to Democrat by people who were less racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the reason that bipartisanship of the sort that contributed to the resignations of Nixon and Fortas had to do with the political realignment of the country going on the time. White southerners were going from Democrat to Republican in opposition to Civil Rights. And there was a corresponding movement from Republican to Democrat by people who were less racist.

Social media has destroyed bipartisanship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the reason that bipartisanship of the sort that contributed to the resignations of Nixon and Fortas had to do with the political realignment of the country going on the time. White southerners were going from Democrat to Republican in opposition to Civil Rights. And there was a corresponding movement from Republican to Democrat by people who were less racist.

Social media has destroyed bipartisanship.

Social media just amplified the trend already happening with cable news.

Dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan was the real tipping point. People could then live inside their information bubble without being exposed to any dissenting points of view. Once you’re in the bubble, media entities have to feed you ever increasingly polarized views to keep you engaged.

[Anonymous]

Maybe and Ginni are simply not smart enough to hold th positions they do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe and Ginni are simply not smart enough to hold th positions they do

Is lying on a federal form not a crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the reason that bipartisanship of the sort that contributed to the resignations of Nixon and Fortas had to do with the political realignment of the country going on the time. White southerners were going from Democrat to Republican in opposition to Civil Rights. And there was a corresponding movement from Republican to Democrat by people who were less racist.

Social media has destroyed bipartisanship.

Social media just amplified the trend already happening with cable news.

Dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan was the real tipping point. People could then live inside their information bubble without being exposed to any dissenting points of view. Once you’re in the bubble, media entities have to feed you ever increasingly polarized views to keep you engaged.

I think the rise of cable news and social media was more of a factor than the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine didn't and never would have been permitted to apply to cable or Internet media. It was permitted under the First Amendment because the government had an interest in regulating scarce broadcast spectrum. The same rationale does not apply to cable or Internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the reason that bipartisanship of the sort that contributed to the resignations of Nixon and Fortas had to do with the political realignment of the country going on the time. White southerners were going from Democrat to Republican in opposition to Civil Rights. And there was a corresponding movement from Republican to Democrat by people who were less racist.

Social media has destroyed bipartisanship.

Social media just amplified the trend already happening with cable news.

Dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan was the real tipping point. People could then live inside their information bubble without being exposed to any dissenting points of view. Once you’re in the bubble, media entities have to feed you ever increasingly polarized views to keep you engaged.

I think the rise of cable news and social media was more of a factor than the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine didn't and never would have been permitted to apply to cable or Internet media. It was permitted under the First Amendment because the government had an interest in regulating scarce broadcast spectrum. The same rationale does not apply to cable or Internet.

I blame crossfire. That normalized defending the indefensible and taking a stand based on nothing more than party alignment. Early cable news and just news panelists at least displayed some independence, not it's liberal spouting liberal taking points opposed by conservative spouting conservative talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe and Ginni are simply not smart enough to hold th positions they do

Is lying on a federal form not a crime?

That's no misunderstanding.

He committed a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe and Ginni are simply not smart enough to hold th positions they do

Is lying on a federal form not a crime?

That's no misunderstanding.

He committed a crime.

So either he’s unfit because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid he doesn’t even know how to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the reason that bipartisanship of the sort that contributed to the resignations of Nixon and Fortas had to do with the political realignment of the country going on the time. White southerners were going from Democrat to Republican in opposition to Civil Rights. And there was a corresponding movement from Republican to Democrat by people who were less racist.

Social media has destroyed bipartisanship.

Newt Gingrich destroyed it a decade before that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe and Ginni are simply not smart enough to hold th positions they do

Is lying on a federal form not a crime?

No if you do not believe in the US Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think part of the reason that bipartisanship of the sort that contributed to the resignations of Nixon and Fortas had to do with the political realignment of the country going on the time. White southerners were going from Democrat to Republican in opposition to Civil Rights. And there was a corresponding movement from Republican to Democrat by people who were less racist.

Social media has destroyed bipartisanship.

Social media just amplified the trend already happening with cable news.

Dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan was the real tipping point. People could then live inside their information bubble without being exposed to any dissenting points of view. Once you’re in the bubble, media entities have to feed you ever increasingly polarized views to keep you engaged.

I think the rise of cable news and social media was more of a factor than the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine didn't and never would have been permitted to apply to cable or Internet media. It was permitted under the First Amendment because the government had an interest in regulating scarce broadcast spectrum. The same rationale does not apply to cable or Internet.

I blame crossfire. That normalized defending the indefensible and taking a stand based on nothing more than party alignment. Early cable news and just news panelists at least displayed some independence, not it's liberal spouting liberal taking points opposed by conservative spouting conservative talking points.

I kind of think the Lewinski matter was the tipping point. Cable news would report partisan b.s. and America would watch it as long as the story had enough emotional resonance. In the Lewinski case, the emotions involved were mostly titillation. But Fox News figured out that anger and fear were more reliable.