Joe Biden looks to run political interference to the Supreme Court

[Chrissy1979]

And those who fail to report the extravagant gifts they get from their rich "friends" are corrupt. Why are you opposed to enforceable rules preventing that? 

[ironstone]

35 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

They should investigate dead people? Good one 

The usual leftist logic, she is deceased so it's like it never happened.

Clarence Thomas has wealthy friends. Where is the evidence that these gifts influenced any cases that were before the court?

[User]

15 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

And those who fail to report the extravagant gifts they get from their rich "friends" are corrupt. Why are you opposed to enforceable rules preventing that? 

How is that corruption?

What gives Congress authority to pass such rules against the Supreme Court?

[Chrissy1979]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

The usual leftist logic, she is deceased so it's like it never happened.

Clarence Thomas has wealthy friends. Where is the evidence that these gifts influenced any cases that were before the court?

That wasn't the logic I put forth. My logic was "she is deceased so she is dead "

 

Thomas is obligated to disclose gifts from "friends". There doesn't need to be evidence that he did favours for those gifts. But because he chose to break the rules and not disclose the gifts, there is evidence he tried to hide their existence. This is evidence of corruption.

[ironstone]

10 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

That wasn't the logic I put forth. My logic was "she is deceased so she is dead "

 

Thomas is obligated to disclose gifts from "friends". There doesn't need to be evidence that he did favours for those gifts. But because he chose to break the rules and not disclose the gifts, there is evidence he tried to hide their existence. This is evidence of corruption.

You didn't read the link I posted earlier.

The Democrats claim they need to strengthen the recusal provisions for justices, but they never had any problem with Justice Ginsburg’s husband’s firm appearing repeatedly before the Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg never recused, and in fact, she voted in favor of her husband’s firm’s client in the 2007 KSR International case. Nor did she recuse when Marty Ginsburg’s former client, Ross Perot, who had gifted him an endowed chair at Georgetown Law Center, appeared before the court in 1997. No Democrat or the media ever raised concerns about this.

The Democrats and media have claimed the court has become too partisan, with no basis for this claim. But Democrats had no problem when Justice Ginsburg accepted the Eleanor Roosevelt Award (and statue) from the National Women’s Democrat Club, a partisan organization dedicated to electing Democrats. NPR Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg even emceed this partisan event!

But neither Democrats nor the media had any criticism when Ginsburg traveled with billionaire Morris Kahn and toured three countries in the Middle East in 2018 right after the court ruled in his company’s favor. Kahn paid for transportation, food, and lodging. No Democrat or reporter criticized this.

In fact, while Kahn’s company’s case was still pending before the court in 2017, the Genesis Prize Foundation, a group to which Kahn was involved and provided significant financial support at the time, announced it was awarding Ginsburg a lifetime achievement award. (And the foundation appears initially to have wanted to award her its $1 million dollar Genesis Prize). Less than two weeks later, the Supreme Court ruled in Kahn’s favor.

[Chrissy1979]

Again, if you think Ginsberg was corrupt, dig her up and put her on trial.

[User]

17 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

This is evidence of corruption.

How?

You keep asserting this and never explain what the corruption is. 

[West]

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

And those who fail to report the extravagant gifts they get from their rich "friends" are corrupt. Why are you opposed to enforceable rules preventing that? 

We oppose the Democrats trying to threaten the Supreme Court because they do not like that they ruled presidents have immunity for official acts and that they wanted to put Trump in prison for declassified documents which exposed their corruption. 

[ironstone]

14 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Again, if you think Ginsberg was corrupt, dig her up and put her on trial.

I made no such assertion that she was corrupt. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy that she was never called out for it while she was alive. Not called out for it by the same people that call out Clarence Thomas.

[Chrissy1979]

15 minutes ago, User said:

How?

You keep asserting this and never explain what the corruption is. 

I already told you. He took gifts and broke the anti-corruption rules by not disclosing them. All Biden is calling for is a means of enforcing these anti-corruption rules.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

I already told you. He took gifts and broke the anti-corruption rules by not disclosing them. All Biden is calling for is a means of enforcing these anti-corruption rules.

Taking gifts is not corruption. If there were corruption, taking gifts would be the payment for it. 

You have yet to explain where any corruption is. 

Unless you are arguing that when you get Birthday presents every year that is corruption and you are corrupted?

 

[Chrissy1979]

35 minutes ago, User said:

Taking gifts is not corruption. If there were corruption, taking gifts would be the payment for it. 

You have yet to explain where any corruption is. 

Unless you are arguing that when you get Birthday presents every year that is corruption and you are corrupted?

 

Your reading comprehension is low. Taking gifts is allowed (with conditions). Taking gifts and not disclosing them, thereby violating the anti-corruption rules, is corruption.

[User]

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Your reading comprehension is low. Taking gifts is allowed (with conditions). Taking gifts and not disclosing them, thereby violating the anti-corruption rules, is corruption.

My reading comprehension is just fine. You just keep asserting the same thing over and over again. How is it corruption? What is the corruption?

Violating disclosure rules is just that. That is not corruption on its own. If your argument is that he didn't disclose some of his gifts... OK, big deal. So what? That is not corruption. 

 

[Chrissy1979]

The rules he broke are in place to prevent corruption. The actual argument is whether you think those rules should be enforceable.

[User]

12 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

The rules he broke are in place to prevent corruption. The actual argument is whether you think those rules should be enforceable.

So, you finally admit there was no corruption. Great. 

The Supreme Court can impose rules on themselves and if Congress doesn't like any particular justice for violating things they can be impeached. 

 

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, User said:

How?

Obviously it's corruption for a judge to take expensive gifts from people who have business before the court, or making decisions in cases in which the justice has a direct interest. Lower courts have strict rules against this stuff and the Supreme Court does not.

[Chrissy1979]

8 minutes ago, User said:

So, you finally admit there was no corruption. Great. 

The Supreme Court can impose rules on themselves and if Congress doesn't like any particular justice for violating things they can be impeached. 

 

No. I think Clarence took the gifts as payment for judgments he made. That's why he hid them. He's as corrupt as they come 

[User]

Just now, Matthew said:

Obviously it's corruption for a judge to take expensive gifts from people who have business before the court, or making decisions in cases in which the justice has a direct interest. Lower courts have strict rules against this stuff and the Supreme Court does not.

He did not take gifts from someone who had business before the court or in making decisions that they had a direct interest in. 

Also, lets be real about what most of these "gifts" were, they were vacations. Basically, he got to fly along with his friend on his private jet, or his yacht, or at luxury resorts. 
 

Just now, Chrissy1979 said:

No. I think Clarence took the gifts as payment for judgments he made. That's why he hid them. He's as corrupt as they come 

You think?

There is ZERO evidence of that. 

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

The rules he broke are in place to prevent corruption. The actual argument is whether you think those rules should be enforceable.

Which authority says he broke a rule? Which rule did they find he broke? 

If it's just you imagining that he broke something and he was never actually found to have done so by a competent authority then sorry but that's not a real thing.

[Chrissy1979]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Which authority says he broke a rule? Which rule did they find he broke? 

If it's just you imagining that he broke something and he was never actually found to have done so by a competent authority then sorry but that's not a real thing.

He didn't disclose the "gifts" from his "friends." The rules say he must. Do you guys always debate by rehashing the same basic questions over and over again because you have no defence for such corruption?

[User]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Which authority says he broke a rule? Which rule did they find he broke? 

If it's just you imagining that he broke something and he was never actually found to have done so by a competent authority then sorry but that's not a real thing.

This is madness. Spent the last day claiming there was corruption just to finally be whittled down to saying they "think" there is corruption. 

Is there a face-palm emoji big enough for this?

1 minute ago, Chrissy1979 said:

He didn't disclose the "gifts" from his "friends." The rules say he must. Do you guys always debate by rehashing the same basic questions over and over again because you have no defence for such corruption?

This is not corruption. 

[Chrissy1979]

Why would they make anti-corruption laws to require disclosure of extravagant gifts if this was not evidence of corruption?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

He didn't disclose the "gifts" from his "friends." The rules say he must. Do you guys always debate by rehashing the same basic questions over and over again because you have no defence for such corruption?

SO what you're saying is nobody has actually found he broke the rules at all. You're just making it up. 

That's not good enough. If there are rules in place, then there's a governing body that administers those rules. Otherwise there would be no basis for the rules. 

If they are not saying he's  in violation then he's not in violation. 

Thanks for playing. 

6 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Why would they make anti-corruption laws to require disclosure of extravagant gifts if this was not evidence of corruption?

Why would they not find he broke the rules if he broke the rules 

And to answer your question there's a lot of reasons. At the end of the day however you're claiming that no authority has found him in violation of the rules, you just think maybe he is. 

[Chrissy1979]

He took over $4 million in gifts and didn't report them. If it were a liberal justice, you would surely be calling for them to be impeached 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

He took over $4 million in gifts and didn't report them. If it were a liberal justice, you would surely be calling for them to be impeached 

So why isn't anyone calling for him to be impeached? Are you saying democrats are just really forgiving and never go after people?

If it were a democrat i'd be asking the same thing - if it breaks the rules, why isn't a lawful authority at least chastizing him for that? When trudeau got caught taking bribes against the rules for vacations the ethics commish came right out and said that this was a violation. 

So....  if there is a rule there must be an athorative body in charge of that rule or there can't be a rule  Where is that body and why aren't they saying that there's been a violation?