He is a terrible partisan jurist a politician really. He broke the law and should be impeached. He is certainly not t qualified to be a Supreme Court justice obviously
Clarence Thomas
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
I give him the benefit of the doubt to some extent. Currently, even if he wants to do something, he doesn’t currently have the votes. Whereas if he goes public, he fractures the Court and I’m not sure he can comeback from that.
Honest question; assume for a moment that you’re right, he didn’t break any laws, didn’t violate any rules…are you really okay, from a moral/ethical basis for a Mega Rich GOP donor to essentially bank roll the vacations of an SC justice for more than 20 years, to the tune of millions worth in travel, room, board, etc? That doesn’t raise a red flag for you?
This is what I don’t get. Leave out the name, call them Person X…this wouldn’t raise serious questions for anyone?
Is it really any different from what happens in DC every damn day? How did Pelosi, Feinstein, McConnell, AOC, Bernie, etc get rich on their salaries? Has that all been disclosed over the years? The whole damn government is nothing but elbow rubbing, money exchanging, "hospitality", etc.
I gave you the tweet thread bonehead. Who gives a rip how old the statute is that they were supposed to follow. Your arguments are always wrong.
Bernie has a net worth of $3M, hardly rich at his age. AOC has assets less than $100K. Pelosi came from money and has a rich husband as does Feinstein.
@your_master5 . We should have a forensic audit to solve this mystery. Ok that's my drive-by I'm out.
Ginni is an insurrectionist. She also has many, many interests before the SC, and Clarence has never recused himself as far as I have seen. Many of these issues financially benefit Ginni, and thereby Clarence, and he does not recuse himself.
Deplorable.
Amy Klobuchar was on Lib TV this afternoon talking about potential remedies. The Judiciary will hold hearings, and she did not discount the idea of Thomas being called to testify. It wouldn't happen, but it would be nice to see. Interestingly enough, she mentioned how well she works with 90 year old Chuck Grassley, who I believe is the ranking Republican on the committee, now. Along with working to televise SCOTUS proceedings, there were mentions of other possible actions to restore public trust in the SCOTUS.
I wonder if Chuck's aides have it in them to agree to any substantive changes that could be implemented through Congress?
I wonder if Chuck's aides have it in them to agree to any substantive changes that could be implemented through Congress?
Leaving aside the differences between legislative relationships with lobbyists (which is a problem) and judicial relationships with lobbyists, you get that what you said is in no way shape or form a defense of what Thomas did, right?
“They did it too” is the argument of a child.
Well since they’re not confirming judicial nominees now that Feinstein’s gone full potato.
Look at you pretending to know what you’re talking about.
I will address this with you since you are the only studious poster representing the opposite side. I posted before, if my opinion is Thomas may not be violating laws, rules or codes, he is at the very least creating the perception of corruption. Couple this with the blatant politically obscene behavior of his wife and this is totally remarkable. Why would he take such risks?
I also stand by my position that a person of solid character does not solicit or accept unlimited gifts from a friend, no matter how good a friend. No matter how wealthy that friend is. It is or should be a matter of self-respect and pride. So, let's put things in perspective; it not about friendship. When politics, power and money are involved, it's about tit-for-tat. To deny this is naiveté.
Would you deny if you were on the opposite side of the argument, you'd be the 1st to take this position. If so, you'll agree this argument is rational. Maybe Thomas feels he is above reproach and untouchable. Power does that to people, particularly if people in the power sphere fuels and feeds the delusion.
The Blue Slip nonsense has been brought up a few times on Lib TV lately. Fetterman supposedly is coming back. I don't know if Mitch is coming back at the same time. I don't know if Blumenthal from CT will miss any time, or not? The Senate is a mess.
Feinstein really should consider stepping down. She's had a great run, but it's past time to go.
Yes.
Actually, it's very different.
My argument has been solely about the interpretation of the law and how it leaves hospitality from an individual open and free. Perception of what might have occurred or loss of self respect is not up for negotiation. Did he do something illegal by going on trips with someone at his places and on his boats and planes? I don’t think so. This is a hate the law, not the person following the law.
So, a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE - one of the highest ranking jurists in the country, shouldn't be able to see that whether or not all of these gifts, paid vacations, hospitality, however you want to define them; would at the very least seriously damage his credibility, not to mention the very obvious perceived conflict of interest this creates?
This is not a mutually exclusive situation. It drives home the problem created by the lack of oversight over the Supreme Court - since they flat out refuse to govern themselves or create any code of conduct for themselves; as well as again driving home that Thomas apparently has no scruples about how he should conduct himself as a SC Justice.
I’m not talking perception or credibility though. That’s a different conversation. I’m just talking the rules as they’re written. Were the stays, boat rides, and flights all on a friend’s property and extended as hospitality? It’s pretty black and white as the rules are written.
The only area of gray are the flights, but since the new rule change specifically calls out that the updated version excludes flights going forward one can deduce they were acceptable forms of hospitality in the past.
But you can't talk about this and NOT talk about perception or credibility. It's all part of the entire conversation when the person involved is a judge. The credibility and integrity of the SC is at an all-time low, in large part because of stuff like this.
I'm sorry, but no logical person can look at MILLIONS of $$$ of stays, boat rides, flights on a friend's property and consider that mere "hospitality". It's inconceivable to me that you or anyone can look at this and think that the GOP donor (forgetting his name) wouldn't have expected anything in return. Then you have Thomas' comments/behavior after his wife's involvement with the Trump administration and 1/6; and he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.
You may well be right and what he did for the past 25 years was technically legal. On all other aspects, this stinks to high heaven.
I don’t know.
I don’t know what actually occurred aside from the one article. There are three sides to every story and we have one.
I don’t know how good of a friendship he really has with Crow. Is it legitimate? Who am I to judge based on what we know?
I don’t know if business was had on these trips (which would require the trips to be documented).
I don’t know that the perceived value of time on yacht or flights is accurate or that it really even matters.
I have chosen to delve into the legal aspect of it only and from that angle an argument can be made that these trips are legal and he abided by the rules set forth. Unless someone can show otherwise and not just argue the perceived value makes it an issue, I’m inclined to keep saying, “hate the rules, not the player”
Thomas has not denied the trips, hospitality, etc occurred. He has said they were perfectly okay and didn't break any rules. Haven't seen a single story debunking any aspect of this story. Even conservative media outlets are focusing on the lack of rule-breaking, not the story itself.
....yet we've identified ZERO other justices engaging in similar "perks" behavior. And that doesn't "stick out" to you here...
No; actually the left has typically abandoned the folks on their side for poor ethics.
Blagojevich
Mike Avenatti
John Edwards
Hell....even Al Franken for fake boob grabbing.
Relevance? Or are you saying that if others are doing it then it’s OK?
This is a case of following the rules as they are/were written.
Since the Iowa educational system has apparently failed you, it is relevant because no one else is doing it. It is unethical and abnormal. And there should be consequences.
So?
Jussie Smollett wasn't "white"; and the Dems don't have him as their flagbearer nowadays, either.
No one else on SCOTUS is leaving off hospitality from their disclosures? That was rhetorical.
You seem to have a problem with the perceived value and ideology of said friend. You seem to have a problem with “fairness” where some people who have wealthy friends can do fun things with said wealthy friends that the normal man can’t do.
Again, I don’t know if there were other things that occurred on these vacations that should have warranted them to be disclosed (that’s a whole different conversation), I just don’t think he should be ridiculed for following the rules as they were written.
I’m jealous he got to do these things, but that doesn’t mean my jealousy, or anyone elses, warrants requests for impeachment.
Is it eyebrow raising? Sure. But until there is proof of impropriety, I don’t think much can be done except fine tune the rules.
It is you, who is ignoring "perceived value" of a private jet trip (multiple trips) which would be tens of thousands of dollars in benefits.
Lol…. If you can’t see the Dems playbook of constantly using the race card to further any agenda, any further explanation wouldn’t make a difference.
Why are you now shifting the topic here?
Seems like YOU "played the race card" and are now projecting that on to others.
Stay with me here…. I was saying that if Thomas was a Democrat and Republicans were going after him, it would be deemed as racist and due to white supremacy from those on the left. You then gave me three white people the left didn’t embrace.
No; Dems seem to recognize improper behavior, and dump people from their party when they are caught.
Republicans rally around them so long as they gain some form of political benefit from it. Every time.
You've chosen to dive in head first to the sand because you don't want to consider anything but the legalities. That's the only way he might possibly be cleared on technicalities.
What other "sides" to the story will impact how you view these actions? You mention friendship - if they are good friends this is OK? Is it OK if they did some business on these expensive excursions? If the value of some of the trips are only $100K does that change your perception?
You're doing exactly what so many right wingers are doing with this right now - trying to hide behind technicalities and ignoring that all judges, and particularly Supreme Court Justices, must not be compromised like this.
