Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thomas should resign or be impeached. Either way he should not be allowed to remain on SCOTUS.

This x1000. The highest court in the land, and here we have someone with no morals, no conscience and no ethics.

This man mocks the institution as a joke. It’s shameful.

It’s not “this man.” It’s an entire party making the institution into a mockery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thomas should resign or be impeached. Either way he should not be allowed to remain on SCOTUS.

This x1000. The highest court in the land, and here we have someone with no morals, no conscience and no ethics.

This man mocks the institution as a joke. It’s shameful.

Anonymous wrote:Thomas should resign or be impeached. Either way he should not be allowed to remain on SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes there is. Do you really think a SCJ can fly under the radar? There are only a handful of lawyers from a small group of firms that specialize in the SCOTUS case. They make a lot and lots of money and have a files on each SCJ. I have seen the analysis of votes and associations(people, organizations, spouses, etc) for each justices. Thomas is the easiest to get if you know the right people. There is a dollar value assigned to Thomas. It’s the way some SCJ works. Guess what the analysis will never see the light of day because why f%$% up an easy vote.

.

Again, non-answer.

How about this? It doesn’t really matter if he did or did not. What matters is perception. And the perception right now is that there is (at least) one justice available for purchase. Regardless of this is true, this taints the legitimacy of the court that Robert’s has not protected. We all hope that the legal system is our last hope, but as we are seeing quickly and brightly, that hope is eroding. This latest scandal is just adding fuel to the fire.

So no, maybe we don’t have exact proof of bribery, but the optics of this are pretty bad. Especially for a SC that already buried its image. We no long have faith.

There are several justices available for purchase right now. Perception is not a violation of the law or any judiciary regulations.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes there is. Do you really think a SCJ can fly under the radar? There are only a handful of lawyers from a small group of firms that specialize in the SCOTUS case. They make a lot and lots of money and have a files on each SCJ. I have seen the analysis of votes and associations(people, organizations, spouses, etc) for each justices. Thomas is the easiest to get if you know the right people. There is a dollar value assigned to Thomas. It’s the way some SCJ works. Guess what the analysis will never see the light of day because why f%$% up an easy vote.

.

Again, non-answer.

How about this? It doesn’t really matter if he did or did not. What matters is perception. And the perception right now is that there is (at least) one justice available for purchase. Regardless of this is true, this taints the legitimacy of the court that Robert’s has not protected. We all hope that the legal system is our last hope, but as we are seeing quickly and brightly, that hope is eroding. This latest scandal is just adding fuel to the fire.

So no, maybe we don’t have exact proof of bribery, but the optics of this are pretty bad. Especially for a SC that already buried its image. We no long have faith.

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: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.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

SCOTUS is different from some random judge. And bringing your pitchforks to SCOTUS has way more far reaching implications than some rando judge. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there are enforcement mechanisms and ready replacements for rando judges. SCOTUS? Not so.

Have you people lost your minds?!? You all want the judiciary to grind to a halt just to take the uppity brotha down a peg? Goodness!

So you’re saying that he’s so important that no one should complain about what he does? That’s not a great argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

SCOTUS is different from some random judge. And bringing your pitchforks to SCOTUS has way more far reaching implications than some rando judge. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there are enforcement mechanisms and ready replacements for rando judges. SCOTUS? Not so.

Have you people lost your minds?!? You all want the judiciary to grind to a halt just to take the uppity brotha down a peg? Goodness!

So you’re saying that he’s so important that no one should complain about what he does? That’s not a great argument.

Complain all you want (and we know you will)! In fact, I think that is one of the few forms of redress short of impeachment given the system that is in place. And guess what? It seems to have worked! The rules were changed and the Justice has stated that he will comply henceforth.

Yay, advanced democracy!! And we didn't even need to blow everything up!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

SCOTUS is different from some random judge. And bringing your pitchforks to SCOTUS has way more far reaching implications than some rando judge. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there are enforcement mechanisms and ready replacements for rando judges. SCOTUS? Not so.

Have you people lost your minds?!? You all want the judiciary to grind to a halt just to take the uppity brotha down a peg? Goodness!

So you’re saying that he’s so important that no one should complain about what he does? That’s not a great argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

SCOTUS is different from some random judge. And bringing your pitchforks to SCOTUS has way more far reaching implications than some rando judge. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there are enforcement mechanisms and ready replacements for rando judges. SCOTUS? Not so.

Have you people lost your minds?!? You all want the judiciary to grind to a halt just to take the uppity brotha down a peg? Goodness!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.