Liberals have moved on to partisan hack witch hunts on ONLY conservative SC Justices now..

[cyclone24 1,912]

Just so you’re keeping score the people and party that have been crying. Democracy is on the ballot …Decency is on the ballot!!….has now openly sued a political opponent they don’t like and now Supreme Court justices they don’t like. 
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/two-senators-ask-attorney-general-investigate-clarence-thomas-rcna161040

[Engorgeous George 2,149]

I want the Supremes to be above even the appearance of impropriety and or bias.  I find Justice Thomas' actions, if true, inappropirate.  Every state has judicial ethics codes. there is a federal code on judicial ethics.  I do not think the Supremes should be exempt from such codes.  I think they ought to be an example of the epitomy of judicial ethics and temperance.  They ought to instill confidence in their rulings, not allow them to be questioned on bias or self interest.

[cyclone24 1,912]

12 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I want the Supremes to be above even the appearance of impropriety and or bias.  I find Justice Thomas' actions, if true, inappropirate.  Every state has judicial ethics codes. there is a federal code on judicial ethics.  I do not think the Supremes should be exempt from such codes.  I think they ought to be an example of the epitomy of judicial ethics and temperance.  They ought to instill confidence in their rulings, not allow them to be questioned on bias or self interest.

That’s a rich claim, considering in 1 million years, would they ever ever sue a liberal leaning supreme court judge.

[weepaws 3,157]

When you know you’re sitting on the losing side, you go out fighting.  

[The Real timschochet 6,446]

They want them investigated. What does this have to do with a lawsuit? 
 

 

[TimHauck 2,626]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

They want them investigated. What does this have to do with a lawsuit? 
 

 

Yeah I think you posted the wrong link @cyclone24

 

or I guess just lying 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

Yeah this isn't about "someone they don't like", it's a guy that has huge ethics concerns.  Our supreme court should not be corrupted.  Everyone should be held to ethics standards.  That is the definition of decency.

[Mike Honcho 5,107]

Quote

 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on federal courts, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden of Oregon sent a letter last week asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to examine whether Thomas violated federal ethics and tax laws when he didn't disclose as income more than $267,000 of a loan that was allegedly forgiven in 2008.

The Senate Finance Committee said last year it reviewed documents from Thomas' friend Anthony Welters and concluded that Thomas didn't pay back principal or interest on a loan Welters provided to Thomas and his wife in 1999 for a luxury motor coach. The senators said at the time that Thomas had made interest payments only on the loan before he stopped payments.

In their letter to Garland, the two senators also referred to free travel aboard a private yacht and a jet, among other gifts, from billionaire Harlan Crow and other wealthy benefactors that they say were largely omitted from Thomas’ financial disclosure forms. The gifts were first reported by ProPublica last year.

In a statement last month, Berke said that the Judicial Conference had changed a provision allowing for a personal hospitality exemption and that Thomas "has fully complied with the new disclosure requirement.”

Thomas last month acknowledged a pair of trips in 2019 with Crow in his annual financial disclosure report. The same month, the Senate Judiciary Committee released records showing Crow provided Thomas with additional undisclosed trips.

 

 

 

[RLLD 4,143]

It would be hypocritical for us to insist that Joe Biden be investigated for his corrupt financial activities and not insist that SCOTUS also be held to the same standard.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,848]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

It would be hypocritical for us to insist that Joe Biden be investigated for his corrupt financial activities and not insist that SCOTUS also be held to the same standard.

I'm on board with this.

However, this sudden focus on SCOTUS justices by Democrats is ONLY because they lost out on getting their justices seated.  Had their own tactics used against them and now they are butt-hurt and want to make an end-around to try and get theirs on the bench.  They'll just accuse <insert Conservative Justice here> of "corruption" and then "investigate" them and find some "reason" - any reason - to validate that and try to get them removed.  I guarantee you they wouldn't be bringing this up if a Conservative POTUS was in office.

Had they said something prior to Trump then maybe they would have more sympathy, but right now this just looks like sour grapes.

[RLLD 4,143]

6 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I'm on board with this.

However, this sudden focus on SCOTUS justices by Democrats is ONLY because they lost out on getting their justices seated.  Had their own tactics used against them and now they are butt-hurt and want to make an end-around to try and get theirs on the bench.  They'll just accuse <insert Conservative Justice here> of "corruption" and then "investigate" them and find some "reason" - any reason - to validate that and try to get them removed.  I guarantee you they wouldn't be bringing this up if a Conservative POTUS was in office.

Had they said something prior to Trump then maybe they would have more sympathy, but right now this just looks like sour grapes.

 

I think it clear that Democrats have weaponized the DOJ to take out their political rivals.  Now we likely see a tit-for-tat back and forth as each party secures access to power.  The Democrats, consistent in their lack of appreciation for the consequences, continue to abuse systems in ways that will come back to them later.  So when this happens back to them down the road, we should all still object to it.....wrong is wrong....regardless who does that wrong. 

[Mike Honcho 5,107]

36 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I'm on board with this.

However, this sudden focus on SCOTUS justices by Democrats is ONLY because they lost out on getting their justices seated.  Had their own tactics used against them and now they are butt-hurt and want to make an end-around to try and get theirs on the bench.  They'll just accuse <insert Conservative Justice here> of "corruption" and then "investigate" them and find some "reason" - any reason - to validate that and try to get them removed.  I guarantee you they wouldn't be bringing this up if a Conservative POTUS was in office.

Had they said something prior to Trump then maybe they would have more sympathy, but right now this just looks like sour grapes.

Are you kidding.  Thomas has accepted over 5million dollars in "gifts" over the last 20 years, that's 10x all the other justices combined. It has nothing to do with an end-around it's what is he doing to get 5 million in gifts.  You're bias blinds you.

[Cdub100 3,842]

Democrats have become a threat to the republic

[CaptainObvious1 327]

2 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Yeah this isn't about "someone they don't like", it's a guy that has huge ethics concerns.  Our supreme court should not be corrupted.  Everyone should be held to ethics standards.  That is the definition of decency.

And you're voting for Biden, a$$hat?

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

9 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

I want the Supremes to be above even the appearance of impropriety and or bias.  I find Justice Thomas' actions, if true, inappropirate.  Every state has judicial ethics codes. there is a federal code on judicial ethics.  I do not think the Supremes should be exempt from such codes.  I think they ought to be an example of the epitomy of judicial ethics and temperance.  They ought to instill confidence in their rulings, not allow them to be questioned on bias or self interest.

While I don't disagree with what you said, this is clearly political... just like the Trump/NY trial.  The only objective here is to hopefully get Thomas out of the SC while Biden is in office so that they can put another young, unqualified, far-leftist activist in his place.  The Democrats have been so egotistical and stubborn (much like those on this board), that they didn't realize they were going to lose in November, so now they have to change their original plan of waiting until after the election to do this.  The reason they didn't push forward earlier with this was because they didn't want the Right to have a chance to claim that they were being targeted by the Left for political reasons.  They just watched that blow up in their face with Trump, so they were probably going to do this in like February had the polls been favorable to Biden.  Well, now the Communists are scared that their figure head is going to lose, they don't want to wait 4 more years of a 6-3 right wing advantage in the SC, so they need to push forward.  They don't care if this backfires on them again because they already know they're fighting a losing war, so they're going to try and win a battle.  That's all this investigation is about.  Also, as @cyclone24 said there's a 0% chance that if Thomas was a Democrat, this investigation ever takes place.  This investigation is 100% political and 0% propriety.  The potentiality that they may actually be right, is only a bonus.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

2 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Yeah this isn't about "someone they don't like".

Yes it is.  If Thomas was a Democrat, there's no investigation... even you know this.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Yes it is.  If Thomas was a Democrat, there's no investigation... even you know this.

Like Menendez, right?

[Fnord 2,051]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

Like Menendez, right?

And Hunter Biden. Damn Biden DOJ just doing whatever he tells them...

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,848]

36 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Are you kidding.  Thomas has accepted over 5million dollars in "gifts" over the last 20 years, that's 10x all the other justices combined. It has nothing to do with an end-around it's what is he doing to get 5 million in gifts.  You're bias blinds you.

So why didn't the Democrats say something 20 years ago?  Or 15 years ago? Or 10 years ago?

[Engorgeous George 2,149]

Some have argued the partisan politics of this matter which are quite transparent indeed.  In spite of the partisan politics of this I want my Supreme Court Justices to be above reproach  ethically, intellectually, and politically (if and to the extent that is different than ethically).  I know this is a fool's hope, but there it is.   

[Mike Honcho 5,107]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

So why didn't the Democrats say something 20 years ago?  Or 15 years ago? Or 10 years ago?

Because they didn't have those disclosures---he's been hiding most of them for 20 years. 
 

Quote

 

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.

Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, front left, with Harlan Crow, back right, and others in Flores, Indonesia, in July 2019. Credit:via Instagram

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

 

Considering you didn't know that, you should have just stopped here:

 

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I'm on board with this.

However, this sudden focus on SCOTUS justices by Democrats is ONLY because they lost out on getting their justices seated.  Had their own tactics used against them and now they are butt-hurt and want to make an end-around to try and get theirs on the bench.  They'll just accuse <insert Conservative Justice here> of "corruption" and then "investigate" them and find some "reason" - any reason - to validate that and try to get them removed.  I guarantee you they wouldn't be bringing this up if a Conservative POTUS was in office.

Had they said something prior to Trump then maybe they would have more sympathy, but right now this just looks like sour grapes.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Like Menendez, right?

LOL, you are exactly what the Leftist's love.  He's been crooked for years.  Here's the thing... if he goes down, another Democrat will replace him.  There's no political consequence because they're not losing that seat to a Republican.  It's just like the crooked mayor's they've had in Baltimore.  The only time any politician or political appointee gets targeted by their own side, is if there's no threat of losing.  I will admit I was wrong one thing here.  I said, "even you know this."  Clearly, that's not true. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

11 minutes ago, Fnord said:

And Hunter Biden. Damn Biden DOJ just doing whatever he tells them...

Nothing is going to happen to Hunter.  He was held out as fodder to shield Joe.  After the election, both Hunter and Joe are going to go to their mansions to live out their lives.  Don't be so stupid.  Plus, remind me of what office Hunter holds?

[GutterBoy 2,898]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

Nothing is going to happen to Hunter.  He was held out as fodder to shield Joe.  After the election, both are going to go to their mansions to live out their lives.  Don't be so stupid.

And if Thomas is investigated and pressured to vacate, then trump can replace him with another conservative assuming he wins.  You're just repeating the same old BS talking points that allow these crooks to stay in power.

[MDC 7,144]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

It would be hypocritical for us to insist that Joe Biden be investigated for his corrupt financial activities and not insist that SCOTUS also be held to the same standard.

Agreed. And if an investigation fails to reveal indisputable evidence that Thomas violated the law, I will assume he is in the clear and admit that I was wrong, just like you said you would do with Biden.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,953]

As if the DOJ didn’t bend over backwards for Hunter. Clowns. 

[Engorgeous George 2,149]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

Agreed. And if an investigation fails to reveal indisputable evidence that Thomas didn’t violate any laws, I will assume he is in the clear and admit that I was wrong, just like you said you would do with Biden.  

An interesting expression or concept in this day and age where we nearly all are capable of disputing nearly everything, no matter how apparent.

 

Also, I think your double negative has the sentence saying something other than what was intended, but perhaps I have unraveled it wrong.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

14 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

And if Thomas is investigated and pressured to vacate, then trump can replace him with another conservative assuming he wins.  You're just repeating the same old BS talking points that allow these crooks to stay in power.

You do understand that the Democrats objective is to have this done before November, right?

[MDC 7,144]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

An interesting expression or concept in tis day and age where we nearly all are capable of disputing nearly everything, no matter how apparent.

 

Also, I think your doyuble negative has the sentence saying something other than what was intended, but perhaps I have unraveled it wrong.

Ray and I are both men of integrity who let the facts determine what we believe versus partisan hackery. As such, we would never continue to maintain the guilt of someone if a full and thorough investigation failed to reveal any proof of wrongdoing. 

I’m sure Ray will agree.  

You were right on my sentence - edited and thanks.  

[Engorgeous George 2,149]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You do understand that the Democrats objective is to have this done before November, right?

I thought we established that this close to an election we cannot possibly vet and approve a Justice. The "Merrick Garland" rule.  Also, there is no chance for an investigation and an impeachment proceeding and even if there were there is no way given the close splits in the house and senate that an impeachment would be successful.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

I thought we established that this close to an election we cannot possibly vet and approve a Justice. The "Merrick Garland" rule.  Also, there is no cahnce for an investigation and an impeachment proceeding and even if there were ther is no way given the close splits in the house and senate that an impeachment would be successful.

The "Merrick Garland" rule was the azzhat McConnel's bs, and not really a rule.  The Senate is 50/50 with Dem's holding the tie VP breaker.  If they can get their person in, they will.

The timing is two-fold.  One, to push the false narrative that the Democrat party is the party of "Decency" and "Democracy".  The other is to take focus off of Biden's incompetence, that we all knew years ago.  If they can get Thomas out in time, they'll be able to get their Justice in, and the election won't matter.  If they can't, when Trump wins, they'll slow play the Thomas stuff for years, then ramp it up full force 4 years from now and hope they have a better candidate than the GOP in 2028 and then appoint their activist if they win.  If they lose, there's no real consequence because if/when Thomas would step down of his own accord, it would be during a Republican's tenure in office.  Statistically, this is the best chance of getting the outcome they like.

Now, if they were smart... like that's even possible, they'd have waited until after the election.  If Biden somehow wins, the Democrats can push forward with this in early 2025 and hope they can get Thomas out and then put their activist in.  That would've given them about 2 years or so to let the waves calm down over this political target and hope the majority of the voting world forget that they once again that they are targeting political opponents in the courtroom.  The fact that this would've made the separation 5-4, wouldn't have made the waves so high where people wouldn't forget.  It's not a tide turning seat.  Had it been 5-4 Republican and this would make it 5-4 Communist, then that would've been a bigger issue.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

40 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You do understand that the Democrats objective is to have this done before November, right?

I'm sure they would love that but it's a tall order.

If Trump wins and he wants to investigate any liberal judge that broke the law, go for it.  I don't protect corruption.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I'm sure they would love that but it's a tall order.

If Trump wins and he wants to investigate any liberal judge that broke the law, go for it.  I don't protect corruption.

You're assuming corruption, that's the difference.  We've already seen that over the last 10 years, the Democrats have no problems going after political opponents in the courtroom for purely political reasons.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

8 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You're assuming corruption, that's the difference.  We've already seen that over the last 10 years, the Democrats have no problems going after political opponents in the courtroom for purely political reasons.

We've seen evidence of corruption, so it should be investigated.  You don't want him investigated because he's on your team.

[TimHauck 2,626]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, you are exactly what the Leftist's love.  He's been crooked for years.  Here's the thing... if he goes down, another Democrat will replace him.  There's no political consequence because they're not losing that seat to a Republican.  It's just like the crooked mayor's they've had in Baltimore.  The only time any politician or political appointee gets targeted by their own side, is if there's no threat of losing.  I will admit I was wrong one thing here.  I said, "even you know this."  Clearly, that's not true. 

So you were wrong (again), got it

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

So you were wrong (again), got it

Nope.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

We've seen evidence of corruption, so it should be investigated.  You don't want him investigated because he's on your team.

I have no problem with investigations.  I just find it interesting that they only seem to happen when it suits political agendas.  I also always question the validity of any claim made by Democrats.  I don't think a less credible group as ever walked the planet than the current Democrat party.

[Engorgeous George 2,149]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The "Merrick Garland" rule was the azzhat McConnel's bs, and not really a rule.  The Senate is 50/50 with Dem's holding the tie VP breaker.  If they can get their person in, they will.

The timing is two-fold.  One, to push the false narrative that the Democrat party is the party of "Decency" and "Democracy".  The other is to take focus off of Biden's incompetence, that we all knew years ago.  If they can get Thomas out in time, they'll be able to get their Justice in, and the election won't matter.  If they can't, when Trump wins, they'll slow play the Thomas stuff for years, then ramp it up full force 4 years from now and hope they have a better candidate than the GOP in 2028 and then appoint their activist if they win.  If they lose, there's no real consequence because if/when Thomas would step down of his own accord, it would be during a Republican's tenure in office.  Statistically, this is the best chance of getting the outcome they like.

Now, if they were smart... like that's even possible, they'd have waited until after the election.  If Biden somehow wins, the Democrats can push forward with this in early 2025 and hope they can get Thomas out and then put their activist in.  That would've given them about 2 years or so to let the waves calm down over this political target and hope the majority of the voting world forget that they once again that they are targeting political opponents in the courtroom.  The fact that this would've made the separation 5-4, wouldn't have made the waves so high where people wouldn't forget.  It's not a tide turning seat.  Had it been 5-4 Republican and this would make it 5-4 Communist, then that would've been a bigger issue.

I am aware.  Frankly I was shocked that it carried the day back then.  I still think the Democrats would be up against a time crunch here.  If nothing else all politicians are experts in using procedural rules to delay matters.  I don't see how this gets done in the present administration's tenure..  

[Fnord 2,051]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You're assuming corruption, that's the difference.  We've already seen that over the last 10 years, the Democrats have no problems going after political opponents in the courtroom for purely political reasons.

So your contention here is that they are asking for an investigation into Thomas for purely political reasons, not because he's accepting enormous unreported gifts from a Republican donor that, oh yeah, also regularly has cases decided by the court?

[RLLD 4,143]

3 hours ago, MDC said:

Agreed. And if an investigation fails to reveal indisputable evidence that Thomas violated the law, I will assume he is in the clear and admit that I was wrong, just like you said you would do with Biden.  

If there is evidence that Thomas violated the law, but they either fail to prosecute or ultimately do not convict, then you are free to remain convinced he perhaps did something wrong.  Absolution through the legal system is not actual absolution.