UNLV2001 Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNLV2001 Posted June 6 Author Share Posted June 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDSUfan Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 So, which decision would you say these "gifts" influenced? Thomas is has been and will continue to be the most consistent conservative on the court. Are you saying his only conservative because he's been bought and paid for OR is he an Uncle Tom? Are you a racist POS? Yes...yes you are Now do Nancy Pelosi Racist. 1 3 1 Quote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -Richard Feynman "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -P.J. O’Rourke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Convert Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 On 6/6/2024 at 11:33 AM, UNLV2001 said: They need to pay the Justices a lot more $ and then completely ban gifts over $100. I’ll bet you $1,000 if Thomas had gotten nothing and the other GOP had more, you be declaring that the racist GQP donors only care about white people. You totally would. But you certainly won’t say, “Wow, the GOP donors sure have come a long way paying a black justice in the millions.” The biggest ethical question isn’t so much the amount of money, but rather is his vote being manipulated. You need to identify that. Just assuming this is causing him to vote differently is nothing but left wing political hack logic with no evidence. So this thread is pretty worthless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
818SUDSFan Posted June 6 Share Posted June 6 On 6/6/2024 at 1:22 PM, SDSUfan said: So, which decision would you say these "gifts" influenced? Thomas is has been and will continue to be the most consistent conservative on the court. Are you saying his only conservative because he's been bought and paid for OR is he an Uncle Tom? Are you a racist POS? Yes...yes you are No, because he's not necessarily bought and paid for by white supremacists; just by the right wing of the GOP. So instead of calling him an Uncle Tom, I'll be more respectful and refer to the guy as Uncle Thomas. On your final point, do you think that anyone who criticizes a Black person for any reason whatsoever must be a racist? Yes. . .yes, you do. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNLV2001 Posted June 6 Author Share Posted June 6 On 6/6/2024 at 1:22 PM, SDSUfan said: So, which decision would you say these "gifts" influenced? Thomas is has been and will continue to be the most consistent conservative on the court. Are you saying his only conservative because he's been bought and paid for OR is he an Uncle Tom? Are you a racist POS? Yes...yes you are Now do Nancy Pelosi Racist. Got your panites all up in the cracks ! Thomas isn't the only name listed, just the most "compensated" name on the list & not sure that is close to playing race card when it's a simple fact of the data Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyobraska Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 And how much was unreported? We need to up their pay substantially and then make them and their immediate family undergo financial audits. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactowndog Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 On 6/6/2024 at 1:39 PM, Nevada Convert said: They need to pay the Justices a lot more $ and then completely ban gifts over $100. I’ll bet you $1,000 if Thomas had gotten nothing and the other GOP had more, you be declaring that the racist GQP donors only care about white people. You totally would. But you certainly won’t say, “Wow, the GOP donors sure have come a long way paying a black justice in the millions.” The biggest ethical question isn’t so much the amount of money, but rather is his vote being manipulated. You need to identify that. Just assuming this is causing him to vote differently is nothing but left wing political hack logic with no evidence. So this thread is pretty worthless. If you prefer in graphical format. What is most galling is we go through ethical training and are grilled for taking a government employee to lunch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Convert Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 On 6/7/2024 at 12:28 PM, sactowndog said: If you prefer in graphical format. What is most galling is we go through ethical training and are grilled for taking a government employee to lunch. Answer my question. I’ll ask it again. Are the gifts causing him to vote differently than he always has? I don’t particularly like or hate Thomas. It just so happens to be, by far, the most important question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactowndog Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 On 6/7/2024 at 3:31 PM, Nevada Convert said: Answer my question. I’ll ask it again. Are the gifts causing him to vote differently than he always has? I don’t particularly like or hate Thomas. It just so happens to be, by far, the most important question. Yeah well if you take any of the ethics classes that point doesn’t matter. It’s the appearance of conflict of interest and that’s over a $50 lunch. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Convert Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 On 6/7/2024 at 4:53 PM, sactowndog said: Yeah well if you take any of the ethics classes that point doesn’t matter. It’s the appearance of conflict of interest and that’s over a $50 lunch. I agree with that standard, but it still has to be defined by his employer, not you. Apparently, it isn’t defined. So if you’re going to want to remove Thomas, you need to prove the money actually corrupted him. You have to prove a quid pro quo that meets a corruption standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactowndog Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 On 6/7/2024 at 5:28 PM, Nevada Convert said: I agree with that standard, but it still has to be defined by his employer, not you. Apparently, it isn’t defined. So if you’re going to want to remove Thomas, you need to prove the money actually corrupted him. You have to prove a quid pro quo that meets a corruption standard. His employer is the American people. I think most Americans not corrupted by teams and shit already believe he has far exceeded that standard. But the discussion is pointless because if 2/3 can’t agree to impeach Trump after Jan 6 they aren’t impeaching Thomas. The Senators are as bought as he is. Let’s not forget he was a key person in Citizens United 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactowndog Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 Ironically here is a summary of his concurring opinion in Citizens United. It’s almost like he knew he had something to hide….. Justice Clarence Thomas, another member of the majority, also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he disagreed with upholding the disclosure provisions of BCRA Sections 201 and 311. In order to protect the anonymity of contributors to organizations exercising free speech, Thomas would have struck down those reporting requirements, rather than allowing them to be challenged only on a case-by-case basis. Thomas's primary argument was that anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment and that making contributor lists public makes the contributors vulnerable to retaliation. Thomas also expressed concern that such retaliation could extend to retaliation by elected officials.[33] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
818SUDSFan Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 On 6/8/2024 at 9:41 AM, sactowndog said: Ironically here is a summary of his concurring opinion in Citizens United. It’s almost like he knew he had something to hide….. Justice Clarence Thomas, another member of the majority, also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he disagreed with upholding the disclosure provisions of BCRA Sections 201 and 311. In order to protect the anonymity of contributors to organizations exercising free speech, Thomas would have struck down those reporting requirements, rather than allowing them to be challenged only on a case-by-case basis. Thomas's primary argument was that anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment and that making contributor lists public makes the contributors vulnerable to retaliation. Thomas also expressed concern that such retaliation could extend to retaliation by elected officials.[33] In a prior professional life I worked for a state commission that administered various statutes passed by the legislature. The commissioners, who were located in Sacramento and appointed by the governor, were tasked with hearing appeals of decisions rendered by the commission's staff throughout the state and were assisted by attorneys who performed legal research and drafted opinions for them. During one of my visits to headquarters, I had lunch with one such attorney and the topic of discussion turned to the then-chairman who had been appointed by Jerry Brown and was far-left politically. I commented to the attorney that I couldn't believe the chairman's dissent in a recent case. The attorney replied that before the parties' briefs had been received, the chairman, who was supposed to be neutral of course, as much as told her what his decision was going to be and he wanted her to find some published cases that might somehow support that decision. Clarence Thomas is clearly a contemporary far-right version of that former California state administrative commissioner. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactowndog Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 On 6/8/2024 at 12:48 PM, 818SUDSFan said: In a prior professional life I worked for a state commission that administered various statutes passed by the legislature. The commissioners, who were located in Sacramento and appointed by the governor, were tasked with hearing appeals of decisions rendered by the commission's staff throughout the state and were assisted by attorneys who performed legal research and drafted opinions for them. During one of my visits to headquarters, I had lunch with one such attorney and the topic of discussion turned to the then-chairman who had been appointed by Jerry Brown and was far-left politically. I commented to the attorney that I couldn't believe the chairman's dissent in a recent case. The attorney replied that before the parties' briefs had been received, the chairman, who was supposed to be neutral of course, as much as told her what his decision was going to be and he wanted her to find some published cases that might somehow support that decision. Clarence Thomas is clearly a contemporary far-right version of that former California state administrative commissioner. Well the latest video by Alioto seems to align…. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robe Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 On 6/6/2024 at 3:22 PM, SDSUfan said: So, which decision would you say these "gifts" influenced? Thomas is has been and will continue to be the most consistent conservative on the court. Are you saying his only conservative because he's been bought and paid for OR is he an Uncle Tom? Are you a racist POS? Yes...yes you are Now do Nancy Pelosi Racist. Only conservative are held to any kind of standards. 1 1 Quote The Masters 5k road race All American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDSUfan Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 I shocked to find that the pile of shitposting commies that infest this board don't like Judge Thomas. Scream into the void commies. Quote “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” -Richard Feynman "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -P.J. O’Rourke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactowndog Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 On 6/11/2024 at 6:49 AM, robe said: Only conservative are held to any kind of standards. Tell that to Hunter Biden, Menendez, Eric Mazza, Al Franken, Weiner, John Conyers, John Edwards, Katie Hill…. You just don’t remember them because they actually resigned and left public office versus fund raising off the scandal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sactowndog Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 On 6/11/2024 at 7:52 AM, SDSUfan said: I shocked to find that the pile of shitposting commies that infest this board don't like Judge Thomas. Scream into the void commies. Commies that want Judges to follow the Constitution and respect rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robe Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 On 6/11/2024 at 11:47 AM, sactowndog said: Tell that to Hunter Biden, Menendez, Eric Mazza, Al Franken, Weiner, John Conyers, John Edwards, Katie Hill…. You just don’t remember them because they actually resigned and left public office versus fund raising off the scandal. Good point. I stand corrected Quote The Masters 5k road race All American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
