Clarence Thomas IS conflicted

[Joe Ferguson forever]

11 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

so no charge of bribery? Yeah really really really not enough

give it time.  more will be found but I believe it's more than enough evidence to pursue a full blown ethics investigation.  Ya know, ethics that thing that R''s ignore and then flaunt.  whether they charge him with bribery will be a political question.  What do you think would happen if a mob boss running a toxic waste management firm did the same documented payouts to a state environmental official or governor?

Edited May 8, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

give it time.  more will be found but I believe it's more than enough evidence to pursue a full blown ethics investigation.  Ya know, ethics that thing that R''s ignore and then flaunt.  whether they charge him with bribery will be a political question.  What do you think would happen if a mob boss running a toxic waste management firm did the same documented payouts to a state environmental official or governor?

https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9

 

Except for the 37 democrats listed in the article every last one of them is a republican. Nice work Tiberius Sr!

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by B-Man

[SectionC3]

4 hours ago, Pokebball said:

I stand corrected. They've been friends for 27 yrs.

 

And I'll leave this reply rather than deleting my post.

Bribe? Link  

Harlan probably is the guy who left the ***** hair on Thomas's Coke.  I'm surprised it took us this long to solve that mystery. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by SectionC3

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Left-Wing Attacks on the Supreme Court Do It Credit

Newsweek, by Sean Ross Callaghan

 

FTA:

 

Over the last several weeks, regime apparatchiks have sought to highlight these lame reports, carefully spaced across news cycles to create the appearance of a burgeoning scandal where there is none. To commend these anticlimaxes to the public's limited attention, the attackers have had to resort to reality-TV sizzle. But the real stories are piddling. The Chief Justice's wife had worked at the nation's largest legal-recruiting firm for many years. A bungalow and a pair of dirt lots got sold nearly a decade ago. Nobody cares.

 

The Left tried packing the Court with partisans. It tried cowing the Justices with mobs. Its latest attack is modeled after Genghis Kahn's Mongol horde fanning out, lightly armed and spurting forth in rapid, synchronized sallies. The charges themselves are dull swords, but together the horde hopes for more than the sum of its weak parts.

 

The Left wants the public to lose trust in the Supreme Court—just as it wanted to shake confidence in President Donald Trump's election and, as it later hypocritically charged, President Trump wanted to shake confidence in President Joe Biden's. It's all the same vile scheme: tear down the institutions of country to build up the institutions of party. These schemes must fail.

 

The Left attacks the Supreme Court because the Court is legitimate, not because it's illegitimate. As a legitimate institution of government, it stands in the way of the Left's lawless rule. Congressmen and presidents will do whatever they can get away with and refuse to explain themselves. They lie often, rarely make sense, and hide their moves—as virtually every American knows.

 

The Supreme Court, by contrast, is empowered only to follow the law. It must work through its decisions in open oral argument and then explain them in written opinions. In resolving a case, it must recount the key facts, cite the applicable rules of jurisprudence, and respond to each relevant argument. No such constraints hamper the typical loudmouth in Congress or the White House.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/left-wing-attacks-supreme-court-do-it-credit-opinion-1798372

 

 

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Left-Wing Attacks on the Supreme Court Do It Credit

Newsweek, by Sean Ross Callaghan

 

FTA:

 

Over the last several weeks, regime apparatchiks have sought to highlight these lame reports, carefully spaced across news cycles to create the appearance of a burgeoning scandal where there is none. To commend these anticlimaxes to the public's limited attention, the attackers have had to resort to reality-TV sizzle. But the real stories are piddling. The Chief Justice's wife had worked at the nation's largest legal-recruiting firm for many years. A bungalow and a pair of dirt lots got sold nearly a decade ago. Nobody cares.

 

The Left tried packing the Court with partisans. It tried cowing the Justices with mobs. Its latest attack is modeled after Genghis Kahn's Mongol horde fanning out, lightly armed and spurting forth in rapid, synchronized sallies. The charges themselves are dull swords, but together the horde hopes for more than the sum of its weak parts.

 

The Left wants the public to lose trust in the Supreme Court—just as it wanted to shake confidence in President Donald Trump's election and, as it later hypocritically charged, President Trump wanted to shake confidence in President Joe Biden's. It's all the same vile scheme: tear down the institutions of country to build up the institutions of party. These schemes must fail.

 

The Left attacks the Supreme Court because the Court is legitimate, not because it's illegitimate. As a legitimate institution of government, it stands in the way of the Left's lawless rule. Congressmen and presidents will do whatever they can get away with and refuse to explain themselves. They lie often, rarely make sense, and hide their moves—as virtually every American knows.

 

The Supreme Court, by contrast, is empowered only to follow the law. It must work through its decisions in open oral argument and then explain them in written opinions. In resolving a case, it must recount the key facts, cite the applicable rules of jurisprudence, and respond to each relevant argument. No such constraints hamper the typical loudmouth in Congress or the White House.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/left-wing-attacks-supreme-court-do-it-credit-opinion-1798372

 

 

The best judges money can buy 

[B-Man]

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The best judges money can buy 

 

 

Hey Tibs.

 

name a judicial decision that was influenced by 'money'

 

You can't.

 

 

But keep braying.

 

😎

[Tiberius]

25 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Hey Tibs.

 

name a judicial decision that was influenced by 'money'

 

You can't.

 

 

But keep braying.

 

😎

Probably all of them. Notic how these bought judges are staying ultra conservative. Nixon's and Reagan's judges did not all stay that way. They were not bought. 

 

Best judges money can buy. Corruption at the highest levels 

[BillStime]

Corrupt AF 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Who Is Running This Coordinated Campaign To Delegitimize The Supreme Court?

 

It’s obviously not just an effort by the media, but a larger effort by the left to delegitimize the Supreme Court. They feel this is the one institution that they haven’t captured, they’re upset that some decisions have not gone their way and they’re trying to bully.

 

What’s interesting about these stories is they sort of allege something nefarious without explaining what the nefarious thing is, and so there’s no crime involved.

 

They’ll say we wish that the rules were different so that he would have had to disclose this thing that he didn’t have to disclose according to the rules.

 

I’m very interested in who’s organizing this concerted effort. You’ve got multiple media companies, it’s all a very well-laid-out PR strategy, that would be that would good for the media to look into, who’s running this organized effort to take on the court?

 

 

The left destroys any institution it can’t control. Also any institution it can.

 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/05/07/mollie_hemingway_who_is_running_this_coordinated_campaign_to_delegitimize_the_supreme_court.html

[SectionC3]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Who Is Running This Coordinated Campaign To Delegitimize The Supreme Court?

 

It’s obviously not just an effort by the media, but a larger effort by the left to delegitimize the Supreme Court. They feel this is the one institution that they haven’t captured, they’re upset that some decisions have not gone their way and they’re trying to bully.

 

What’s interesting about these stories is they sort of allege something nefarious without explaining what the nefarious thing is, and so there’s no crime involved.

 

They’ll say we wish that the rules were different so that he would have had to disclose this thing that he didn’t have to disclose according to the rules.

 

I’m very interested in who’s organizing this concerted effort. You’ve got multiple media companies, it’s all a very well-laid-out PR strategy, that would be that would good for the media to look into, who’s running this organized effort to take on the court?

 

 

The left destroys any institution it can’t control. Also any institution it can.

 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/05/07/mollie_hemingway_who_is_running_this_coordinated_campaign_to_delegitimize_the_supreme_court.html

Probably Ginni Thomas.  She and Clarence are doing a fine job of delegitimizing the institution.  It’s a shame.  

On 5/9/2023 at 10:50 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

Hey Tibs.

 

name a judicial decision that was influenced by 'money'

 

You can't.

 

 

But keep braying.

 

😎

This is such a stupid point.  There’s a concept in the law that criminals typically don’t announce their intent.  This is not to suggest that any justice has done anything criminal.  But the stupidity underlying the notion that something unethical has not occurred simply because nobody has said that they acted unethically in rendering a decision speaks for itself.  

 

I have no idea whether any sitting justice has acted unethically.  But I also know that it would be extremely hard to demonstrate such a thing.  Which is why a justice’s recusal is based upon the appearance of impropriety, not actual impropriety. 

[Kemp]

On 5/6/2023 at 10:35 AM, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

if soros did this for a dem justice you would have zero issue.   
 

Shocker it sounds like they are all doing it. Scoutus doesn’t pay that much, poor justices…. 

 

my question is what are you buying from a Justice when they are already in your ideological camp and don’t have cases before court? Is it insurance just in case, is it advance insight on rulings? 
 

 

 

 

At least you said you have no problem with it.

That's refreshing.

[B-Man]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

This is such a stupid point.  There’s a concept in the law that criminals typically don’t announce their intent.  This is not to suggest that any justice has done anything criminal.  But the stupidity underlying the notion that something unethical has not occurred simply because nobody has said that they acted unethically in rendering a decision speaks for itself.  

 

 

 

 

 

Hahahahahahaha.

 

 

[SectionC3]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Hahahahahahaha.

 

 

What’s so funny?  All your post does is establish that you’re not the only one who made a stupid argument in this area. 

[BillStime]

 

 

[BillStime]

 

 

[Tiberius]

Here's hoping that the media coverage at least stops the money flowing to these corrupt scum bags, but I'm sure they will find a way to funnel them money. 

[Westside]

21 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Probably Ginni Thomas.  She and Clarence are doing a fine job of delegitimizing the institution.  It’s a shame.  

This is such a stupid point.  There’s a concept in the law that criminals typically don’t announce their intent.  This is not to suggest that any justice has done anything criminal.  But the stupidity underlying the notion that something unethical has not occurred simply because nobody has said that they acted unethically in rendering a decision speaks for itself.  

 

I have no idea whether any sitting justice has acted unethically.  But I also know that it would be extremely hard to demonstrate such a thing.  Which is why a justice’s recusal is based upon the appearance of impropriety, not actual impropriety. 

Hoax, this is nothing more than rambling on about someone you don’t like but have zero evidence ( probably because there is none) of ANY wrongdoing. 
You say you’re an attorney, but you don’t believe in the law? Show me what crimes Justice Thomas has broken. Preferably without name calling please.

[B-Man]

 

 

The Media Assault on Clarence Thomas

The senior justice is the sort of man who can tell what a woman is. In Wokeville, such men are dangerous. That is what the whole ethics “scandal” is really about.

By Daniel Oliver

 

Of course the woke Left pretends to be scandalized by Justice Clarence Thomas. The corporate leftist press figures Americans can handle only one scandal at a time, and so writing about Thomas takes the focus off the Bidens, père and fils.

 

A Washington Post columnist has been frothing at his keyboard about Justice Thomas because . . . well, he says it’s because Thomas didn’t fill out an ethics form properly. Isn’t that rich? The Washington Post, which didn’t cover the Hunter Biden laptop story and barely covered the Antony Blinken 51-lying spooks laptop coverup scandal, is complaining about some technical errors in Thomas’ financial disclosure form.

 

“Court watchers,” writes Greg Sargent, “believe [congressional inaction in this area] has helped encourage Supreme Court justices such as Clarence Thomas to disregard any sense of propriety, [any?] as the string of revelations about Thomas’s slipshod approach to ethics has shown.” 

 

What utter balderdash. The Wall Street Journal recently ran three pieces by James Taranto completely debunking the Thomas ethics “scandal” story. Taranto concedes Thomas may have to file an amended financial disclosure form to report his share of a sale of his mother’s house. Big deal. 

 

Taranto also reported that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to amend her 2011 report, which “inadvertently omitted” certain information as well as her 2017 form to report a gift she had “inadvertently omitted.” Justice Stephen Breyer also reported that he had “inadvertently omitted” two stock sales by his wife. 

 

After being nominated by Joe Biden, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson—you remember her: she’s the one who was unable to provide a definition of a woman, saying, “I’m not a biologist”—amended her 2020 disclosure to note that in various years between 2011 and 2021 she had “inadvertently omitted” certain information. No doubt you remember the breathless coverage of those scandals in the Washington Post. 

 

Of course, any sentient reader knows these Post articles aren’t about ethics.

 

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/10/the-media-assault-on-clarence-thomas/

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

THE LEFT’S THREE-PART STRATEGY TARGETING THE SUPREME COURT: DOJ refusal to enforce statute prohibiting protests at Justices homes means “it’s essentially mob rule, whoever controls the streets is going to control everything.”

 

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/05/the-lefts-three-part-strategy-targeting-the-supreme-court/

 

 

.