Clarence Thomas Received $4 Million in “Gifts”

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, User said:

Appointing justices as part of the normal process is not packing the court. 

Packing the court is part of the normal process of rebalancing when the court gets out of touch with the wishes of the electorate like this extremist right wing court is.

8 hours ago, User said:

That is not what "pack the court" means. 

It is one form of court packing.

8 hours ago, User said:

Then, the term is meaningless. 

You just don't understand it.

[WestCanMan]

Did I read that right?

Did he receive over $10M from the gov't of China? Oh wait, apparently that's not a bad thing.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

If you fly it upside down on Jan 7, 2021, you'd be expressing sympathy with the insurrectionist.

 

You mean the protesters.

And? Why isn't he allowed to have sympathy for someone? I note many dems fly the palestinian flag she's a lawmaker and she's expressing sympathy for terrorist. People have their opinions. 

Most you could possibly say is he might possibly have to recuse himself if he's involved in a case directly relating to January 6th.

 

[Nationalist]

So comical. Now packing the SCOTUS is "normal".

I swear these childish buggers are insane.

Insane people will do anything to justify their insanity.

Republicans need to be on these warped beings like a wet t-shirt. They've already been caught trying to cheat in Arizona. They will keep trying.

[User]

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

Packing the court is part of the normal process of rebalancing when the court gets out of touch with the wishes of the electorate like this extremist right wing court is.

There is no "normal" when it comes to packing the court. This is nothing more than wish casting of the most extreme kind of petty political partisanship from the left because you all want to politicize the court far more than you currently cry about it being. 

It is the same stupid hypocrisy with the left crying about saving Democracy by having to destroy it, cheering on the removal of a candidate from the polls so people can't even vote for them to "Save Democracy!" 
 

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

It is one form of court packing.

Packing the court is the term for doing something outside of "normal" to modify the courts for purely political purposes. 

Simply nominating and appointing Supreme Court justices as they retire as part of an ordinary course of business is not court packing. 

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

You just don't understand it.

I understand it just fine, if you and others are reducing it to mean a President appoints someone because they are ideologically aligned with them... well, duh. That is what every President does. The term is meaningless at that point as every appointment is "court packing"

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

If you fly it upside down on Jan 7, 2021, you'd be expressing sympathy with the insurrectionist.

No, that is a bad presumption on your part. 

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

You mean any evidence you would understand....

So, where is your evidence?

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, User said:

There is no "normal" when it comes to packing the court. This is nothing more than wish casting of the most extreme kind of petty political partisanship from the left because you all want to politicize the court far more than you currently cry about it being. 

It is the same stupid hypocrisy with the left crying about saving Democracy by having to destroy it, cheering on the removal of a candidate from the polls so people can't even vote for them to "Save Democracy!" 

 

Exactly. Apparently now simply appointing someone to the court is "Stacking it".

And they try and remove people from the ballot, they try to interfere with the election by prosecuting the most ridiculous charges ever and then turn around and claim that they're trying to save democracy

[Aristides]

One problem with the US system is the lifetime appointment. I don't know of any other countries that don't have mandatory retirement of judges. In Canada it's 75.

 

Edited June 10 by Aristides

[User]

26 minutes ago, Aristides said:

One problem with the US system is the lifetime appointment. I don't know of any other countries that don't have mandatory retirement of judges. In Canada it's 75.

 

Why is that a problem?

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, User said:

Why is that a problem?

as unusual as it is for me to agree with him, It does create a bit of a problem.

Over time things change. Including legal precedent, how the courts work, society's views on a number of laws, etc. If you have someone who is a sitting judge for 40 or 50 years did not tends to hinder that process. They wind up becoming this sort of mafia don like figure,  and the law becomes static and inflexible and brittle. 

Also if there is a more reasonable changeover if there is a 'bad collection'  for a time then at least the turnover shakes that up a bit. 

And finally  with set retirement dates voters can take into account whether whomever they elect as president (and house and senate) will be appointing new judges and that may impact some of their voting decisions. It may well force politicians to be more forthcoming with regards to their policies on judges. 

And of course there's some question as to mental competency of someone handling complex and difficult legal issues when they're 90's.  Or even 81   (Joe biden:  STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARE..... ) 

 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, User said:

Why is that a problem?

It's a dumb system. You have feeble minded old farts making laws and you can't get rid of them. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It's a dumb system. You have feeble minded old farts making laws and you can't get rid of them. 

Who is feeble-minded?

There is a process to remove justices if it comes to such obviousness, and the "life tenure" also comes down to good behavior. 

They are not supposed to be making laws; they are interpreting them. 

Edited June 10 by User

[User]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Over time things change. Including legal precedent, how the courts work, society's views on a number of laws, etc. If you have someone who is a sitting judge for 40 or 50 years did not tends to hinder that process. They wind up becoming this sort of mafia don like figure,  and the law becomes static and inflexible and brittle. 

Not necessarily at all. Any Judge worth their salt will be a voracious reader and writer. Every ruling will come down to researching the law and legal precedent. The entire concept of precedent is that there is not change... it is a precedent. 

The law is the law, it doesn't change based on societies views. It changes when society elects politicians who change it. 

The law is static and inflexible. Judges interpret the law, and legislators change it. You are mixing them up here. 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And finally  with set retirement dates voters can take into account whether whomever they elect as president (and house and senate) will be appointing new judges and that may impact some of their voting decisions. It may well force politicians to be more forthcoming with regards to their policies on judges. 

The judiciary is supposed to be above political games like this, which is why it is a life tenure. 

[Aristides]

17 minutes ago, User said:

Who is feeble-minded?

There is a process to remove justices if it comes to such obviousness, and the "life tenure" also comes down to good behavior. 

They are not supposed to be making laws; they are interpreting them. 

Only one SCJ has ever been impeached and that was in 1804. 49 have died when in office and only 55 have actually retired. Great system you go there.

Thomas will abuse his position until he croaks and nothing will be done about it.

Edited June 10 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

53 minutes ago, User said:

 

The judiciary is supposed to be above political games like this, which is why it is a life tenure. 

There will be imperfections no matter how you do it. But it is silly to pretend that those who select the judges are above such political games. Even if the judges themselves consider themselves to be unbiased and that their legal opinions are there honest legal opinions that they 100% believe are 100% valid, a politician May yet still pick a judge that he feels happens to have opinions that reflect their political goals.

So, it's not a bad idea to have the ability to take that into consideration when choosing the people who will be doing the choosing.

[User]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There will be imperfections no matter how you do it. But it is silly to pretend that those who select the judges are above such political games. Even if the judges themselves consider themselves to be unbiased and that their legal opinions are there honest legal opinions that they 100% believe are 100% valid, a politician May yet still pick a judge that he feels happens to have opinions that reflect their political goals.

So, it's not a bad idea to have the ability to take that into consideration when choosing the people who will be doing the choosing.

Of course there is some politics around elected politicians appointing them... but you would make it even more so. That is the point. 

It is already a consideration people can make in voting for someone. There are constantly judge appointments opening up. You don't need to know an exact date. 

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

Only one SCJ has ever been impeached and that was in 1804. 49 have died when in office and only 55 have actually retired. Great system you go there.

And?

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

Thomas will abuse his position until he croaks and nothing will be done about it.

How is he abusing his position now?

He has a rich friend who takes him on vacations. That is the summary of what his so-called "abuse" is. 

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, User said:

 

How is he abusing his position now?

He has a rich friend who takes him on vacations. That is the summary of what his so-called "abuse" is. 

So you don't think ethical standards should apply to SCJ's, they can take perks from anyone they want for whatever they want. Wow, something like this would sure cause a stink in my country. We know you would go apeshit if it was an Obama or Clinton appointee doing the same.  Who knew your standards would be so low.

[User]

24 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you don't think ethical standards should apply to SCJ's, they can take perks from anyone they want for whatever they want. Wow, something like this would sure cause a stink in my country. We know you would go apeshit if it was an Obama or Clinton appointee doing the same.  Who knew your standards would be so low.

I don't think having a wealthy friend who likes to take you on vacations is an ethical issue. 

You can't actually articulate how this was bad or wrong or impacted anything he was doing professionally. 

[Aristides]

5 minutes ago, User said:

I don't think having a wealthy friend who likes to take you on vacations is an ethical issue. 

You can't actually articulate how this was bad or wrong or impacted anything he was doing professionally. 

So you have no standards of behaviour for SCJ's. 

Why do you think the SCOTUS approval level is below 30% and your country has become a laughing stock?

[User]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you have no standards of behaviour for SCJ's. 

Where did I say that?

Not thinking that having a rich friend who takes you on vacations is some kind of ethical problem != no standards.

 

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Why do you think the SCOTUS approval level is below 30% and your country has become a laughing stock?

I already answered this:

"When the left wing pushes a narrative to destroy the SCOTUS reputation backed by their left-wing media campaign to do so... in conjunction with their overturning one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS ever made regarding one of the most politically contentious issues, it is no surprise that their polling is suffering. "

[Aristides]

32 minutes ago, User said:

Where did I say that?

Not thinking that having a rich friend who takes you on vacations is some kind of ethical problem != no standards.

 

I already answered this:

"When the left wing pushes a narrative to destroy the SCOTUS reputation backed by their left-wing media campaign to do so... in conjunction with their overturning one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS ever made regarding one of the most politically contentious issues, it is no surprise that their polling is suffering. "

So you have no problem with a SCJ accepting $4 million in perks from a billionaire. Like I said, you have no ethical standards.

It's the left's fault that Thomas has his nose in the trough. Too funny.

Edited June 11 by Aristides

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

How is he abusing his position now?

He has a rich friend who takes him on vacations. That is the summary of what his so-called "abuse" is. 

Is his friend Peter Green or an associate by any chance?

[User]

30 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you have no problem with a SCJ accepting $4 million in perks from a billionaire. Like I said, you have no ethical standards.

It's the left's fault that Thomas has his nose in the trough. Too funny.

You are a broken record repeating yourself now. 

No, I have no issues with him having a rich friend who takes him on vacations. Why should I?

No, my response was not to say why it is Thomas fault he has is nose in the trough, I was clearly answering your question that: "Why do you think the SCOTUS approval level is below 30% and your country has become a laughing stock?"

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, User said:

Of course there is some politics around elected politicians appointing them... but you would make it even more so. That is the point. 

It is already a consideration people can make in voting for someone. There are constantly judge appointments opening up. You don't need to know an exact date. 

 

Well I think you have to make up your mind there, you can't argue that it would make no real difference and then argue that it would make things worse

I personally believe that acknowledging and incorporating a known flaw into the system makes more sense. But as we said either way there's going to be trouble

[User]

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well I think you have to make up your mind there, you can't argue that it would make no real difference and then argue that it would make things worse

I personally believe that acknowledging and incorporating a known flaw into the system makes more sense. But as we said either way there's going to be trouble

I don't think that is what I was arguing... my point was that the process does have some politics, but your suggestion would only make it worse. 

There may be trouble either way... nothing is perfect and there are Pros/Cons, but there are what can be considered more optimal solutions. Some trouble, either way, does not mean equal trouble either way. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

I don't think that is what I was arguing... my point was that the process does have some politics, but your suggestion would only make it worse. 

 

How? You claimed people were already taking into account that the leader would appoint judges. All i'm suggesting is that this would put that in the open as a discussion point because you would know that the person you're electing would be the one who would be appointing x number of judges, rather than it being a 'maybe'.  Or a surprise. 

And that's one of the points that got argued when obama went to appoint judges, the republicans argued that it wasn't fair for him to do so this close to the end of his mandate. Well if he'd been elected knowing that a judge would be stepping down near the end of his mandate then it becomes part of his mandate and everything is clear. Instead it became a huge political issue. 

Rarely does adding uncertainty and unnecessary variables make things worse. 

Quote

There may be trouble either way... nothing is perfect and there are Pros/Cons, but there are what can be considered more optimal solutions. Some trouble, either way, does not mean equal trouble either way. 

I can't think of an example where adding certainty to a process so that everything is known ahead of time made things worse politically.  Politics is minimized when everything is known up front and there's a procedure.  That's one of the reasons we have mandatory retirement in Canada for senators, who are appointed. 

It wouldn't eliminate the politics involved, but i can't see how it would possibly make it worse.