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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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. Judicial Watch and Project Veritas are completely biased, right-wing rags. And all of you know it.
DP

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

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

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?

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?

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing all these complaints against certain justices lately.

They just pop up out of no where. If I didn't know better, I'd say the left is trying to tip the the court before they're ejected. Just one unsubstantiated complaint after another. But they would never try coordinating a campaign to do that, now would they.

It's not so much that they're unsubstantiated. It's more like they're dismissed as not actually being a problem. Like Alito being on the private jet. He's not saying he didn't do it, he's saying it's not actually a problem because it was free. Not free in the sense that he took something of value without paying, but that it wasn't of value, so it can't be held against him. They're not denying that they took things from friends or that their friends have interests that are affected by SCOTUS. They're just waiting to find out that someone on the left got a free meal somewhere so they can say, "see, they got a $20 entree comped and at some point there was or will be a case we hear that affects the restaurant industry or one of the ingredients in that meal like corn or dairy, and this was to sway them. Everyone does it, and this completely cancels out all the free private plane trips, yacht excursions, and expensive vacations I was given, because really, that entree was worth more than my empty seat on the private plane if you think about it." And they'll repeat it so many times, people will accept it as true.

but they weren't even their friends! They were billionaires that befriended them AFTER they joined the court. I actually believe the trips probably aren't influencing Alito's rulings and that's why he's so whiny about it. He probably honestly believes what's the big deal since it's not influencing me anyway. But it IS a big deal to be taking these incredibly expensive vacations. It creates a terrible public perception of "pay to play" and shouldn't be legal. Think about it - if you're in procurement at a company and a big vendor decides to pay for a trip to Hawaii for you, you can say that it won't influence your decision to use the business but you will definitely be fired if your company finds out. And it's obvious these billionaires are paying for access. Why else would they fund vacations for people they don't even know?