Justice Alito senile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

Did Alito deny that any of this occurred?

No, he did not deny any of this occurred - instead, he put it all into the context that Propublica refused to do. What kind of "journalists" are they? Zero credibility.

Lol
“Context”. Sure. I’ll have to remember that if I ever decided engage in unethical behavior at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

Did Alito deny that any of this occurred?

No, he did not deny any of this occurred - instead, he put it all into the context that Propublica refused to do. What kind of "journalists" are they? Zero credibility.

Lol
“Context”. Sure. I’ll have to remember that if I ever decided engage in unethical behavior at work.

Won’t we though? “Boss, the context of me taking this amazing vacation paid for by this corporation who has business before us is that I wanted to and you can’t tell me no.”

As ever the right wing gives normal US citizens a massive raspberry and a middle finger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

You seem cool with your right wing rags, so why the double standards?

That you call a Pulitzer-winning newspaper a "right wing rag" tells us all we need to know about your utter lack of standards.

Dp... I'm confused here... ProPublica is not right wing but is a Pulitzer prize winner. However, Veritas and Judicial Watch are right wing and never won any Pulitzers.

The WSJ - quoted in the above piece - is Pulitzer Prize winning.

And it’s become a right wing rag. Glad we could all clear that up. DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

Did Alito deny that any of this occurred?

No, he did not deny any of this occurred - instead, he put it all into the context that Propublica refused to do. What kind of "journalists" are they? Zero credibility.

Why is it that I in my mid-tier job at a medium sized federal agency am held to higher standards of ethics than a Supreme Court justice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

You seem cool with your right wing rags, so why the double standards?

That you call a Pulitzer-winning newspaper a "right wing rag" tells us all we need to know about your utter lack of standards.

Dp... I'm confused here... ProPublica is not right wing but is a Pulitzer prize winner. However, Veritas and Judicial Watch are right wing and never won any Pulitzers.

The WSJ - quoted in the above piece - is Pulitzer Prize winning.

Not the editorial page. Which is -thank god - wuite different from the actual news side.