Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her name has been bandied about as the possible leaker but let’s not forget that we know Ginni Thomas was enmeshed in the GOP’s attempt to overthrow the government.

She’s hideous. If the spouse of a liberal justice had behaved as she did, the GOP would be screaming that she needs to be impeached

No, the Democrats have been saying that Clarence Thomas needs to be investigated. Ginni Thomas, while a ball of dung, holds no public position and thus cannot be impeached.

He enjoyed $600k of her income from The Family Foundation and failed to report it on his financial disclosure statements for several years. He was allowed to revise the statements after three years. Ginni earns more as a RW activist than Clarence does at his day job. He’s pulling in a lot from his speaking engagements lately. He should resign. He’s corrupt.

Did not know justices were allowed to do this. Is there any cap on how much they can make?

Have you slept through the last three months while this was discussed? I doubt there is a ceiling but I know certain groups will give a ridiculously high fee , like $50k for a speech. Republicans spilled their pearls when FORMER President Bill Clinton received $25k for a speech. Now I think it’s the minimum. The point is all federal employees have to file an annual financial report and Clarence lied on his for three years in a row. He’s a liar and he’s corrupt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her name has been bandied about as the possible leaker but let’s not forget that we know Ginni Thomas was enmeshed in the GOP’s attempt to overthrow the government.

She’s hideous. If the spouse of a liberal justice had behaved as she did, the GOP would be screaming that she needs to be impeached

No, the Democrats have been saying that Clarence Thomas needs to be investigated. Ginni Thomas, while a ball of dung, holds no public position and thus cannot be impeached.

He enjoyed $600k of her income from The Family Foundation and failed to report it on his financial disclosure statements for several years. He was allowed to revise the statements after three years. Ginni earns more as a RW activist than Clarence does at his day job. He’s pulling in a lot from his speaking engagements lately. He should resign. He’s corrupt.

Did not know justices were allowed to do this. Is there any cap on how much they can make?

Great question. Any amount OK as long as they disclose? ...........WHICH THOMAS DID NOT DO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public office does she currently hold?

She’s a lobbyist.

Lobbyist is a public office?

Did I say “Yes, she’s a lobbyist?” No, I did not. Parse better.

It’s okay, you were clear. The Republicans are just ticked off we noticed their corruption.

+1

They try to deflect with inane deflections. Which just makes them look even worse.

She's not a private citizen minding her own business. She is a key player, actively organizing with political leaders to disrupt our government. Her coke pube "best friend" is a corrupt activist trying to burn it down from the inside. These traitors need to be held accountable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public office does she currently hold?

She’s a lobbyist.

Lobbyist is a public office?

Did I say “Yes, she’s a lobbyist?” No, I did not. Parse better.

It’s okay, you were clear. The Republicans are just ticked off we noticed their corruption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public office does she currently hold?

She’s a lobbyist.

Lobbyist is a public office?

Did I say “Yes, she’s a lobbyist?” No, I did not. Parse better.

It was a direct answer to "what public office does she hold" so yes, you did.
The rules for other relatives on this board is "they do not hold public office so we don’t discuss them" why are the rules different now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public office does she currently hold?

She’s a lobbyist.

Lobbyist is a public office?

Did I say “Yes, she’s a lobbyist?” No, I did not. Parse better.

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a more corrupt, less qualified Supreme Court in history? In one generation they have lost the respect of most citizens. We need to defeat the Federalist Society. They are churning out these corrupt judges.

Nope. They have flushed their credibility down the toilet.

Mr Pube in my Coke was just the beginning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her name has been bandied about as the possible leaker but let’s not forget that we know Ginni Thomas was enmeshed in the GOP’s attempt to overthrow the government.

She’s hideous. If the spouse of a liberal justice had behaved as she did, the GOP would be screaming that she needs to be impeached

No, the Democrats have been saying that Clarence Thomas needs to be investigated. Ginni Thomas, while a ball of dung, holds no public position and thus cannot be impeached.

He enjoyed $600k of her income from The Family Foundation and failed to report it on his financial disclosure statements for several years. He was allowed to revise the statements after three years. Ginni earns more as a RW activist than Clarence does at his day job. He’s pulling in a lot from his speaking engagements lately. He should resign. He’s corrupt.

Did not know justices were allowed to do this. Is there any cap on how much they can make?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public office does she currently hold?

She’s a lobbyist.

Lobbyist is a public office?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a more corrupt, less qualified Supreme Court in history? In one generation they have lost the respect of most citizens. We need to defeat the Federalist Society. They are churning out these corrupt judges.

It’s defunct.

The court? I agree. In some ways they did this to themselves starting back with an absolutely demonic opinion that let Bush just become President despite not winning. “Just stop counting, okay?” isn’t really a winner, especially not when it gave us 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on civil liberties masked as “the war on terror,” intense hatred for Muslims, torture is cool, multiple financial meltdowns, Trump violating every law and norm known to man, McConnell absolutely breaking Congress, an ignored and inflamed pandemic and the GOP trying to overthrow the government.

To all of which Republicans have just gone, “meh. It’s cool. Your side would do it, too, if they had the guts, so it’s all fine.” Like Roberts ignoring the joke the court has become.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public office does she currently hold?

She’s a lobbyist.

In touch with the former chief of staff on the regular.

Anonymous wrote:What public office does she currently hold?

She’s a lobbyist.

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a more corrupt, less qualified Supreme Court in history? In one generation they have lost the respect of most citizens. We need to defeat the Federalist Society. They are churning out these corrupt judges.

It’s defunct.

Has there been a more corrupt, less qualified Supreme Court in history? In one generation they have lost the respect of most citizens. We need to defeat the Federalist Society. They are churning out these corrupt judges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But.....her emails

And how DARE the first lady work on policy! She should be reading to students and redecorating the WH

I'm old enough to remember how HRC was treated as first lady

Yup.

Ginni should be at home, baking those god damn cookies.

More like if her husband is going to hold a seat that’s supposed to be impartial, she shouldn’t be engaging in the kind of work she is engaged in.

Of course Roberts is fine with being the big chief of a Sharia court so he doesn’t care.

I’m disappointed in Roberts. He talks a big game about the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution but he does nothing when justices are clearly engaged in conflicts of interest. There needs to be some rules codified for these justices because they’re not adhering to them voluntarily.

Given that Roberts was a W appointee, I can’t say he’s worse than expected. He’s still terrible.