Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Ana the Ist]

So glad I don't have to read Breitbart. I can just glance at your posts.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me....but I don't bother with Breitbart. I can't even recall the last time I read an article from them. I'm simply aware of the reality of our government....and the only thing surprising about this is the timing. Democrats at least had the dignity to wait until Ginsburg was cold and in the ground to reveal her close ties to reporters that violated ethical standards.

Jackson, in a head to head comparison with the other 8 judges, was the most qualified of all of them.

Perhaps, but since only black women were considered and calling 8 of them qualified is a big stretch....it's statistically unlikely she's anywhere remotely close to the best possible pick.

What matters is the Constitution.

Wow. Strong words from the left.

Should corporations be considered "persons?" Citizens United. Heck, no.

I agree. It's a "speech" issue because the argument claims that though it clearly is a private entity not an individual, in terms of influence, money is speech. It really does sort of make sense.

And since we now consider corporations private entities capable of acting as individuals regarding influence....we should be able to effectively strip them of the many protections of corporations that keep them from facing justice as individuals. Since their influence is primarily capital....and there's no practical method for imprisonment of a corporation, liquidation of all their assets, those of major stakeholders, shareholders, and such should be possible.

Otherwise, corporations are an individual who can exercise their speech as an individual, but protected from punishment piecemeal.

It's a bad ruling but not one that can't be easily turned against corporations or at least overturned.

But for Thomas it was payback time.

Speculation.

Along with all the other anti-citizen pro-business decisions.

Uh huh. Many of those voted for by the liberal members of the SCOTUS as well.

What is the issue exactly? The appearance of impropriety? Violation of his duty? Corruption of influence? I'm not going to dig through his history to see which cases he ruled on, who had a stake in them, or when he recused himself from ruling due to knowledge of the parties involved.

Excessive gun encouragement...is it because they want footsoldiers when they need that final push to overthrow the democracy they're dismantling?

There's a leftist who wrote a book about the ways one can easily identify "fascism" that was published recently. It's being passed around right wing circles for laughs because it describes the left almost perfectly. It's not really accurate to what fascism is...but still, the complete lack of self awareness to finish and publish that sort of thing is remarkable.

 

[Clare73]

Why should I engage you further when you'e made it clear that ethics don't matter?

Law matters. Ethics are subjective.

 

[Fantine]

Jackson's credentials were compared to the 8 sitting justices.

Such a shame that honest ethical people like McCain and Feingold worked years for campaign finance reform, and their work was completely undone by one anti-democracy bought and paid for ruling by corrupt ideologues with their hands in the cookie jar.

I sometimes picture Thomas' share cropper grandpa up there with his slave ancestors shaking their heads as he rules to end voting rights and affirmative action that people gave their lives to achieve. I am sure they are ashamed that he uses his power to disenfranchise his own people.

 

[Fantine]

He’s governed by law and not ethics you mean…

She means he is governed by an oligarchial anti-democratic interpretation of the law, an "interpretation" corrupt lobbyists pay handsomely to cultivate.

The Federalist Society funds law school chairs at leading schools, seats awarded to conservative extremists. Barrett's law school professor "groomed" her and others and recommended them for strategic positions to infiltrate the courts.

 

[Pommer]

Law matters. Ethics are subjective.

Maybe you are unaware that we have laws, regulations and ethics as the underpinning for our system of governance?
Acts of Congress that create an agency cede the congressional power to “create law” to these agencies.
Such an empowered agency will promulgate “regulations” that have the force of law, based on the authority ceded to this (or that) agency, with oversight being done on a day-to-day basis by the Executive branch and on an “as-needed” basis before Congress.

While Congress has the power to create Laws that affect the other two branches of our government, the other two branches of government create and maintain their own rules and ethics, by which various departments and offices are run.

These rules and ethics have the power of Law.

 

[Clare73]

He’s governed by law and not ethics you mean…

She means he is governed by an oligarchial anti-democratic interpretation of the law, an "interpretation" corrupt lobbyists pay handsomely to cultivate.

If the law is not ethical, we have only "we the people" to blame.

 

[Clare73]

She means he is governed by an oligarchial anti-democratic interpretation of the law, an "interpretation" corrupt lobbyists pay handsomely to cultivate.

Maybe you are unaware that we have laws, regulations and ethics as the underpinning for our system of governance?
Acts of Congress that create an agency cede the congressional power to “create law” to these agencies.
Such an empowered agency will promulgate “regulations” that have the force of law,

That ain't good. . .

based on the authority ceded to this (or that) agency, with oversight being done on a day-to-day basis by the Executive branch and on an “as-needed” basis before Congress.

While Congress has the power to create Laws that affect the other two branches of our government, the other two branches of government create and maintain their own rules and ethics, by which various departments and offices are run.

These rules and ethics have the power of Law.

Laws made by the unelected. . .how could anything possibly go wrong there?

 

[Pommer]

That ain't good. . .

You’d rather have the likes of Louie Gohmert and Margery Taylor Greene deciding when it is appropriately to clamp down on the coal industry as they put workers’ lives at risk?

Laws made by the unelected. . .how could anything possibly go wrong there?

This is how our government has functioned since 1789, take it up with the Founders.

 

[Clare73]

You’d rather have the likes of Louie Gohmert and Margery Taylor Greene deciding when it is appropriately to clamp down on the coal industry as they put workers’ lives at risk?

This is how our government has functioned since 1789, take it up with the Founders.

What agencies, instead of Congress, made laws 200 years ago?

 

[Pommer]

What agencies, instead of Congress, made laws 200 years ago?

The Department of Justice.

 

[Clare73]

The Department of Justice.

What laws would the DOJ make?
Does it make law today?

 

[JSRG]

And who chose him to author the majority opinion?

The majority opinion is assigned by whoever is the senior-most justice that is in the majority. The Chief Justice has the highest seniority, and then it goes by their length of time on the Court. So seniority on the Supreme Court right now is:
John Roberts>Clarence Thomas>Samuel Alito>Sonia Sotomayor>Elena Kagan>Neil Gorsuch>Brett Kavanaugh>Amy Barrett>Ketanji Jackson.

Thus, if John Roberts is in the majority opinion, he will assign it. If Clarence Thomas is in the majority opinion but John Roberts is not, then Clarence Thomas will assign it.

Who they decide to assign it to depends on a number of factors. Normally, if a justice really wants to do it, they'll get it. They also try to disperse majority opinions fairly evenly, with each justice writing about the same number of majority opinions, meaning a justice could get it simply because they haven't gotten as many as the others yet.

 

[Clare73]

The majority opinion is assigned by whoever is the senior-most justice that is in the majority. The Chief Justice has the highest seniority, and then it goes by their length of time on the Court. So seniority on the Supreme Court right now is:
John Roberts>Clarence Thomas>Samuel Alito>Sonia Sotomayor>Elena Kagan>Neil Gorsuch>Brett Kavanaugh>Amy Barrett>Ketanji Jackson.

Thus, if John Roberts is in the majority opinion, he will assign it. If Clarence Thomas is in the majority opinion but John Roberts is not, then Clarence Thomas will assign it.

Who they decide to assign it to depends on a number of factors. Normally, if a justice really wants to do it, they'll get it. They also try to disperse majority opinions fairly evenly, with each justice writing about the same number of majority opinions, meaning a justice could get it simply because they haven't gotten as many as the others yet.

Sounds good to me. . .don't see how any asserted abuse by Thomas could occur in those roles.

 

[Pommer]

What laws would the DOJ make?
Does it make law today?

The Department of Justice sets the rules & ethics for their Department that have the power of Law for the employees so situated in positions of power within the agency; again, do you wish to have the 538 members of Congress and the Senate to make each and every decision on a day-to-day basis?
Sounds unwieldy to mine ear.

 

[Fantine]

or If the law is not ethical, we have only "we the people" to blame.

Or the highly unethical Mitch McConnell, who left a Supreme Court seat---and many dozens of district court seats--unfilled until his party ran the Senate....it was the longest period by far that a Supreme Court seat had remained vacant. Not only that, he said that if Biden won and he held the majority he would have held up all appointments for up to 4---or even 8---years.

"We the people" didn't elect this power-mad megalomaniac. A bunch of Kentuckian Republicans who watched loads of TV ads paid for by Koch Industries, the Mercers, and Thomas' well-heeled buddy in Texas, voted for him. Probably his wife, heiress to a Chinese shipping conglomerate, probably paid for some, too. When she married McConnell Mom and Dad gave him a dowry of $25 million....but they knew it would pay off for them in numerous ways, and he didn't disappoint.

People like McConnell are the reason why strict rules are necessary.

 

[Clare73]

Or the highly unethical Mitch McConnell, who left a Supreme Court seat---and many dozens of district court seats--unfilled until his party ran the Senate....it was the longest period by far that a Supreme Court seat had remained vacant. Not only that, he said that if Biden won and he held the majority he would have held up all appointments for up to 4---or even 8---years.

Sounds a lot like all the lawless over-reach going on in the White House today. . .

 

[Pommer]

Sounds a lot like all the lawless over-reach going on in the White House today. . .

Non sequitur

 

[Whyayeman]

The law seems more important to me than customs.
He violated no law. . .and would not surprise me if that were the very point he is making; i.e., he is goverened by law, not by custom.

Good for him!

Abraham Lincoln had it about right, I think. He turned down a brief from a client who had a case in law but was morally in the wrong.

Clarence may not have infringed any laws in accepting these gifts over many years. It was his integrity that was compromised. How could his judgements escape being tarnished?

 

[JSRG]

Until Scalia died Thomas never spoke in Court.

While Thomas was well known for talking very little in oral arguments, he did speak, so it's inaccurate to say he never did. And the turning point wasn't Scalia's death; it was when they started doing the oral arguments remotely because of COVID and they assigned time to each justice. At that point he started talking much more.

So to say he didn't talk much in oral arguments until they started doing them remotely would be accurate. But it's not true to say he never spoke in Court.

He didn't write opinions. After all, what could he write?
"I accepted the advice of my fat cat friends when I discussed the case with them on a yachting adventure?"

He didn't write opinions? Here is the average number of opinions (majority, concurring, and dissent) that were written by the justices who were in it in the 2021 term, followed by the number of opinions they did per year.

Clarence Thomas: 24.6 (25, 25, 21, 24, 22, 17, 18, 25, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 29, 18, 24, 22, 21, 25, 21, 25, 15, 37, 32, 31, 31, 28, 31, 23, 22)
Stephen Breyer: 20.333 (20, 22, 29, 27, 20, 29, 23, 25, 19, 21, 24, 20, 19, 21, 27, 21, 23, 18, 14, 16, 12, 17, 19, 20, 14, 14, 15)
Samuel Alito: 19.8 (15, 16, 21, 23, 19, 22, 21, 30, 19, 18, 15, 20, 24, 19, 15)
Sonia Sotomayor: 19 (15, 22, 19, 16, 19, 16, 15, 15, 23, 19, 22, 22, 24)
Neil Gorsuch: 18.2 (17, 22, 13, 18, 21)
Brett Kavanaugh: 14.25 (14, 14, 15, 14)
John Roberts: 12.375 (12, 11, 17, 17, 12, 11, 17, 12, 14, 11, 10, 11, 12, 9, 11, 11)
Amy Barrett: 12 (12)
Elena Kagan: 11 (10, 9, 13, 10, 11, 12, 8, 9, 12, 10, 11, 17)

Clarence Thomas didn't write opinions? He wrote the most opinions! Now, mcuh of this comes from his well-known penchant for writing a ton of concurring opinions, but the fact remains: The person you claim "didn't write opinions" actually wrote more opinions than anyone else.

For those wondering, I took the numbers listed per year for them on their Ballotpedia pages and averaged them. For any Justice who joined midway through a term, I did not count their first year as this would have resulted in a reduced number of opinions, so the first year of Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett were not counted. The reason I used the justices who were on in the 2021 term rather than the current 2022 term is because the 2022 term is incomplete, so there is no data for it (thus no data for Ketanji Jackson).

Can you explain how Clarence Thomas wasn't writing opinions when he wrote more on average than anyone else who was recently on the court?

Thomas should have been impeached years ago. Perhaps the House hesitated do as not to appear racist, but since we now have Justice Jackson no one will say it's racist.
It is his lack of ethics, and the thirty year paper trail of biased votes favoring his oligarch buddies, that merits impeachment.

Accepting for the sake of argument that he has a lack of ethics and biased votes, how does that merit impeachment? Impeachment is to be done for crimes. I have not seen anyone give evidence Clarence Thomas is guilty of any crime. I have seen accusations of him being unethical or biased, but those are not in and of themselves crimes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Jackson's credentials were compared to the 8 sitting justices.

Ok.

Such a shame that honest ethical people like McCain and Feingold worked years for campaign finance reform, and their work was completely undone by one anti-democracy bought and paid for ruling by corrupt ideologues with their hands in the cookie jar.

Most trace the breakdown of the left to the Clintons. The economy was up, unions were easier to break, Wall Street was deregulated, and the Dems only give lip service to workers now.

I sometimes picture Thomas' share cropper grandpa up there with his slave ancestors shaking their heads as he rules to end voting rights and affirmative action that people gave their lives to achieve.

Would you call him a race traitor?

He made it to the highest court in the land. He did it in spite of real racism....not the imaginary kind you have to assume. I doubt you have any idea what his politics are.

I am sure they are ashamed that he uses his power to disenfranchise his own people.

I don't see that he did. If you can directly tie Citizens United to the undermining of the black community, be my guest.

States across the nation are rolling back laws against child labor....because big donors don't want to pay citizens for work they can get a 12yo Guatemalan to do. These parties work together. Your vote means nothing now.