Reply to No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.[/quote]

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.[/quote]

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades. [/quote]

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”[/quote]

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.[/quote]

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal [/quote]
Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔[/quote]

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though. [/quote]
What’s impeachable is always a question, but by not disclosing he’s breaking a federal law.[/quote]

What law? You realize SCOTUS decides on the constitutionality of laws that come out of the political branches right? And SCOTUS has maintained that the question of the applicability of these ethics rules to SCOTUS Justices has not come before the Court and the disclosures they do are voluntary for institutional legitimacy and transparency.

If, as they maintain, they are voluntarily disclosing, that does not mean they are breaking a federal law if they fail to disclose. The law has not been tested for SCOTUS Justices and they are the deciders of the answers to the test. The could easily come up with some separation of powers pretext for why they are excepted. Might be horrible for transparency and institutional legitimacy if they desist from disclosing, but the only real and binding check on SCOTUS Justices is impeachment.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics