Conservatives have plenty of investigative outlets. Blame veritas for not being able to unearth Kagan's family getting housing and tuition payments |
Every presidential candidate writes a book. Every president, vice president, and first lady writes a book. All of the justices write books. Cabinet secretaries write books. It goes on and on. A president may get a best seller, same for a very popular first lady, but the rest are not even making back their advances |
Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?
You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers? That's what you actually think? I don't. |
Yeah. The grift goes on. I’m a little more alarmed that there is pattern of secret and significant financial support to a SCJ from a private individual with business before the Court. It is frankly beyond the pale. |
Me neither. This stuff would sell like hotcakes to the press if it existed. Like it is with Thomas. |
They don't actually think this. What they think is that liberals are evil and bad for the country so anything that liberals dislike is probably good for the country. And, even if corruption is bad, liberals are worse, so the ends justifies the means and the benefits outweigh the costs. |
From what is known, CT has probably pushed the line the furthest, even though there is probably some weasely lawyer way to give himself cover. But this is a paradox of the heap problem. Can you pinpoint at which point Justice Thomas's ethical lapses were such that they warranted removal from the court? What particular thing tipped the scale? If it's really about this non-disclosure, was one enough? Is it a cumulative thing? Be careful with what precedent you set. Either you care about ethics or you don't. When you start drawing arbitrary lines to suit your politics, you reveal yourself to be an unserious partisan hack. |
^And this is the definition of extremism ladies and gentlemen. Conservative my ass. |
People have known about Thomas's relationship with Harlan Crow for decades and a lot of these revelations are not new. They just started digging into everything more and throwing flames in the media because they don't like the composition of the Court. |
It's called rule utilitarianism. Pretty much describes both parties these days really. Things only disintegrate from here. |
Speak for yourself. So YOU knew about it and accepted the corruption as ho-hum. I never heard about it before and am pretty outraged. |
+1 I guess I was naive. |
Way back when, a scandal meant resigning in disgrace. Then we started pushing the boundaries a bit here and a bit there and politicians realized that they could just ride it out. Now, I'm shocked if they ever resign willingly |
How about at a minimum, the Justices are held to the same standard as other Federal judges? People appointed to Boards and commissions in local DC are held to higher standards than SCOTUS. Let's at least establish a common baseline, no? |
There’s always someone who sets the example. Let Thomas be the one and the chips can fall how they may. |