Clarence Thomas IS conflicted

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

It’s amazing how the bar of wrong shifts depending on who the person is

 

Yes it is.

[BillStime]

 

[B-Man]

Push play.

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Push play.

 

 

Well, I'm sure his super wealthy "friends" help him stand tall while his wife attempts to overthrow the republic 

 

Pure scum 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[Tiberius]

He's been bought. 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

He's been bought. 

 

Joke?  We know...

[Kemp]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12777789/trammell-crow-brother-harlan-crow-sex-trafficking-network.html

Oh, Clarence. 

 

Look where your bribes are coming from.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

REMINDER:

 

 

On 8/12/2023 at 12:10 AM, B-Man said:

This IS very simple. 
 

Is there ANY shred of evidence that Justice Thomas has ever changed ANY Supreme Court decision because of outside influences ?

 

or has he done as he always has , brilliantly outlined the constitutional originalism that got him on the court in the first place. 
 

NO ? Then keep your whining about gifts to yourself or at the very least admit that you are applying a standard to Thomas that you don’t to others that you favor. 
 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by B-Man

[BillStime]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

REMINDER:

 

 

 

Hoax - this has already been discussed… but you keep trying Bonnie 

[B-Man]

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

So, you can't name any decision changed.

 

Just as when it was "discussed before"

 

No one can name anything that can show Justice Thomas or ANY other justice has had a Supreme Court decision "influenced".

 

But you keep trying.

 

It demonstrates so well what your real issue with Clarence Thomas is.

 

 

😎

[BillStime]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

So, you can't name any decision changed.

 

Just as when it was "discussed before"

 

No one can name anything that can show Justice Thomas or ANY other justice has had a Supreme Court decision "influenced".

 

But you keep trying.

 

It demonstrates so well what your real issue with Clarence Thomas is.

 

 

😎

Citizens United is laughing at you Bonnie. 
 

Ever question why Clarence has ruled against donor disclosures? Contribution limits?

 

Why does Clarence want political donations to remain anonymous and has ruled against having any contribution limits in politics at all. 
 

Who benefits?

 

Go look up Doe v. Reed - you won’t - because of your preprogrammed nature but you should.

[BillStime]

Where did @B-Man go?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

Nothing to do with changing his legal opinions (again)

 

broken wheel answering 

 

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Where did @B-Man go?

 

I ate Thanksgiving dinner with my family 

and helped with the cleanup. 
 

 

I just wish that for once you would take your own advice. 
 

Sad. 
 

 

.

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Nothing to do with changing his legal opinions (again)

 

broken wheel answering 

 

 

I ate Thanksgiving dinner with my family 

and helped with the cleanup. 
 

 

I just wish that for once you would take your own advice. 
 

Sad. 
 

 

.

Of course you wouldn’t find an issue with a Supreme Court judge paving the way to line his pockets without repercussions. 
 

idiots 

 

[B-Man]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

You can keep talking about "lining his pockets"  but you (and no one else) can name any court decision that has been changed.

 

It is hard to follow your illogic always,

 

i can only assume you looked up the Doe vs Reed decision case because it was the only one that you could find with an 8 - 1 decision.  😆

 

Justice Thomas's dissent is consistent with his conservative concerns.

 

Just as "confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy," so too is citizen participation in those processes, which necessarily entails political speech and association under the First Amendment. In my view, compelled disclosure of signed referendum and initiative petitions under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA) severely burdens those rights and chills citizen participation in the referendum process. Given those burdens,

 

I would hold that Washington's decision to subject all referendum petitions to public disclosure is unconstitutional because there will always be a less restrictive means by which Washington can vindicate its stated interest in preserving the integrity of its referendum process. I respectfully dissent....

 

 

Justice Thomas is a great man.

 

Billstime, you are a lightweight and a fool.

 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

On 11/28/2023 at 10:08 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

a subpoena is a subpoena

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 11/23/2023 at 10:57 PM, B-Man said:

 

 

You can keep talking about "lining his pockets"  but you (and no one else) can name any court decision that has been changed.

 

It is hard to follow your illogic always,

 

i can only assume you looked up the Doe vs Reed decision case because it was the only one that you could find with an 8 - 1 decision.  😆

 

Justice Thomas's dissent is consistent with his conservative concerns.

 

Just as "confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy," so too is citizen participation in those processes, which necessarily entails political speech and association under the First Amendment. In my view, compelled disclosure of signed referendum and initiative petitions under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA) severely burdens those rights and chills citizen participation in the referendum process. Given those burdens,

 

I would hold that Washington's decision to subject all referendum petitions to public disclosure is unconstitutional because there will always be a less restrictive means by which Washington can vindicate its stated interest in preserving the integrity of its referendum process. I respectfully dissent....

 

 

Justice Thomas is a great man.

 

Billstime, you are a lightweight and a fool.

 

 

 

In a unanimous vote, BillSy’s next comment would be he voted in lockstep with the conservatives on the court.  
 

A one trick pony is limited to one trick (it’s in the name, that’s how I know). 

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

 

There’s a process to deal with this, but certainly a subpoena is a subpoena.  We agree, yes or no? 

[B-Man]

True. 
 

 

Justice Thomas committed the grave offense — recognized only by the left — of being conservative while Black.

https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1730257929629012258

 

 

 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

True. 
 

 

Justice Thomas committed the grave offense — recognized only by the left — of being conservative while Black.

https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1730257929629012258

 

 

 

 

Hoax