User Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 12 minutes ago, Rebound said: And that policy sets a general limit of $50 on gifts, or travel in connection with a job interview. Free private jet flights to vacation destinations are not “travel in connection with a job interview.” And? You pushed this same dumb argument last month and then ran away from that discussion after I destroyed your bogus arguments there too. 1 minute ago, Rebound said: the last nuclear power plants built in America had cost overruns so high (10’s of billions) that both Westinghouse and Toshiba went bankrupt. LOL, so, you are not a serious person on this subject after all. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 1 minute ago, User said: And? You pushed this same dumb argument last month and then ran away from that discussion after I destroyed your bogus arguments there too. LOL, so, you are not a serious person on this subject after all. You didn’t “destroy” my argument. Judges cannot accept gifts, except in very specific instances. That includes Supreme Court justices. A $250,000 motor home is way outside the scope of an acceptable gift and you know it. 1 Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Hodad said: I know your view of the world is shaped by your "feelings" rather than by information (and surely things are weird inside the bubbling cauldron of misogyny and xenophobia that is your mind) but Harris is far from the least liked politician in America. Take, just as one example, her opponent in the upcoming election. Trump, is less liked and more disliked, ya poor dumb bastard. Harris’ overall favorability rose from 35% to 43% compared to a week earlier, while the vice president’s unfavorability rating fell from 46% to 42%, ... Trump also saw his favorability rating drop in the poll, falling from 40% last week to 36% in the most recent poll. The former president’s unfavorable rating also ticked up slightly in the new poll, rising from 51% to 52%. Well those are cool accusations but they are pure bullshit...Tweenkie-poo. And as for kamala... https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ Do have a warm and fuzzy day... LOL. Edited July 30 by Nationalist Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 12 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Well those are cool accusations but they are pure bullshit...Tweenkie-poo. And as for kamala... https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ Do have a warm and fuzzy day... LOL. She’s only been running for President for a week, so buckle up, buttercup. Quote @reason10: “Hitler had very little to do with the Holocaust.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 34 minutes ago, Rebound said: You didn’t “destroy” my argument. Judges cannot accept gifts, except in very specific instances. That includes Supreme Court justices. A $250,000 motor home is way outside the scope of an acceptable gift and you know it. What "Judges" are you talking about here? We are talking about the SCOTUS, not mere Judges and that doesn't include SCOTUS. All I know is that you are totally ignorant on this subject. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legato Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 8 minutes ago, Rebound said: She’s only been running for President for a week, so buckle up, buttercup. She's just another Post Turtle. She didn't get there by herself She doesn't belong there She doesn't have any idea what to do now she's there You wonder who thought it was a good idea in the first place She's elevated beyond her ability to function 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 18 minutes ago, Rebound said: She’s only been running for President for a week, so buckle up, buttercup. Lol... Comin' at ya... Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 1 hour ago, Rebound said: Geez, you’re dense. LOL - i always love how YOUR stupidity and inability to present any evidence for your argument is somehow MY fault Quote Until now, the Court has policed itself. Justice Abe Fortas resigned after accepting a $20,000 retainer, even though he’d later returned it. But now we have a justice who accepts $4 million, clearly in violation of the US Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct, which says in part that a Justice shall avoid ALL appearance of conflict of interest. Let me tell you: Taking $4 million from people who operate large businesses which are impacted by rulings of the Supreme Court, DEFINITELY creates the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. Also, Supreme Court justices must only accept gifts (and must report all gifts) in accordance with this policy: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf And that policy sets a general limit of $50 on gifts, or travel in connection with a job interview. Free private jet flights to vacation destinations are not “travel in connection with a job interview.” So nobody who is qualified has actually come out and said it's wrong. It's just your opinion. Based on your extensive legal training and degree from Facebook University. well that's nice. Given some of your assertions in the past i'd say at best your opinion is questionable. But right or wrong, until a competent authority actually says "this is a violation", then it's not a violation. There IS a process if a supreme court justice is found to do something unlawful and nobody seems interested in putting that forward so obviously nobody who's NOT politically motivated and is qualified to speak on it agrees with you Quote Why was it bad for Hunter to accept money from Burisma? Because it created the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. I think that was more about influence peddling. Hunter isn't a supreme court justice. Quote The Supreme Court has a rule which says Justices cannot do this, and Thomas clearly has. So the Court has proven they are unable to regulate their own conduct. According to you. but in reality you can't produce any competent authority that agrees, and so far when asked you can't even provide the actual rule. Now if you want to say that justices shouldn't get any such gifts declared or not and put laws (not some weird rule you can't cite) into place to really help prevent any conflict of interest or the appearance thereof then sure. I'm kind of a fan of that myself. But if you're going to claim this guy has done something wrong under the CURRENT rules... you have fallen miles short of that so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodad Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: Well those are cool accusations but they are pure bullshit...Tweenkie-poo. And as for kamala... https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ Do have a warm and fuzzy day... LOL. You may be new to reading, but approval and favorability are two different polls. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 3 minutes ago, Hodad said: You may be new to reading, but approval and favorability are two different polls. Lol...what a dope. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 On 7/29/2024 at 9:45 AM, User said: Yes, Clarence Thomas went on vacations with his rich friend... but there is zero evidence that "bought" him. Went on vacations with his rich friend...there's a downplay if I've ever seen one. Which "rich friend" are we talking about? Justice Thomas has a surprising number of billionaire friends, who've paid for upwards of 40 destination vacations, ~25 of which were on private flights. That says nothing of the hundreds of thousands he's been gifted by various schemes over the years (forgiven loans, free tuition for his nephew at $72k/y, billionaires buying the house his mother lives in etc... No evidence that anyone bought him....just a lot of money going from billionaires to a Supreme Court Judge who's publicly complained that he doesn't get paid enough. Do you smell the smell? I smell the smell. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 21 hours ago, User said: He did not take gifts from someone who had business before the court or in making decisions that they had a direct interest in. Quite a few authors have documented examples to the contrary. None of which would matter to you, I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 4 minutes ago, Matthew said: Quite a few authors have documented examples to the contrary. None of which would matter to you, I'm sure. I have seen all the examples shared, none of them were of any direct business before the court that he was involved in. It was all 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon stuff. Give me your best example. Lets see it. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 18 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Went on vacations with his rich friend...there's a downplay if I've ever seen one. That is almost entirely what comprised all the value in gifts we are talking about here. 18 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Which "rich friend" are we talking about? Justice Thomas has a surprising number of billionaire friends, who've paid for upwards of 40 destination vacations, ~25 of which were on private flights. That says nothing of the hundreds of thousands he's been gifted by various schemes over the years (forgiven loans, free tuition for his nephew at $72k/y, billionaires buying the house his mother lives in etc... Crow is the obvious big one. It is not surprising that someone who makes it to the top like Clarence Thomas would also have friends who are at the top of their respective industries as well. Yes, over a lifetime of friendship hanging out... that adds up. 21 minutes ago, Moonbox said: No evidence that anyone bought him.... Exactly. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 54 minutes ago, Matthew said: Quite a few authors have documented examples to the contrary. None of which would matter to you, I'm sure. Sooo - why not post them and find out? You make all these claims but there's absolutely no evidence of it and i havent' run into any reading the few stories i've seen, so it's kind of hard to believe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 44 minutes ago, User said: That is almost entirely what comprised all the value in gifts we are talking about here. Crow is the obvious big one. It is not surprising that someone who makes it to the top like Clarence Thomas would also have friends who are at the top of their respective industries as well. Yes, over a lifetime of friendship hanging out... that adds up. Exactly. Well you also have to realize - they will use him for things that have NOTHING to do with cases he's presiding over. They will want to know who in various beurocracies they can talk to if they want to get xxx permit or yyy thing approved. They will get free 'legal' advice on how to approach one judge or another or how to successfully get some regulation changed or whatever. They can get opinions on legal matters which may be superior to what their lawyers are saying, OR can get references to lawyers who are particularly good in whatever area they're in need of. There is a HUGE MASSIVE amount of extremely valuable information that they can get the benefit of that would more than be worth the 'gifts' and has nothing to do with him presiding over a case they have anything to do with. They can't HIRE him to do it but if he happens to get chatty while on a relaxing 'vacation' .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, User said: Give me your best example. For example, Crow's wealth comes from one of the biggest housing development companies in the US. He's done decades of political activism to undermine regulation of that industry. A very large percent of federal cases involving the Housing and Urban Development regulations used the Chevron Deference principle to uphold regulations. So when the Supreme Court struck down that principle in Loper v Romando, Harlan Crow was a direct beneficiary and stakeholder. Even the CEO of his company is a leading donor to interest groups pushing it through the court system, such as the National Mulifamily Housing Council. I do agree with you that simply giving a gift can be fine, even an expensive one. But I would argue that Harlan Crow and Clarence Thomas have all the halmarks of a patron-client relationship. There is a long pattern of dependency, lavish gifts, and support for the family's expenses etc. Allowing a billionaire to essentially own a supreme court member as his patron is obviously something that a functioning republic with rule of law would have rules against. Edited July 30 by Matthew 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 4 minutes ago, Matthew said: For example, Crow's wealth comes from one of the biggest housing development companies in the US. He's done decades of political activism to undermine regulation of that industry. A very large percent of federal cases involving the Housing and Urban Development regulations used the Chevron Deference principle to uphold regulations. So when the Supreme Court struck down that principle in Loper v Romando, Harlan Crow was a direct beneficiary and stakeholder. Even the CEO of his company is a leading doner to interest groups pushing it through the court system, such as the National Mulifamily Housing Council. Like I said, this is 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon stuff. Any case the Supreme Court hears that is setting a precedent that impacts everyone... impacts everyone. Every single Justice is going to have a friend or family member or have some of their savings or investments in some way impacted. It is impossible not to. You are here presenting a vague example of well, Harlan Crow is impacted by regulations, and Chevron case will impact regulations... The Chevron Deference case was not about upholding regulations, it was about the Federal Government being able to interpret law as they see it, and in some cases just invent law, and the federal judiciary saying... oh well, you get to do what you want because you are the experts... there can still be regulations, they just have to be explicitly passed through legislation. EVERYONE is impacted by this moving forward in some way... The point is that Crow has no direct impact nor was he directly involved. OMG... you mean, someone Crow employs has their own political opinions too?! 10 minutes ago, Matthew said: But I would argue that Harlan Crow and Clarence Thomas have all the halmarks of a patron-client relationship. What are these hallmarks. Lets see them. 11 minutes ago, Matthew said: Allowing a billionaire to essentially own a supreme court member as his patron is obviously something that a functioning republic with rule of law would have rules against. Crow doesn't own Thomas. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 4 minutes ago, User said: That is almost entirely what comprised all the value in gifts we are talking about here. No. I just posted a (not even comprehensive) list of other various gifts and handouts he's received from his billionaire buddies, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. 45 minutes ago, User said: Yes, over a lifetime of friendship hanging out... that adds up. If it was above-board then he would report it, and would recuse himself from decisions involving his "friends" or the causes they promote. Justice Thomas, sitting at the pinnacle of the US legal system, demonstrates a cartoonish lack of professional ethics, and holds himself to a lower standard than the average bank teller. 1 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 6 minutes ago, User said: Crow doesn't own Thomas. Ah Im shocked. You're one of the better contributors here, though that's a low bar. But I have so far yet to see you have an earnest free-thinking nuanced opinion on any issue that isn't just a upholding of the party line. I'll keep my hopes up though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 5 minutes ago, Moonbox said: If it was above-board then he would report it, and would recuse himself from decisions involving his "friends" or the causes they promote. Exactly, as they are required to in all other federal courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 4 minutes ago, Moonbox said: No. I just posted a (not even comprehensive) list of other various gifts and handouts he's received from his billionaire buddies, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. I said "value" of gifts, not the count of gifts... 5 minutes ago, Moonbox said: If it was above-board then he would report it, and would recuse himself from decisions involving his "friends" or the causes they promote. Justice Thomas, sitting at the pinnacle of the US legal system, demonstrates a cartoonish lack of professional ethics, and holds himself to a lower standard than the average bank teller. There is nothing to show it was somehow below board by not reporting it, other than it not being reported. But now that is just circular. What decisions was he involved in that involved his friends? 4 minutes ago, Matthew said: Ah Im shocked. You're one of the better contributors here, though that's a low bar. But I have so far yet to see you have an earnest free-thinking nuanced opinion on any issue that isn't just a upholding of the party line. I'll keep my hopes up though. Your inability to do more than make baseless assertions about things, like his being owned, has nothing to do with me. Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: Went on vacations with his rich friend...there's a downplay if I've ever seen one. Which "rich friend" are we talking about? Justice Thomas has a surprising number of billionaire friends, who've paid for upwards of 40 destination vacations, ~25 of which were on private flights. That says nothing of the hundreds of thousands he's been gifted by various schemes over the years (forgiven loans, free tuition for his nephew at $72k/y, billionaires buying the house his mother lives in etc... No evidence that anyone bought him....just a lot of money going from billionaires to a Supreme Court Judge who's publicly complained that he doesn't get paid enough. Do you smell the smell? I smell the smell. Ya I smell it. It's desperation. Couldn't you at least put on anti perspirent? Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 (edited) 29 minutes ago, User said: baseless assertions about things You always respond to facts with meaningless non-sequitur generalizations. It's ok to go around and just give your uniformed gut reaction to things like you do. But I think you think you're doing more than that. Edited July 30 by Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted July 30 Report Share Posted July 30 Just now, Matthew said: You always respond to facts with meaningless non-sequetur generalizations. It's ok to go around and just give your uniformed gut reaction to things like you do. But I think you think you're doing more than that. It is not a "fact" to say he is owned... 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.