Sonia Sotomayor - Typical corrupt Lib

[Mike Honcho 5,097]

39 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Yeah that's all he did for the kid, didn't otherwise raise him for years.    

My point was that it wasn't that "evil Thomas spent years of his life raising a grand nephew (great grand?) and trying to give him a good life,"   that "the MSM and you screaming blue hairs" were focused on, but more the fact that though required, Thomas did not disclose over 150K in educational costs gifted to him by Crow. 

That's the issue, not whether he's a good grand uncle. 

[jerryskids 6,567]

53 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Trying to give him a good life = billionaire friend spending 150K on his private school education.  I wouldn't call that trying, but succeeding very well. But nothing out of the norm there. 

 

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

My point was that it wasn't that "evil Thomas spent years of his life raising a grand nephew (great grand?) and trying to give him a good life,"   that "the MSM and you screaming blue hairs" were focused on, but more the fact that though required, Thomas did not disclose over 150K in educational costs gifted to him by Crow. 

That's the issue, not whether he's a good grand uncle. 

I would say then that you didn't make your point very well.   

I've already said that justices on both sides of the political spectrum did questionable things, and I'm open to discussing how to improve oversight.  

None of you seem to want to discuss my assertion that they plan to move on from this, like they did with the confidential docs with Trump, because they got foiled in their gotchas.   

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

 Thomas should have been like Biden and got the banks to pay for that kids education. 

[thegeneral 2,910]

Hardcore Troubador plays one song over and over “The Whatabout Blues”!

It’s his greatest hit!

[BunnysBastatrds 2,315]

Love penguins.

 

 

 

 

 

[jonnyutah 248]

This is all so transparent. Libs just want the seat. Like Clarence Thomas isn't the most predictable decision maker ever. The accusations of impropriety would make sense if there were a batch of liberal decisions coinciding with these gifts. 

Same would go with Sotomayor. Like she would ever stray from hard left. 

This is just rich hobnobbing. Which our entire government does. 

[Mike Honcho 5,097]

16 hours ago, jerryskids said:

 

I would say then that you didn't make your point very well.   

I've already said that justices on both sides of the political spectrum did questionable things, and I'm open to discussing how to improve oversight.  

None of you seem to want to discuss my assertion that they plan to move on from this, like they did with the confidential docs with Trump, because they got foiled in their gotchas.   

I don't werds good.  

I think it's more serious than you realize.

 

[thegeneral 2,910]

16 hours ago, jerryskids said:

 

I would say then that you didn't make your point very well.   

I've already said that justices on both sides of the political spectrum did questionable things, and I'm open to discussing how to improve oversight.  

None of you seem to want to discuss my assertion that they plan to move on from this, like they did with the confidential docs with Trump, because they got foiled in their gotchas.   

JD is still investigating the classified docs (and election interference). They got the guy who usually does war crimes leading these.

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

1 hour ago, jonnyutah said:

This is all so transparent. Libs just want the seat. Like Clarence Thomas isn't the most predictable decision maker ever. The accusations of impropriety would make sense if there were a batch of liberal decisions coinciding with these gifts. 

Same would go with Sotomayor. Like she would ever stray from hard left. 

This is just rich hobnobbing. Which our entire government does. 

I suppose this is possible. But it could also be that  Clarence Thomas didn’t report stuff that he should have because he’s an arrogant a$$hole. 

Personally I don’t think anything should happen to him. But some of this stuff is troubling and it’s not a liberal plot. 

You guys need to stop already with all of these liberal plots. Take it from a liberal: we’re not that smart. Liberals don’t plot; we react. And usually our reactions are stupid. 

[Mike Honcho 5,097]

On 5/5/2023 at 10:06 AM, Strike said:

AFAIK Thomas never had cases before him involving his buddy he vacationed with.  If you've got evidence to the contrary post it in the Thomas thread.  As far as me not starting threads about other conflicts, apparently I don't follow the SC as much as you do.  I will say that I highly doubt your claim that you can "think of many other such instances."  That implies that right off the top of your head you've got a list of SC cases where a justice had a conflict.  Even if you've read of a bunch of other cases I find it hard to believe you've got those memorized and can just post them off the top of your head.  But it's not something I waste time researching myself.  I saw this one and found it interesting given the recent stories about Thomas AND the fact that Breyer recused himself from these cases.  It seems obvious that they both should have. 

You are funny; when you THINK you know something that someone here doesn't you aren't at all shy to tell them they are ignorant, but when you don't KNOW something the other person is suspect. (I don't presume to know what you know-stop presuming you know what I do.)

Well done, making this about me instead of answering the question of why Thomas didn't do what was legally required of him.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

Pig

[dogcows 1,030]

On 5/5/2023 at 5:42 PM, jerryskids said:

None of you seem to want to discuss my assertion that they plan to move on from this, like they did with the confidential docs with Trump, because they got foiled in their gotchas.   

I haven’t seen Durbin back off from his insistence that something be done to effect judicial reform.

With the news of Sotomayor resurfacing (which, BTW is old news reported on in 2019 and 2022), I was hoping GOP Senators would join the calls for new ethics rules. However, the last time they weighed in, Lindsey Graham and his colleagues on the committee insisted this is all just a witch hunt of Clarence Thomas. Unfortunately, with the evenly-split Senate, nothing can happen unless both sides approve. I don’t think GOP Senators will do anything, but I hope they prove me wrong and join Durbin in forcing some accountability on the Supremes.

[jerryskids 6,567]

43 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I haven’t seen Durbin back off from his insistence that something be done to effect judicial reform.

With the news of Sotomayor resurfacing (which, BTW is old news reported on in 2019 and 2022), I was hoping GOP Senators would join the calls for new ethics rules. However, the last time they weighed in, Lindsey Graham and his colleagues on the committee insisted this is all just a witch hunt of Clarence Thomas. Unfortunately, with the evenly-split Senate, nothing can happen unless both sides approve. I don’t think GOP Senators will do anything, but I hope they prove me wrong and join Durbin in forcing some accountability on the Supremes.

Hmm, that is unfortunate.  I'd like to see some checks and balances, but I understand the defensiveness about this becoming a big issue now with Thomas coming up.  I just read a Vanity Fair article which mentioned Thomas and Gorsuch but not Sotomayor, so not all media are reporting on the resurfacing.  Hopefully they can work together to come to some agreement.  I also just read that Roberts refused to testify in the ethics committee, for fear of admitting oversight by the Senate.  Quite complicated, but I hope they figure something out.

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

11 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Hmm, that is unfortunate.  I'd like to see some checks and balances, but I understand the defensiveness about this becoming a big issue now with Thomas coming up.  I just read a Vanity Fair article which mentioned Thomas and Gorsuch but not Sotomayor, so not all media are reporting on the resurfacing.  Hopefully they can work together to come to some agreement.  I also just read that Roberts refused to testify in the ethics committee, for fear of admitting oversight by the Senate.  Quite complicated, but I hope they figure something out.

They want to talk about ethics yet never seemed to care about dozens of times RBG violated ethics rules. She founded the woman’s rights project at the ACLU and then presided over multiple cases involving them. She received millions in gifts from leftist groups that she didn’t disclose. Her husbands law firm had cases before the SC she didn’t recuse herself from. She signed and donated a copy of her Roe opinion for a charity auction. Nothing political about that. The goal of the left is to tear down the SC.

[jerryskids 6,567]

44 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

They want to talk about ethics yet never seemed to care about dozens of times RBG violated ethics rules. She founded the woman’s rights project at the ACLU and then presided over multiple cases involving them. She received millions in gifts from leftist groups that she didn’t disclose. Her husbands law firm had cases before the SC she didn’t recuse herself from. She signed and donated a copy of her Roe opinion for a charity auction. Nothing political about that. The goal of the left is to tear down the SC.

Thanks.  This would add fuel to the belief that this is suddenly an issue because Thomas went on vacation with a guy he never had a conflict with.

Nevertheless your list of items seems to indicate an even greater need for some checks and balances.

It is a complex situation:  we take the brightest (allegedly) legal minds in the country and ask them for a lifetime commitment.  Their salary is $274K; good money but not what they can make in a law firm and certainly not Hunter/Burisma money.  Joe went from $2M to $16M in a short period, Pelosi eats gold-plated ice cream.  I feel like we need to let them get some side money, but we also need to ensure that they recuse themselves for conflicts.  As in sports, the "integrity of the league" should be the top priority.

[thegeneral 2,910]

1 hour ago, Dizkneelande said:

They want to talk about ethics yet never seemed to care about dozens of times RBG violated ethics rules. She founded the woman’s rights project at the ACLU and then presided over multiple cases involving them. She received millions in gifts from leftist groups that she didn’t disclose. Her husbands law firm had cases before the SC she didn’t recuse herself from. She signed and donated a copy of her Roe opinion for a charity auction. Nothing political about that. The goal of the left is to tear down the SC.

Is there a link to read about these claims?

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Is there a link to read about these claims?

www.google.com sh!tlib

[thegeneral 2,910]

3 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

www.google.com sh!tlib

I did a quick search and not much came up. I thought perhaps you had one since you had all these examples. I wouldn’t be surprised if this occurred TBH.

If true another reason why they should have more oversight on these people, term limits, etc.