Justice Thomas Says Leaked Opinion Destroyed Trust at the Supreme Court
In remarks at a conference in Dallas, he also denounced the recent protests at justices’ homes and said conservatives would not adopt such tactics.
Clarence Thomas whines about the SC leak, says it has done "Irreparable Damage" and that Conservatives would never employ tactics to thrash a nominee
- Thread starter Morrison71
- Start date
For someone that is supposed to have no 'political affiliation' in his job, he sure is using we a lot when referring to conservatives.
If Clarence is so upset aboiut this, he can resign in disgust tomorrow. Enjoy the years he has left without having to put up with this BS.
Best thing tumordad taught me is when u point fingers. Three point back at u. Also Clarence the lady does protest too much.
Something, something, pubic hairs and Coke. Also loves himself some Long Dong Silver.
He has probably been the least effective justice in my lifetime. What a disappointment.
Dude never said a word for 15 years. Suddenly Roe hits and the guy talks more than Jimmy Swaggart needing a third private jet.
"One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table, at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, 'Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?'"
Who would have thought the Supreme Court of The Unites States could become a laughing stock?
To you hating Boomers and the time line, the SCOTUS has been the backstop. A fluctuating moderation with the primary interest of individual rights. States' rights are not individual rights. Rights not granted to all are not rights.
It took a non-democratic electoral process to put a numbskull in office to place Justices on the court, one by inexcusable trickery by an unethical Senate Majority Leader. The result: an infusion of comical mental misfits if the consequences weren't dire.
To you hating Boomers and the time line, the SCOTUS has been the backstop. A fluctuating moderation with the primary interest of individual rights. States' rights are not individual rights. Rights not granted to all are not rights.
It took a non-democratic electoral process to put a numbskull in office to place Justices on the court, one by inexcusable trickery by an unethical Senate Majority Leader. The result: an infusion of comical mental misfits if the consequences weren't dire.
This isn't the NCAA tournament selection show, it's not made for tv entertainment. Just on principle, any government information that is not directly tied to a current national security issue should be public imo.
The rules established long ago by the S.C. are the rules - so yes they are not law in code. When you apply to clerk at the SCOTUS you do so voluntarily. No one forces you to abide by the rules and if you cannot agree to them when you’re selected you may of course choose not to accept the opportunity.
That’s pretty basic.
You're also not supposed to lie during confirmation hearings or embellish your record. That also is basic and has happened with multiple sitting justices.
No. We don’t.
I think that’s why they’re investigating the matter isn’t it? If a filing person did it then we’ll know or if another employee saw it we’ll know that too, won’t we?
Position on Roe v. Wade and the concept of stare decisis comes to mind.
Rules but are they in the constitution. Point me to where the founding fathers clearly said this wasn't ok
.
.
Founding Fathers clearly were in favor of leeks.
Part of the First Thanksgiving dinner....
Rules but are they in the constitution. Point me to where the founding fathers clearly said this wasn't ok
Founding Fathers clearly were in favor of leeks.
Part of the First Thanksgiving dinner....
Because if it wasn't, it would probably be a magat hero, Justice Thomas. Although I wouldn't rule out the last lady appointed to the court. She made such an impression on me that I forgot her name
Rules but are they in the constitution. Point me to where the founding fathers clearly said this wasn't ok
Not saying I disagree with the leak. The court has to have internal rules, but if rules are not broken we would be in shitty shape. Thomas is a walking, talking example of a court rule breaker.
The leaked draft served a purpose. It was far more important the information reached the public than the SCOTUS has with internal security issues.
