Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Belk]

Now I have seen everything. Conservatives arguing that we don't need judges to have strong ethics.

 

[USincognito]

Let's be honest here,
If it was uncovered that George Soros or Bill Gates was taking Ginsberg or Sotomayor on lavish undisclosed vacations and donating $500k sums to their spouses back in the day, it'd be all that Fox News would talk about for months on end.

The collective howling from the Conservisphere would be louder than Krakatoa.

Instead we have folks bending over backwards to excuse this behavior and whataboutism directed at the Bidens.

 

[USincognito]

That ain't good. . .

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

The U.S. has had a long history of administrative law.

 

[USincognito]

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

The red herrings and projection posted in this thread to distract from Thomas' unethical behavior is rather entertaining to read.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Now I have seen everything. Conservatives arguing that we don't need judges to have strong ethics.

Who said that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's be honest here,
If it was uncovered that George Soros or Bill Gates was taking Ginsberg or Sotomayor on lavish undisclosed vacations and donating $500k sums to their spouses back in the day, it'd be all that Fox News would talk about for months on end.

I don't know if you remember one of the original threads about the Trump raid where I mentioned that "they all do it".

But I got some bad news for you...

 

[Ana the Ist]

That ain't good. . .

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

The problem with that, is that with any ethics violation, one would be able to appeal any such ruling.

Regardless, I don't think you really understand the separation of powers in our federal government.

 

[Fantine]

Ok.




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.




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 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.

The voting rights act of 1965 has been decimated by the Supreme Court.
Yeah, my state with an 80% Republican legislature just passed a permissive child labor law. All Dems and 1 Republican voted no.
My black friends believe he betrays his race. Their opinion should count for more.
I am sure he was both discriminated against and helped by affirmative action. By aligning himself with only white conservatives, he is treasured because he is so rare. Pretty shrewd of him to go rogue. In the Democratic Party he would be one of the crowd and bested by many of them. I am sure Jackson can think rings around him.

 

[Pommer]

The red herrings and projection posted in this thread to distract from Thomas' unethical behavior rather entertaining to read.

Perhaps our friend would like federal Judges to be elected officials, beholden to the hoi polloi rather than the laws, their own ethics and their ability to comport themselves with the least amount of taint from wielding such immense powers?

 

[rambot]

It is BONKERS to me that anyone can defend these actions as common place and fine.

The "everybody does it" line is the laziest version of reality. I mean if e eryone does it, we'd have repoets of, tou guessed it, every Supreme Court Judge doing it over the course of decades.

But we don't have that.

We have possibly, one very unscrupulous judge who should be held to account.

Folks complain about politicians and then give their own politicians a pass when it comes to impropriety. What a joke.

 

[Clare73]

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.

"Morals" can be in the eye of the beholder. . .they're not an objective standard.

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?

There are still some who have integrity in these situations. . .sorry you don't know any.

 

[Clare73]

The collective howling from the Conservisphere would be louder than Krakatoa.

Instead we have folks bending over backwards to excuse this behavior and whataboutism directed at the Bidens.

Just love it when the shenanigans of their own are off-limits. . .in the name of some absurd irregularity.
That's sum integrity. . .

 

[Clare73]

The red herrings and projection posted in this thread to distract from Thomas' unethical behavior is rather entertaining to read.

We aim to please. . .

 

[Clare73]

It is BONKERS to me that anyone can defend these actions as common place and fine.

The "everybody does it" line is the laziest version of reality. I mean if e eryone does it, we'd have repoets of, tou guessed it, every Supreme Court Judge doing it over the course of decades.

But we don't have that.

We have possibly, one very unscrupulous judge who should be held to account.

Folks complain about politicians and then give their own politicians a pass when it comes to impropriety. What a joke.

It's about the law. . .that's why we have it. . .if you don't like it, get it changed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps our friend would like federal Judges to be elected officials, beholden to the hoi polloi rather than the laws, their own ethics and their ability to comport themselves with the least amount of taint from wielding such immense powers?

I don't know who this friend is...but no. What kind of idea is that? Interpretation of the law should not be a matter of popular opinion. If it were, then we may as well simply end democracy now.

 

[rambot]

It's about the law. . .that's why we have it. . .if you don't like it, get it changed.

I dont need a law to tell me something is right or wrong.

I expect to hear crickets if the same story comes with a left leaning judge. I expect it cause I won't because ita not really about "law" is it? It's just tribalism.

 

[Clare73]

I dont need a law to tell me something is right or wrong.

Right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder. So whose view governs, the eye of the accused or the eye of the accuser?

You need a law to be convicted of a crime.

It's not complicated.

I expect to hear crickets if the same story comes with a left leaning judge. I expect it cause I won't because it's not really about "law" is it? It's just tribalism.

It's doesn't matter if it's just tiddly-winks, if it is in agreement with the law.

Just love it that support of law and its enforcement are seen as "tribalism," "what-about-ism," "oligarchal," "anti-democratic," "a red herring," "unethical," etc., etc., etc. . .when they find themselves on the wrong side of it. Not too obvious, that.

Your "tribalism" would have the law itself made "guilty by association" with your opponent. . .and it won't be long before this "rationale" becomes so deranged that it is made actual grounds for the guilt of the law itself rather than the lawbreaker. . .the principle being that your opponent is, by definition of "opponent," evil and anything which protects his Constitutional rights is, by definition, also evil and must be overturned.

Buckle your seat belts, folks, because we are in for a dreadful ride, where reality and natural truth are set on their heads and turned inside out. . .and at the devastating price of the destruction of Western civilization, which is built on just laws and their enforcement.

God help us all!

 

[Whyayeman]

"Morals" can be in the eye of the beholder. . .they're not an objective standard.

There are still some who have integrity in these situations. . .sorry you don't know any.

I referred to a particular 'eye', that of Abraham Lincoln. Most agree on his status as a principled, upright man - a hero, in fact. I am certainly not calling his integrity into question, but then, I have never heard that he took gifts from rich individuals while in office (or out of it).

However, I do think there are objective standards that Supreme Court judges should adhere to. Clarence Thomas has not stuck to the highest standards of public life, however they are expressed.

 

[Clare73]

I referred to a particular 'eye', that of Abraham Lincoln. Most agree on his status as a principled, upright man - a hero, in fact. I am certainly not calling his integrity into question, but then, I have never heard that he took gifts from rich individuals while in office (or out of it).

However, I do think there are objective standards that Supreme Court judges should adhere to. Clarence Thomas has not stuck to the highest standards of public life, however they are expressed.

Same ole, same ole. . .standards are in the eye of the beholder, they must be spelled out in law if they are expected to apply to everyone.
Otherwise, we are free to live by the standards to which we personally ascribe.

It's not complicated.

 

[Larniavc]

Right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder. So whose view governs, the eye of the accused or the eye of the accuser?

I thought Christians believed there is an objective right or wrong and that is stems from God.