Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'll bet Gorsuch hates Thomas for this; regards him as tawdry, grubby, and mean.
… why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.
You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.
And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.
You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.
And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.
What a cop out...
Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.
Anonymous wrote:I'll bet Gorsuch hates Thomas for this; regards him as tawdry, grubby, and mean.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There's so much wrong with this:
So many gifts: travel gifts, non-travel gifts (like the Frederick Douglass Bible), honorary gifts (the library wing), gift to his wife's group (donation).....
And Harlen is a collector of Hitler and Nazi memorabilia - and he displays it - in his home. Not to mention he's got statues of modern baddies that were once toppled by citizens and moved (I saw the word 'smuggled' used) to his backyard.
Then there's the crazy wife who buys into conspiracy theories and the 'election was stolen' lie.
Clarence Thomas does not have the ethical conscience and morality required to sit on the Supreme Court. His closest friends and family aren't mere Republican supporters. They are extremists.
You do know that after WWII, lots of people displayed Nazi memorabilia as trophies of victory. It is not unusual for that to occur in wars. Japanese swords, hats, etc, were also trophies. It does not mean he admires Nazis. You are really grasping here.
Gee, and the horrors of donating money to libraries in poor communities. How awful!
I don’t think a signed copy of “Mein Kampf” counts as a “victory trophy”. What kind of person would buy something like that, let alone proudly display it in their home? Unbelievable.
+1
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The frustrations part is that there is a mechanism to force him to step down. His wife has criminal exposure for J6. There is a pressure point there and it should be pushed.
Until he decides to retire.
Maybe you can’t reach Thomas, but you can reach Ginny, you can reach every GOP mega donor trying to buy him off, and you can reach every single family, friend, or clerk he’s talked to in the last two decades. Push everyone around him until it hurts.
Anonymous wrote:The frustrations part is that there is a mechanism to force him to step down. His wife has criminal exposure for J6. There is a pressure point there and it should be pushed.
Until he decides to retire.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.
You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.
And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.
Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.
Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.
Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....
Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.
You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.
Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?
Read the thread, this has been covered. Crow is on the board of the American Enterprise Institute which files amicus briefs all the time.
This doesn't answer the question.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2004-03-14-0403130314-story.html
And on and on...