Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?
-
@Doctor-Phibes you wanna field this one?
@jon-nyc said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
@Doctor-Phibes you wanna field this one?
I suspect I'd be wasting my time. It's no often that I know I'm right, but I do here.
Judges should pay for their own holidays.
-
@jon-nyc said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
@Doctor-Phibes you wanna field this one?
I suspect I'd be wasting my time. It's no often that I know I'm right, but I do here.
Judges should pay for their own holidays.
-
Or, we could discuss the closet liberal, who wouldn't have had any problems with anything Ginsburg ever did.
Face it, lad, you can put all the lace around it you wish, but at the end of the day, Washington is about perception and power. If the pols or judges are doing what you perceive to be good for the country, you probably don't care if the person wears a goat mask to the weekly orgies.
I think Thomas primarily rules on original intent, and I think he tries to adhere to the Constitution. I don't think the Wise Latina does.
So yes, I'd have more problem with her behavior than his. But...it's Washington. They're ALL crooked, to one extent or the other. And if Thomas could make a phone call and help your foundation immensely or give you a favorable ruling from the bench concerning same, you'd love the man until the end of time.
-
Or, we could discuss the closet liberal, who wouldn't have had any problems with anything Ginsburg ever did.
Face it, lad, you can put all the lace around it you wish, but at the end of the day, Washington is about perception and power. If the pols or judges are doing what you perceive to be good for the country, you probably don't care if the person wears a goat mask to the weekly orgies.
I think Thomas primarily rules on original intent, and I think he tries to adhere to the Constitution. I don't think the Wise Latina does.
So yes, I'd have more problem with her behavior than his. But...it's Washington. They're ALL crooked, to one extent or the other. And if Thomas could make a phone call and help your foundation immensely or give you a favorable ruling from the bench concerning same, you'd love the man until the end of time.
-
I was thinking you might want to address the fine distinction between source consideration and messenger shooting.
@jon-nyc said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
I was thinking you might want to address the fine distinction between source consideration and messenger shooting.
Horace has already set me straight on that point. Apparently it’s completely different when I do it as I’m driven by emotion. Conservatives can’t be driven by emotions as they don’t have any.
-
@jon-nyc said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
I was thinking you might want to address the fine distinction between source consideration and messenger shooting.
Horace has already set me straight on that point. Apparently it’s completely different when I do it as I’m driven by emotion. Conservatives can’t be driven by emotions as they don’t have any.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
@jon-nyc said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
I was thinking you might want to address the fine distinction between source consideration and messenger shooting.
Horace has already set me straight on that point. Apparently it’s completely different when I do it as I’m driven by emotion.
I considered you to be someone who would be sympathetic to consideration of sources, that's all.
Conservatives can’t be driven by emotions as they don’t have any.
It's fine to have emotions and even to be ruled by them to whatever extent you'd like. Those of us incapable of any depth of thought, have little else to form opinions on, in any case. The issue is when people's opinions are based on their emotional truths, and they impose those opinions on others, via the cultural ideas and politics we all have to live with.
-
@Jolly basically you’re saying he’s a crook but at least he’s your crook?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
@Jolly basically you’re saying he’s a crook but at least he’s your crook?
I'm saying several things:
- Nobody has come up with anything (and I assure you, they're like a cat that drank a bottle of laxitive and is digging holes for shit as fast as he can) that shows where this has affected any of Thomas' votes or rulings.
- Rich people have rich friends.
- Crooks? Not necessarily. Compromised? Every one of them, to one extent or another. It's politics. It's how the game is played in the big leagues. And shucks, sometimes they are crooks. I voted for Edwin Edwards twice. A man who gleefully admitted he was a crook, but he stole for the good people of Louisiana.
-
Who says one trip was worth $500k? How is that even possible?
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
Who says one trip was worth $500k? How is that even possible?
You've clearly never partied with insurance professionals.
-
@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
Who says one trip was worth $500k? How is that even possible?
You've clearly never partied with insurance professionals.
@Doctor-Phibes au contraire mon frer!
-
@Doctor-Phibes au contraire mon frer!
@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
@Doctor-Phibes au contraire mon frer!
Did they do a risk analysis of your seating arrangement? I thought not.
Trust me, the guys you went out with would be insurance amateurs. The very fact that they'd party with you is evidence enough. I've spent time with insurance professionals. After an hour, death cannot come soon enough, hence the expense report.
-
Two comments from myself
-
As George said, he should know better. If he is such a good legal mind, it should be pretty obvious that you should not do this.
-
As a human being, it would seem kind of "diminishing" (not sure if that is the right word) to your own self esteem as a human to keep accepting free trips from a friend. To me, (and I think to most of us here), it would bother me as a person if I kept getting free stuff from a friend. Sure, I have stayed at a friends place. But if they kept offering it year after year after year, paying my airfare, meals, etc. ummmmm a big NO to that.
-
-
Two comments from myself
-
As George said, he should know better. If he is such a good legal mind, it should be pretty obvious that you should not do this.
-
As a human being, it would seem kind of "diminishing" (not sure if that is the right word) to your own self esteem as a human to keep accepting free trips from a friend. To me, (and I think to most of us here), it would bother me as a person if I kept getting free stuff from a friend. Sure, I have stayed at a friends place. But if they kept offering it year after year after year, paying my airfare, meals, etc. ummmmm a big NO to that.
@taiwan_girl said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:
Two comments from myself
-
As George said, he should know better. If he is such a good legal mind, it should be pretty obvious that you should not do this.
-
As a human being, it would seem kind of "diminishing" (not sure if that is the right word) to your own self esteem as a human to keep accepting free trips from a friend. To me, (and I think to most of us here), it would bother me as a person if I kept getting free stuff from a friend. Sure, I have stayed at a friends place. But if they kept offering it year after year after year, paying my airfare, meals, etc. ummmmm a big NO to that.
Accepting charity feels like a diminishment of status. But accepting rewards feels like an enhancement of status. This does not feel like charity to Thomas, I guess. I guess it feels like belonging to a high status club.
-
-
Reality check.
Under the law, Thomas did nothing wrong. It may be bad optics, but I suspect he doesn't care.
And since he's appointed for life, ain't a damn thing, you, me or anybody else can do about it.
It's a tempest in a teapot story for the 24-hr news cycle, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing except the Left is pissed at SCOTUS.
