BillStime Posted March 24, 2022 Posted March 24, 2022 (edited) Simple question - Is Clarence Thomas conflicted? Edited July 9, 2023 by BillStime
sherpa Posted March 24, 2022 Posted March 24, 2022 18 minutes ago, Beach said: i dont know I get it. You're hopelessly conflicted.
716er Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 He's in some serious trouble but not as much as his wife.
Westside Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 2 hours ago, BillStime said: Simple question - Is Clarence Thomas conflicted? Why do you hate successful, intelligent black men? 1 1
BillStime Posted March 25, 2022 Author Posted March 25, 2022 10 minutes ago, Westside said: Why do you hate successful, intelligent black men? Cute. Is Clarence Thomas conflicted?
The Frankish Reich Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 He's not conflicted in general, but ... his wife's political activism has crossed a line we just haven't seen crossed before, at least with a Supreme Court justice. By the way, I thought the same thing about that liberal lion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the late Stephen Reinhardt. His wife was the head of the ACLU of Los Angeles, but he didn't recuse himself from cases in which she had been involved. It's just bad form and puts an ugly cloud over the integrity of a court. It's not like we're depriving Mrs. Thomas of the right to make a living - she did (and could) continue to do just fine lobbying for discrete industries like she used to. Exhibit 1,017 of Why People Hate Washington: the politicians and Justices exempt themselves from the rules that apply to everyone else, particularly everyone else with a policy-making/deciding job. 1 2 2
Westside Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: He's not conflicted in general, but ... his wife's political activism has crossed a line we just haven't seen crossed before, at least with a Supreme Court justice. By the way, I thought the same thing about that liberal lion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the late Stephen Reinhardt. His wife was the head of the ACLU of Los Angeles, but he didn't recuse himself from cases in which she had been involved. It's just bad form and puts an ugly cloud over the integrity of a court. It's not like we're depriving Mrs. Thomas of the right to make a living - she did (and could) continue to do just fine lobbying for discrete industries like she used to. Exhibit 1,017 of Why People Hate Washington: the politicians and Justices exempt themselves from the rules that apply to everyone else, particularly everyone else with a policy-making/deciding job. Kind of like having a father in politics who sets you up on the board of an energy company while making hundreds of thousands of dollars with absolutely no experience! Is that what you’re talking about? 1 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Westside said: Kind of like having a father in politics who sets you up on the board of an energy company while making hundreds of thousands of dollars with absolutely no experience! Is that what you’re talking about? No. I think this is what they call "whataboutism." There's corruption and corrupt family members of politicians everywhere. I am not about to defend all of that. We are talking about a Supreme Court Justice here -- one of just 9 people who decide whether a whole host of policies enacted by various Administrations should be allowed or should be shot down. Extreme partisanship on the part of a spouse is just bad form. It's not just election disputes (which, by the way, he did get involved in when the Supreme Court shot down some state challenges to the 2020 election); it's also a whole host of policies she is stridently advocating for or against that will inevitably wind up before the Court. Clarence and Ginni ought to (and do) know better. If her activism is that important to her, and if he loves her and thinks her mission in life is more important than his, well, he's of retirement age ... EDIT: by the way, you may or may not have seen that nominee KBJ said she would recuse herself from the Supreme Court's consideration of the Harvard affirmative action lawsuit because she was on the Harvard Board of Overseers at the time their affirmative action policy at issue was in place. This is a fair and honorable decision, and given the incredible leeway Supreme Court Justices get to make their own ethics calls, not one that she had to commit to now (she would've been confirmed anyway) Edited March 25, 2022 by The Frankish Reich
BillStime Posted March 25, 2022 Author Posted March 25, 2022 3 minutes ago, Westside said: Kind of like having a father in politics who sets you up on the board of an energy company while making hundreds of thousands of dollars with absolutely no experience! Is that what you’re talking about? Or your father hiring his daughter and son in law in positions with absolutely no experience…. And that same daughter receiving numerous patents/trademarks from China while her Daddy is POTUS; and that same couple making over $640,000,000 while working at the WH and the son in law securing more than $3,000,000,000 in funding from international investors for his new investment firm. We won’t even remind you how much Trump spent golfing and traveling to his properties or forcing the government to spend money at his properties here and abroad… Yeah - Hunters laptop. Idiots 2
Westside Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: No. I think this is what they call "whataboutism." There's corruption and corrupt family members of politicians everywhere. I am not about to defend all of that. We are talking about a Supreme Court Justice here -- one of just 9 people who decide whether a whole host of policies enacted by various Administrations should be allowed or should be shot down. Extreme partisanship on the part of a spouse is just bad form. It's not just election disputes (which, by the way, he did get involved in when the Supreme Court shot down some state challenges to the 2020 election); it's also a whole host of policies she is stridently advocating for or against that will inevitably wind up before the Court. Clarence and Ginni ought to (and do) know better. If her activism is that important to her, and if he loves her and thinks her mission in life is more important than his, well, he's of retirement age ... Well, considering all the BS the left spewed about the president being a Russian stooge, I find it hard to believe anything they come up with. Be honest, the only reason you want him to retire is you don’t agree with his politics. Let’s get another partisan judge with less than stellar qualifications to spread their partisan BS policies. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 2 minutes ago, Westside said: Be honest, the only reason you want him to retire is you don’t agree with his politics I don't agree with his wife's politics. And I think the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice should understand that she's not in the position of an ordinary person - there's a commitment there, a patriotic commitment to the American people that she really doesn't seem to understand. A Supreme Court Justice him or herself shouldn't be a politician. And he could've easily retired when the Repubs had the presidency and the Senate, so that argument won't work. As a Supreme Court Justice, I actually generally respect his opinions. He definitely has a judicial philosophy that is, unfortunately, a little more result-oriented than his fellow traveler Scalia (Scalia had no problem with going against the "conservatives" when he thought they had gone beyond what the constitution authorizes; Thomas is a little less confident), but still pretty grounded in solid constitutional philosophy, whether you agree or disagree with that philosophy.
SoCal Deek Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 My god people! Doesn’t anyone see how utterly racist it is to single out Justice Thomas in this matter? What is wrong with you? 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: My god people! Doesn’t anyone see how utterly racist it is to single out Justice Thomas in this matter? What is wrong with you? I assume that's sarcasm ...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: No. I think this is what they call "whataboutism." There's corruption and corrupt family members of politicians everywhere. I am not about to defend all of that. We are talking about a Supreme Court Justice here -- one of just 9 people who decide whether a whole host of policies enacted by various Administrations should be allowed or should be shot down. Extreme partisanship on the part of a spouse is just bad form. It's not just election disputes (which, by the way, he did get involved in when the Supreme Court shot down some state challenges to the 2020 election); it's also a whole host of policies she is stridently advocating for or against that will inevitably wind up before the Court. Clarence and Ginni ought to (and do) know better. If her activism is that important to her, and if he loves her and thinks her mission in life is more important than his, well, he's of retirement age ... EDIT: by the way, you may or may not have seen that nominee KBJ said she would recuse herself from the Supreme Court's consideration of the Harvard affirmative action lawsuit because she was on the Harvard Board of Overseers at the time their affirmative action policy at issue was in place. This is a fair and honorable decision, and given the incredible leeway Supreme Court Justices get to make their own ethics calls, not one that she had to commit to now (she would've been confirmed anyway) Decent write up. Political activism or corruption in the vicinity of powerful people is either desirable or undesirable. Both sides have done it and that is why separation and decentralization of governmental power is important. 1
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 No wonder he was sick this week. Emotional shock making him physically sick.
Tiberius Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 The work of the January 6 select committee has already come before the Supreme Court. In January, the court did not stand in the way of the release of thousands of documents from the Trump White House despite the former President suing to keep them secret under executive privilege. The vote on the matter was 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 42 minutes ago, Tiberius said: The work of the January 6 select committee has already come before the Supreme Court. In January, the court did not stand in the way of the release of thousands of documents from the Trump White House despite the former President suing to keep them secret under executive privilege. The vote on the matter was 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting Wonderful, sounds like the makings of a new conspiracy theory. Justice Thomas is protecting Trump. When one crackpot hoax hits a dead end just generate another. So what's your question? 1
Recommended Posts