The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim

[Hodad]

40 minutes ago, User said:

That isn't what happened though. We are talking about his rich friend taking him on vacation... you know, stuff like jets, yachts, and resorts are just expenses for the trip. 

What does that do to "bribe" him to do anything? Answer: Nothing. 

You can't support your case, all you can do is ask speculative rhetorical questions. 

Nope, that's exactly one of the things that happened. One of Clarence's good pals bought him a quarter-million-dollar "motor coach" attached to a loan--the originating amount of the loan was then forgiven. Here you go, $250K, good buddy!" 

Or the other "friend" who paid 6 figures worth of private school tuition for Thomas' nephew. 

The lavish cruises and vacations were really the tip of the iceberg. You could watch the video (which is fun) or read any of the investigative journalism (not as fun) on the topic. Propublica has good coverage. Oh, and don't forget the interlock with his wife's business.

You might not mind, but the fact that Thomas has used his office and influence to greatly enrich himself is repugnant, and an embarrassment to the court. We're miles beyond the "appearance of impropriety" here. But they are comfortable miles in a plush-ass free motorcoach! 

[User]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

Nope, that's exactly one of the things that happened. One of Clarence's good pals bought him a quarter-million-dollar "motor coach" attached to a loan--the originating amount of the loan was then forgiven. Here you go, $250K, good buddy!" 

Or the other "friend" who paid 6 figures worth of private school tuition for Thomas' nephew. 

The lavish cruises and vacations were really the tip of the iceberg. You could watch the video (which is fun) or read any of the investigative journalism (not as fun) on the topic. Propublica has good coverage. Oh, and don't forget the interlock with his wife's business.

You might not mind, but the fact that Thomas has used his office and influence to greatly enrich himself is repugnant, and an embarrassment to the court. We're miles beyond the "appearance of impropriety" here. But they are comfortable miles in a plush-ass free motorcoach! 

So... where is the bribe?

This started with the accusation he was bribed and you have turned it into a complaint on how many gifts or ways someone like Thomas profits from his position instead. If you want to have that discussion, great, but you jumped in trying to defend the assertion of bribes, implying he was somehow bought off to make decisions a certain way. 

Now you are just throwing as much mud as you can to distract from your inability to back any of that obvious nonsense up. 

You asserted he was just handed a quarter of a million dollars... when in reality a friend loaned him money for an RV and the accusation by Democrats is that Thomas someone profited from this, but it is just that, an accusation. They don't really have any of the proof to show how much Thomas paid back or not, while his lawyer claims the loan payments were fulfilled. 

None of what you have listed is "greatly" enriching, it is certainly someone enjoying some lavish gifts and favors from friends. What is his net worth again? Not a whole lot for as much as you are feigning outrage over. 

 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

So... where is the bribe?

This started with the accusation he was bribed and you have turned it into a complaint on how many gifts or ways someone like Thomas profits from his position instead. If you want to have that discussion, great, but you jumped in trying to defend the assertion of bribes, implying he was somehow bought off to make decisions a certain way. 

Now you are just throwing as much mud as you can to distract from your inability to back any of that obvious nonsense up. 

You asserted he was just handed a quarter of a million dollars... when in reality a friend loaned him money for an RV and the accusation by Democrats is that Thomas someone profited from this, but it is just that, an accusation. They don't really have any of the proof to show how much Thomas paid back or not, while his lawyer claims the loan payments were fulfilled. 

None of what you have listed is "greatly" enriching, it is certainly someone enjoying some lavish gifts and favors from friends. What is his net worth again? Not a whole lot for as much as you are feigning outrage over. 

 

Lol. Apparently shame is not a feeling in your repitoir. Anyone who can defend that level of corruption is clearly hopeless. I know you have a knee-jerk reaction to defend "your team" but only you can decide if this crooked judge is worth your integrity.

When someone loans you a quarter of a million dollars and then forgives the loan, they are "handing" you a quarter of a million dollars.

The Clarence Thomas story started badly and end badly. He threatened to quit if he didn't get a raise, so the booster club took care of him. Greed and corruption. That's his legacy now. 

[robosmith]

On 4/30/2024 at 12:44 PM, Nationalist said:

Attacking the messenger again?

Quelle suprise.

The "messenger" has NO CREDIBILITY cause they were caught LYING BIG TIME.

And they didn't even report it so you didn't know about it.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. Apparently shame is not a feeling in your repitoir. Anyone who can defend that level of corruption is clearly hopeless. I know you have a knee-jerk reaction to defend "your team" but only you can decide if this crooked judge is worth your integrity.

When someone loans you a quarter of a million dollars and then forgives the loan, they are "handing" you a quarter of a million dollars.

The Clarence Thomas story started badly and end badly. He threatened to quit if he didn't get a raise, so the booster club took care of him. Greed and corruption. That's his legacy now. 

There you go with another word. You moved on from trying to defend bribe and are now throwing "corruption" at the wall. It is just another word associated with taking bribes. 

I am not defending "corruption" here, I am merely pointing out that the assertion he was bribed is nonsense, not based on any facts that anyone has presented here so far, and trying to change up the terminology certainly doesn't change that. 

Ah, now you throw "crooked judge" in there too! 

What evidence do you have to show how much of the loan was repaid or not repaid over a decade? How much was forgiven? No, it was not just money handed to him, as you tried to assert initially. Accuracy matters, you try to characterize things in not just a negative way, but outright defend things like "bribe" which is not true. Because you know it is a pretty big nothing burger, a Judge has some rich friends he goes on vacation with, and one of them helped him with an RV too. 

*GASP* The horror. 

 

Edited May 2 by User

[robosmith]

On 4/30/2024 at 12:55 PM, West said:

It's not a fallacy at all. 

And your argument is nonsense. 

Your FAILURE to understand does NOT make it "nonsense."

Maybe you should ask questions about what you don't understand IF you were interested in understanding.

On 4/30/2024 at 1:23 PM, User said:

What am I ignoring? Be specific. 

I quoted it already. What part of the 4th Amendment do you not understand?

It contains the basis for the right to privacy.

[robosmith]

On 4/30/2024 at 1:25 PM, User said:

What legal reasoning to you think will support such a law being found to be Constitutional?

It's just more fear-mongering. 

Maybe it was BEFORE they found a reason (deny the right to privacy) to overturn RvW but not since.

[robosmith]

On 4/30/2024 at 1:29 PM, User said:

Of course it had to do with the quality of Roe. The Court had to reinvent tests for the lower courts to apply continually. 

Roe V Wade was never an absolute right to abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. So... again, it was poorly written, even by whatever absurdity you want to exist. 

Again, I am not interested in your religious bigotry and the issue of abortion is not so clearly divided. It actually spans a lot of demographics for those who are and are not Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. 

But I guess you feel better getting your little jabs at religion in... 

When they had to go back to 17th century misogynists to justify it, religion was all the non-scientists knew.

[robosmith]

On 4/30/2024 at 1:33 PM, User said:

No one has bribed Thomas. What an outrageous accusation with no proof. 

Oh, pardon me. I didn't know just how IGNORANT you were of what's been in the news for at least 6 months.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From ...

ProPublica

https://www.propublica.org · 1 year ago

 

 

 

 

For over 20 years, Clarence Thomas has been treated to luxury vacations by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow.

[User]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Oh, pardon me. I didn't know just how IGNORANT you were of what's been in the news for at least 6 months.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From ...

ProPublica

https://www.propublica.org · 1 year ago

 

 

 

 

For over 20 years, Clarence Thomas has been treated to luxury vacations by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow.

That is not a bribe. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

When they had to go back to 17th century misogynists to justify it, religion was all the non-scientists knew.

You seem to have no concept of how precedent works when reviewing the history of law. 

They routinely go back to common law concepts when articulating historical precedents. That is not all they did either. This is just a pathetic attempt to cherry pick to try to discredit the overall 70+ page opinion. 

[robosmith]

On 4/30/2024 at 9:48 PM, User said:

Actually, gifts are not bribes. Bribery has a very specific, nefarious meaning. Hanging out with your rich friend occasionally and having him pay the way is not a bribe. 

It is when the purpose is to incentivise specific behavior. AKA, keep him on the bench.

Thomas has made it known that he desperately wants more money and may leave the SCOTUS to get it.

[User]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

 

I quoted it already. What part of the 4th Amendment do you not understand?

It contains the basis for the right to privacy.

Which had nothing to do with abortion. 

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, User said:

That isn't what happened though. We are talking about his rich friend taking him on vacation... you know, stuff like jets, yachts, and resorts are just expenses for the trip. 

What does that do to "bribe" him to do anything? Answer: Nothing. 

You can't support your case, all you can do is ask speculative rhetorical questions. 

His billionaire "buddy" whom he started hanging with only AFTER being on the SCOTUS gave him a quarter $million motorhome. 

[User]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It is when the purpose is to incentivise specific behavior. AKA, keep him on the bench.

Thomas has made it known that he desperately wants more money and may leave the SCOTUS to get it.

So, you should be screaming for John Oliver's arrest and prosecution, then...

What evidence do you have that the purpose of going on vacation with a friend was to keep him on the bench? Also, a bribe connotes illegal behavior; otherwise, it is just a figure of speech.

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

His billionaire "buddy" whom he started hanging with only AFTER being on the SCOTUS gave him a quarter $million motorhome. 

Try responding again, only this time answer the question. 

Edited May 2 by User

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, User said:

That is not a bribe. 

Then why didn't Thomas report it? A: he caught a lot of flack for accepting bribes before.

[User]

Just now, robosmith said:

Then why didn't Thomas report it? A: he caught a lot of flack for accepting bribes before.

This is a question, not an argument, about what makes anything you have listed so far a bribe. 

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, User said:

So, you should be screaming for John Oliver's arrest and prosecution, then...

What evidence do you have that the purpose of going on vacation with a friend was to keep him on the bench? Also, a bribe connotes illegal behavior; otherwise, it is just a figure of speech.

Try responding again, only this time answer the question. 

Incentivising specific action by a judge whom the briber has business before, is most definitely a BRIBE.

And that's the REASON Thomas failed to report it.

[User]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Incentivising specific action by a judge whom the briber has business before, is most definitely a BRIBE.

And that's the REASON Thomas failed to report it.

What specific action was being incentivised and what evidence do you have that is why it was being done? What business was brought before the court that had anything to do with Thomas going on vacation with friends or having a friend help him with an RV?

What evidence do you have behind the motivation for why he failed to report anything?

All you have is baseless speculation and assertions you can't back up with anything. 

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

The "messenger" has NO CREDIBILITY cause they were caught LYING BIG TIME.

And they didn't even report it so you didn't know about it.

Do you stick you fingers in your ears and go, "LALALA" often? I'm sure you do.

Anything you don't like gets the same response. I hope it's a comfortable bubble you live in.

[West]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

Your FAILURE to understand does NOT make it "nonsense."

Maybe you should ask questions about what you don't understand IF you were interested in understanding.

I quoted it already. What part of the 4th Amendment do you not understand?

It contains the basis for the right to privacy.

My issue isn't that I don't understand it's that the argument is rubbish 

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, User said:

Now, you are being obtuse. School Choice is clearly a term used to describe choice in publicly funded education opportunities, like vouchers, tax credits, or things like education savings accounts... But let's play. If that is your take on choice, don't expect people who choose something else to have to continue to pay for public schools either. Fair? Or... we just stop funding public education all together, let people choose to do as they please? If you are opposed to paying for public education, lets take you at your word, we won't fund it at all. 

 

No, funding public schools is not negotiable. If people want to send their kids elsewhere, that's fine, but we can't defund and destroy our education system, which is one of our great social and economic differentiators. 

In the same way that you can't opt out of funding roads and utilities because you don't use them. And the fact that you don't directly use them doesn't mean you don't benefit from them. 

Quote

I see you are a believer in the magic birth canal. 

 

 

I don't think there's anything magical about it. Fetuses on one side, babies on the other. And I certainly believe in a legal birth canal.

Text. Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

Stop trying to give a non-person, non-citizen legal rights superior to those of born persons and citizens.

Quote

You said: "It's not some wonderfully diverse cross section of American life. "

My response was to point out that those who identify with being Pro-Life are, in fact, a wonderfully diverse cross-section of American life. 

Great, glad that the cohort includes women and men and humans. Now to reiterate, overwhelmingly religious. Every sperm is beautiful. Let's not pretend like that's not the primary impetus. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, funding public schools is not negotiable...

So, back to the point, you are not really Pro-Choice. That is just one thing. We could spend all day outlining how you are not really Pro-Choice. Which to my larger point... it is silly the game you are playing by acting like Pro-Life is some absolutist term when both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are merely descriptions commonly held to describe the general positions in the abortion issue. 

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't think there's anything magical about it. Fetuses on one side, babies on the other. And I certainly believe in a legal birth canal.

Clearly you do. There is no difference between a baby just born and one in the birth canal other than location. You want to pretend human life is just a matter of legal semantics here for babies. 

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Stop trying to give a non-person, non-citizen legal rights superior to those of born persons and citizens.

Nothing you have provided shows the unborn child is a "non-person", you have gone from quoting an Amendment talking about defining citizenship in America... so the stupidity of your reasoning here means that anyone not a citizen of America is a non-person?

Stop trying to justify killing unborn babies for the mere convenience of it. 

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

...overwhelmingly religious.

 3/4 of Americans believe in God, Half claim to be religious. And in Gallup polling, 1/3 of those who claim seldom or never attend religious service identify as Pro-Life. 

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, User said:

So, back to the point, you are not really Pro-Choice. That is just one thing. We could spend all day outlining how you are not really Pro-Choice. Which to my larger point... it is silly the game you are playing by acting like Pro-Life is some absolutist term when both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are merely descriptions commonly held to describe the general positions in the abortion issue. 

You're playing a very poor game of semantics. 

As illustrated, "pro-life" doesn't have anything at all to do with life, writ large. It very simply means that we should outlaw abortion, robbing women of the choice whether to suffer a pregnancy or terminate it. Which brings us back to WHY the pro-life flag is indeed antagonistic. It's not a simple uplifting message. It's a position asserting dominance over have the population and meaningfully impacting their rights and lives. 

Stop pretending that it's anything other than that. You just look silly.

Quote

Clearly you do. There is no difference between a baby just born and one in the birth canal other than location. You want to pretend human life is just a matter of legal semantics here for babies. 

Spoken like someone who's never given birth. Only a callous man could hand-wave away the birth process as inconsequential. 

The fetus is connected to, dependent on and literally inside a specific person. If you don't think that's a difference--a number of VERY obvious differences--from a born person I don't know what to tell you. 

 

Quote

Nothing you have provided shows the unborn child is a "non-person", you have gone from quoting an Amendment talking about defining citizenship in America... so the stupidity of your reasoning here means that anyone not a citizen of America is a non-person?

What? That's not a contingent condition. It's not a person because it's not a person. It lacks aspects of personhood identified by any philosophical tradition (there are lists). Separate from that it is definitely not a citizen.  Yet you would assign the fetus a special set of rights beyond those of a known person and legal citizen. It's a ridiculous, misogynistic nonsense. 

Quote

Stop trying to justify killing unborn babies for the mere convenience of it. 

 

A) It's very rarely a matter of convenience

B. It's none of your business where, when or why a woman terminates a pregnancy. It's her body, and her choice.

Quote

 3/4 of Americans believe in God, Half claim to be religious. And in Gallup polling, 1/3 of those who claim seldom or never attend religious service identify as Pro-Life. 

It's not entering the building that makes one religious. 

Gallup: Those with no religious identity are much more accepting of abortion; only 5% of this group say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, and only 21% say abortion is morally wrong. 

^^There you go. 5% of the non-religious are "pro-life"

 

This is ridiculous. It's like "debating" the color of the sky. The pro-life movement is based in religion and driven almost entirely by Catholics and evangelicals. The sky is blue. There is no debate or controversy. You don't need to pretend that the pro-life movement isn't fueled by religious dogma. If that embarrasses you, perhaps reconsider your position.

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Do you stick you fingers in your ears and go, "LALALA" often? I'm sure you do.

^This is just stupid. Putting fingers in my ears would not stop me from seeing your BULLSHIT.

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Anything you don't like gets the same response. I hope it's a comfortable bubble you live in.

Anything from FOS LIES suffers from the same DEFECT, and thus the same response. Duh.

IF you have a different source, no one knows about it cause you never post any.