Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?
-
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 18:45 last edited by
You've never been appointed to a life-long position of power either.
-
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 19:21 last edited by
@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
You've never been appointed to a life-long position of power either.
I'm comfortable with my opinion that it was a weak move on her part. What's your opinion?
-
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 19:39 last edited by Mik
I think you are right if you only view it from the perspective of the political and judicial power of her tribe. As I stated above, there are other ways to look at it and she perhaps subscribed to one or the other. In my view to have done so would have been declaring an alignment with the Democratic party as opposed to being a jurist supposedly above that bipartisan fray. I think it would have been unseemly for a SCOTUS justice.
We've had enough mixed opinions on this court to determine that it is difficult to predict which way they might rule. Isn't that what we want, or do we want a rubberstamp court?
-
I think you are right if you only view it from the perspective of the political and judicial power of her tribe. As I stated above, there are other ways to look at it and she perhaps subscribed to one or the other. In my view to have done so would have been declaring an alignment with the Democratic party as opposed to being a jurist supposedly above that bipartisan fray. I think it would have been unseemly for a SCOTUS justice.
We've had enough mixed opinions on this court to determine that it is difficult to predict which way they might rule. Isn't that what we want, or do we want a rubberstamp court?
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 20:23 last edited by@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
I think you are right if you only view it from the perspective of the political and judicial power of her tribe. As I stated above, there are other ways to look at it and she perhaps subscribed to one or the other. In my view to have done so would have been declaring an alignment with the Democratic party as opposed to being a jurist supposedly above that bipartisan fray. I think it would have been unseemly for a SCOTUS justice.
Justices are aligned with the social values of the party that nominated them. That's why they were nominated. Our most recent nomination couldn't define what a woman was. That's because she is well aware of why she was nominated, and what she was expected to say. She knew the culture she represented.
We've had enough mixed opinions on this court to determine that it is difficult to predict which way they might rule. Isn't that what we want, or do we want a rubberstamp court?
It wasn't difficult to predict which way they'd rule on the culture war issues, such as affirmative action, gay marriage custom websites, and school debt. It was right down ideological lines in all three cases.
-
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 20:44 last edited by
I think you are confusing the obviously partisan nomination and confirmation process with actually serving as a justice. Take for instance John Roberts, who has regularly infuriated conservatives through his opinions. The initial process is how you get there. Once you are there you are free to rule as you see fit, as it should be.
-
I think you are confusing the obviously partisan nomination and confirmation process with actually serving as a justice. Take for instance John Roberts, who has regularly infuriated conservatives through his opinions. The initial process is how you get there. Once you are there you are free to rule as you see fit, as it should be.
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 21:04 last edited by@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
I think you are confusing the obviously partisan nomination and confirmation process with actually serving as a justice. Take for instance John Roberts, who has regularly infuriated conservatives through his opinions. The initial process is how you get there. Once you are there you are free to rule as you see fit, as it should be.
I'm watching the actual process, where the three progressive judges toed the culture war line. I am sure they all believe they are doing their jobs as free thinking individuals. That doesn't make them less predictable.
-
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 22:47 last edited by
Perhaps. But that does not obligate them to retire when there is a Democrat in the White House.
-
Perhaps. But that does not obligate them to retire when there is a Democrat in the White House.
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 23:03 last edited by@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
Perhaps. But that does not obligate them to retire when there is a Democrat in the White House.
No, being a moderately selfless person is never about following enforced obligations. All she needed to be was moderately selfless, and she could have made the obviously pro-social choice, from her perspective.
-
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 23:07 last edited by
But see, you are still looking at it from your perspective. Hers may have been very different.
-
But see, you are still looking at it from your perspective. Hers may have been very different.
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 23:14 last edited by@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
But see, you are still looking at it from your perspective. Hers may have been very different.
“From her perspective” was in my post. I get that she may have had reasons. Those reasons have not been articulated. I am comfortable with my opinion that her decision not to retire, when she was already long past her expiration date, was self interest over public interest.
-
wrote on 19 Jul 2023, 23:57 last edited by
As am I with mine.
-
wrote on 20 Jul 2023, 00:13 last edited by
@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
As am I with mine.
We agree then.
I've listened to a few conversations among liberal followers of the court, and they are disappointed that she did not retire. At those moments in the conversation, the subject quickly changes. Those would be good times to bring up reasons that would convince everybody that she was doing what she thought was for the best, for the country. But those possible reasons are never mentioned. Probably because there are no reasons that seem plausible.
-
wrote on 10 Aug 2023, 22:30 last edited by
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fix-the-court-should-fix-itself-788170d8?mod=e2two
‘Fix the Court’ Should Fix Itself
It would be nice if the progressives attacking Supreme Court Justices for alleged ethical lapses practiced what that they preach. Consider the outfit Fix the Court, which is working with Democrats to pass ethics and disclosure rules for Justices while ignoring a requirement to disclose its own lobbying.
Fix the Court is leading the campaign targeting Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for the supposed offense of associating with billionaires. The nonprofit is an offshoot of the New Venture Fund, which is among a web of progressive groups backed by the left-wing for-profit Arabella Advisors.
“We’re the only group in the nation working to open up the most powerful, least accountable part of government—the Supreme Court—by advocating for a few simple ‘fixes,’” Fix the Court’s website says. By “fix,” it means diminish conservative influence on the Court.
One such fix is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. Last month Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth appeared on Mr. Whitehouse’s podcast to “discuss ways to strengthen ethical guardrails at the Court” via legislation.
Yet Fix the Court hasn’t followed the disclosure rules it is supposed to adhere to, as the Washington Examiner recently reported. As a 501(c)(3) public charity, the outfit can shield the names of its donors. Donations are also tax deductible. But charities must abide by limits on political activities.
The Internal Revenue Service website states that “no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying),” which includes urging “the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body” and advocating “the adoption or rejection of legislation.” The IRS defines a “substantial part” as more than 20% of spending.
Charities are required to disclose whether they engage in political lobbying on their tax return Form 990. Fix the Court claimed it didn’t lobby on its 2022 public disclosure. Yet its website includes a long list of judicial bills that it has supported or opposed.
It also says it’s working with Members “in the 118th Congress to urge the judiciary to adopt the same exacting travel, gift and personal hospitality rules that members of Congress and top executive branch officials must follow” and that it supports Congress using its statutory authority “to compel acceptance of the [ethics] code.” This sure looks like political lobbying under the IRS definition.
-
wrote on 10 Aug 2023, 22:58 last edited by
At one point in time, the U.S. knew what the menace of socialism and communism meant. Somehow, with the passage of the Great Society programs, we've let the camel inch his way into the tent. The camel keeps promising security, if only we give up just a bit more freedom.
I think we need to take a very hard look at political donations. I understand money is speech, but megaphones must have some semblance of equality.
-
wrote on 1 Sept 2023, 00:38 last edited by
And in other news, over 100 of his old clerks wrote a testimonial letter for him.
Don't eat the Democrat cheese...
-
wrote on 1 Sept 2023, 00:41 last edited by
Also, after the Dobbs leak, he was advised to not take public transportation...
-
wrote on 1 Sept 2023, 12:28 last edited by
LOL. Ain't irony ironical?
A Supreme Court "transparency" watchdog taking aim at justices over alleged ethics violations scrubbed its website of blog posts tied to its lobbying that went undisclosed on tax forms, records show.
Executive Director Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a charity that spun off from the liberal Arabella Advisors-managed New Venture Fund nonprofit group, admitted last week his organization failed to report lobbying on tax forms in 2021 and 2022. Now, Fix the Court has removed website posts that multiple tax attorneys previously said appear to demonstrate how it lobbied during those years.
"No man so dishonest in his legal disclosures has standing to judge anyone's disclosures," Scott Walter, president of the conservative Capital Research Center think tank, told the Washington Examiner.
The revelation concerning Fix the Court's updated website comes after the group, which is helping to lead a seemingly coordinated campaign calling on justices such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to disclose more about their finances, came under fire from charity experts for likely skirting federal law for checking the box "no" on tax forms to the question of whether it lobbied in 2021 and 2022. The scrutiny was because Fix the Court has endorsed certain pieces of legislation and, in separate blog posts, urged members of the public to demand lawmakers support them.
Fix the Court filed amended 2022 tax forms affirming "yes" to the lobbying question, documents reveal. The group also filed a Schedule C showing it spent $6,400 trying "to influence foreign, national, state, or local legislation" through "publications, or published or broadcast statements" and $6,300 on "direct contact with legislators, their staffs, government officials, or a legislative body."
-
wrote on 1 Sept 2023, 12:35 last edited by
Now, I wonder if this coordinated silliness will die down?
-
wrote on 11 Sept 2023, 01:21 last edited by
QUOTE
Asked about the ethical issues that have plagued the Supreme Court recently, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Thursday that the court was “continuing to work on those issues” and he’s “hopeful that there will be some concrete steps taken soon,” according to multiple news organizations present, the first indication of any kind that the Supreme Court is willing to address the ethical scandals.
