Clarence Thomas
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
Hey, do you live in Russia? This doesn't concern you. Move along...
Really though... why do so many Republicans gravitate toward Russia? And, it's not a recent thing either... been happening for years. What's that all about?
WASHINGTON—Telling critics in Congress that if they wanted serious reform they simply needed to make it worth his while, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas promised Friday he would adopt a code of ethics for the right price. “After hearing out the Senate Judiciary Committee’s concerns, I admit to seeing the wisdom in developing some kind of ethical framework for the Supreme Court, so long as Papa gets some sugar,” the senior associate justice said in a prepared statement, emphasizing that he would be willing to submit to a code of conduct that included ignoring special interests and disclosing private trips if there was some serious coinage thrown his way. “It’s reasonable to believe justices serving on the highest court in the land should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, if only so citizens can have faith in their decision-making process. And if that means so much to lawmakers, they should take whatever donors are giving me every year and double it. Also, in order for me to adhere to some sense of values, Ginni needs to wet her beak.” Thomas suggested he might also support term limits for justices if he was guaranteed a yearly all-expenses-paid trip to the Maldives in retirement.
www.theonion.com
Clarence Thomas Promises To Adopt Code Of Ethics For The Right Price
WASHINGTON—Telling critics in Congress that if they wanted serious reform they simply needed to make it worth his while, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas promised Friday he would adopt a code of ethics for the right price. “After hearing out the Senate Judiciary Committee’s concerns, I...
www.theonion.com
Sad the dems and teachers unions forced him to do this for a decent education with his friends relation( not his child).
- Sep 13, 2002
- 95,814
- 196,061
- 113
Those are features, not bugs, for the dog boy.
The teachers unions control lots of districts.
Wake up comrade.
Makes you wonder who really paid off kavanaughs debt?
Collective Bargaining is not allowed in the State of Georgia. A “union” in Georgia would not resemble anything you’re predisposed to think about. It would be an association with absolutely no teeth.
Uh...because it's income, and not "gifts from rich people"...
Yeah....that money you get from providing goods and services.
Not "free tuition and free private jet trips".
If you had any brains/sense at all you'd be sitting out this thread. Starts multiple Biden Crime Family threads a week (or sometimes a day) and then is coming into threads like this to try and white knight and deflect from open bribery and corruption when it comes to Clarence Thomas.
Perfect MAGA.
Seems like providing a "service" in exchange, would be worse than simply accepting truly "free stuff"...
There is no teachers' union in Georgia. It's illegal for them to bargain collectively. And Lumpkin County backed Trump with 78+% of their vote in the last election. So you, once again, prove how dumb you are, DogBot. It does make sense that you refer to other posters as "comrade, though. Those old habits are hard to break.
So the question would be, what service was expected of Thomas in exchange for paying $6K/month for the child in his care to go to school. Or do you really think that was done out of the goodness of someone's heart?
If you can’t see how accepting these type of gifts from someone who has cases in front of the Court is relevant, I can’t help you.
Last edited:
So, he isn't a man of the people who is most comfortable parking his RV in a Walmart parking lot?
What sense does that make? Provide service, pay taxes, report said service.
Or
Accept free shit and provide favors.
Jeez, Rifler.
"...going so far as to renounce precedent he had literally written."
Precedent schmecedent. What's more important is that the interpretation of the law change in fits and jerks within a single lifetime. That's how you get clarity and stability.
Justice Thomas was initially a defender of the Chevron doctrine. In 2005, he penned a decision upholding it — over the dissent of his fellow conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
The case, National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, addressed a federal agency’s ability to regulate cable companies under a 1934 law.
Thomas wrote the majority opinion, arguing that the lower court should have applied the Chevron doctrine to the case and deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the law.
One of those five opinions came in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 2015 case challenging the EPA’s ability to regulate power plants under the Clean Air Act. Thomas joined the conservative majority, ruling that the EPA had overstepped its authority, and wrote his own concurrence arguing that Chevron deference unconstitutionally delegated power from the judiciary to the executive branch.
The case, National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, addressed a federal agency’s ability to regulate cable companies under a 1934 law.
Thomas wrote the majority opinion, arguing that the lower court should have applied the Chevron doctrine to the case and deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the law.
One of those five opinions came in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 2015 case challenging the EPA’s ability to regulate power plants under the Clean Air Act. Thomas joined the conservative majority, ruling that the EPA had overstepped its authority, and wrote his own concurrence arguing that Chevron deference unconstitutionally delegated power from the judiciary to the executive branch.
