All GOP justices on SC are corrupt...But Thomas is the worst, so far.

[Libertas]

Cons have no problem with this, because the rule of law is irrelevant to them.



https://youtu.be/8LMHK2XKTJQ

Report details gifts Justice Clarence Thomas received since 1991

[Glennfs]

Cons have no problem with this, because the rule of law is irrelevant to them.



https://youtu.be/8LMHK2XKTJQ

So Thomas going on trips paid for by wealthy friends who had no business before the court is evidence that Thomas is 100pct corrupt.

But, the Biden Crime Family receiving 20 million dollars from foreign entities is meaningless.

[gounion]

So Thomas going on trips paid for by wealthy friends who had no business before the court is evidence that Thomas is 100pct corrupt.

But, the Biden Crime Family receiving 20 million dollars from foreign entities is meaningless.

You're the one saying that what Thomas is doing is just fine.

So it's time for you to shut the fuck up about the Bidens, right?

[Glennfs]

You're the one saying that what Thomas is doing is just fine.

So it's time for you to shut the fuck up about the Bidens, right?

Let's review
Wealthy friends who had no business with the court taking Thomas with them on vacation is 100pct evidence of corruption.

Joe Biden speaking 20 times to the people Hunter was shaking down then lying about knowing anything about Hunter's business dealings, lying about having dinner with the people Hunter was shaking down and Hunter receiving over 20 million from foreign entities.......nothing here to see move along.

No double standard on your part nosiree

[gounion]

Let's review
Wealthy friends who had no business with the court taking Thomas with them on vacation is 100pct evidence of corruption.

Joe Biden speaking 20 times to the people Hunter was shaking down then lying about knowing anything about Hunter's business dealings, lying about having dinner with the people Hunter was shaking down and Hunter receiving over 20 million from foreign entities.......nothing here to see move along.

No double standard on your part nosiree

Sounds to me like the double standard is YOURS.

[Toonces]

Harlan Crow did have business before the court. And, to be sure, there are rulings from SCOTUS that would impact Crow's businesses.

If you're going accept that, even without evidence, that Joe Biden benefited from Hunter's dealing then you should probably accept that some rulings made by SCOTUS could impact Harlan Crow.

Is there really a billionaire who would not be affected by a SCOTUS decision?

Is there anyone who believes that Thomas would have received the exact same treatment if he was just a law clerk?

[Glennfs]

Harlan Crow did have business before the court. And, to be sure, there are rulings from SCOTUS that would impact Crow's businesses.

If you're going accept that, even without evidence, that Joe Biden benefited from Hunter's dealing then you should probably accept that some rulings made by SCOTUS could impact Harlan Crow.

Is there really a billionaire who would not be affected by a SCOTUS decision?

Is there anyone who believes that Thomas would have received the exact same treatment if he was just a law clerk?

Would you happen to know the outcome of Crow's court case.

[gounion]

[Glennfs]

But making over 3 million selling children books is ok.

[gounion]

But making over 3 million selling children books is ok.

At least you actually did something for it. What do you think Thomas did for all these vacations?

And as for books - I’d like to see a law that anyone working at a government job, like lawmaker or judge, cannot make any profits from books while in office. All profits would have to go to charities not directly connected to the author. After they leave office, they can then write books for profit.

But you’re trying to defend the indefensible, and we’re not surprised.

[Bludogdem]

Would you happen to know the outcome of Crow's court case.

This was the case in question.

04-528 WOMACK & HAMPTON ARCHITECTS, L.L.C V. METRIC HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/04-00528qp.pdf

A subsidiary of a subsidiary in the variety of crows businesses holdings apparently has a partial stake in Womack and did something they didn’t like. So no one at the Court knew of the Crow relationship.

How the court works. There are 10,000 petitions for certiorari every year. The justices don’t read them. The clerks read them, summarize, and essentially reject 99.9%. The justices review the summaries. Identify ones to discuss. And when four justices decide they want to hear a case it goes on the docket. The justices don’t vote up or down on 10,000 petitions. Nobody in the SC even gave Womack a look because it wasn’t worthy. And none knew of a very remote Crow connection.

[Bludogdem]

At least you actually did something for it. What do you think Thomas did for all these vacations?

And as for books - I’d like to see a law that anyone working at a government job, like lawmaker or judge, cannot make any profits from books while in office. All profits would have to go to charities not directly connected to the author. After they leave office, they can then write books for profit.

But you’re trying to defend the indefensible, and we’re not surprised.

That law could not apply to the Supreme Court or the offices of the President or Vice President. Congress lacks constitutional power to regulate those offices.

[gounion]

That law could not apply to the Supreme Court or the five of the President or Vice President. Congress lacks constitutional power to regulate those offices.

If it’s a law signed by the President, they do.

[Bludogdem]

If it’s a law signed by the President, they do.

No, they don’t. And AG Garland, being a constitutional scholar, knows it as well.

Congress has no constitutional power to pass legislation to regulate the Supreme Court justices’ behavior. Same for the Executive Branch.

[gounion]

No, they don’t. And AG Garland, being a constitutional scholar, knows it as well.

Congress has no constitutional power to pass legislation to regulate the Supreme Court justices’ behavior. Same for the Executive Branch.

You have your opinion on this, and you're scholarship is piss-poor. You believe whatever Trump tells you to believe. Give it up, Green Grass.

[JoeMemphis]

No, they don’t. And AG Garland, being a constitutional scholar, knows it as well.

Congress has no constitutional power to pass legislation to regulate the Supreme Court justices’ behavior. Same for the Executive Branch.

I think what has GOU so confused is the difference between law and regulation. He appears to think they are one and the same. While it’s true that civil laws and criminal law duly passed by legislators and signed by the executive apply equally to us all. Regulations such as ethical standards don’t cross the lines drawn between coequal branches of government. So ethical standards in the legislature cover the legislature. Ethical standards in the executive cover the
Executive and the judiciary has its own set of ethical standards. The Congress can’t get together with the President and set the ethical standards for judiciary nor can the judiciary set such standards for either the legislature or executive. Makes sense. Common sense. It would violate the whole separation of powers concept undermining our Constitution and our system of government.

[gounion]

I think what has GOU so confused is the difference between law and regulation. He appears to think they are one and the same. While it’s true that civil laws and criminal law duly passed by legislators and signed by the executive apply equally to us all. Regulations such as ethical standards don’t cross the lines drawn between coequal branches of government. So ethical standards in the legislature cover the legislature. Ethical standards in the executive cover the
Executive and the judiciary has its own set of ethical standards. The Congress can’t get together with the President and set the ethical standards for judiciary nor can the judiciary set such standards for either the legislature or executive. Makes sense. Common sense. It would violate the whole separation of powers concept undermining our Constitution and our system of government.

You have no idea how our government works.

[JoeMemphis]

You have no idea how our government works.

You say that but yet you can’t make a constitutional argument or a legal argument to support what you say. Maybe it’s you who doesn’t know how government works.

[gounion]

You say that but yet you can’t make a constitutional argument or a legal argument to support what you say. Maybe it’s you who doesn’t know how government works.

I've made my argument, and neither you nor Green Grass - who ran the civil rights campaign for Humphrey in '68, ya know, haven't offered any actual facts in refutation. I know that Justices Alito and Thomas say that the Supreme Court is immune from any oversight and can't be regulated at all, and they can take all the bribes they want to, but that isn't the opinion of the whole Court, and isn't true in history either.

[JoeMemphis]

I've made my argument, and neither you nor Green Grass - who ran the civil rights campaign for Humphrey in '68, ya know, haven't offered any actual facts in refutation. I know that Justices Alito and Thomas say that the Supreme Court is immune from any oversight and can't be regulated at all, and they can take all the bribes they want to, but that isn't the opinion of the whole Court, and isn't true in history either.

I don’t know that the judiciary is immune from oversight of the legislature. I certainly haven’t made such assertions. That is in the constitution. However, Congress and the executive do not have the authority to tell the judiciary how to conduct the duties. If they believe there has been crimes and misdemeanors in the judiciary, they can always impeach a federal judge. That’s the proscribed remedy. Of course if you have some legal precedents or you can cite case law to support your assertion that the legislature and the executive have the constitutional authority to set ethical standards for the judiciary, then you can provide that. I’d like to see it.

[gounion]

I don’t know that the judiciary is immune from oversight of the legislature. I certainly haven’t made such assertions. That is in the constitution. However, Congress and the executive do not have the authority to tell the judiciary how to conduct the duties. If they believe there has been crimes and misdemeanors in the judiciary, they can always impeach a federal judge. That’s the proscribed remedy. Of course if you have some legal precedents or you can cite case law to support your assertion that the legislature and the executive have the constitutional authority to set ethical standards for the judiciary, then you can provide that. I’d like to see it.

Impeachment is a political, not a legal remedy. Are you saying that if a Justice murders someone, then they can be impeached, and nothing else? Of COURSE not. They are subject to LAWS - and who passes laws? The legislature.

The Supreme Court Justice should be under the same guidelines as any other judge. If this were Justice Kagen, you’d be screaming from the rooftops that she should be under those regulations.

But since they are far-right-wing justices, so you say they are immune. Not surprised.

But it seems you guys are royalists, and don’t believe in the rule of law for your Kings.

[JoeMemphis]

Impeachment is a political, not a legal remedy. Are you saying that if a Justice murders someone, then they can be impeached, and nothing else? Of COURSE not. They are subject to LAWS - and who passes laws? The legislature.

The Supreme Court Justice should be under the same guidelines as any other judge. If this were Justice Kagen, you’d be screaming from the rooftops that she should be under those regulations.

But since they are far-right-wing justices, so you say they are immune. Not surprised.

But it seems you guys are royalists, and don’t believe in the rule of law for your Kings.

Yes. Judges and justices are subject to the same criminal laws as any regular citizen. However, the legislature and the executive cannot target laws at the judiciary nor can they specify ethical standards for the judiciary. That’s been said repeatedly. Read the last few posts.

So to your point, you can suggest how you think the ethical guidelines should work for the judiciary all you please. However, constitutionally, it’s not up to you. It’s not up to the legislature nor is it up to the executive. Criminal laws applicable to all citizens is not the same as regulation and ethical standards in the judicial branch. Congress and the executive don’t have the statutory authority to set those.


Edited to add: the separation of powers in the US constitution that precludes the executive and/or the legislature from ruling over the judiciary is the opposite of royalty.

[gounion]

Yes. Judges and justices are subject to the same criminal laws as any regular citizen. However, the legislature and the executive cannot target laws at the judiciary nor can they specify ethical standards for the judiciary. That’s been said repeatedly. Read the last few posts.

So to your point, you can suggest how you think the ethical guidelines should work for the judiciary all you please. However, constitutionally, it’s not up to you. It’s not up to the legislature nor is it up to the executive. Criminal laws applicable to all citizens is not the same as regulation and ethical standards in the judicial branch. Congress and the executive don’t have the statutory authority to set those.


Edited to add: the separation of powers in the US constitution that precludes the executive and/or the legislature from ruling over the judiciary is the opposite of royalty.

Well, royalty is what you want, right?

And I don’t give a shit about the “last few posts” - you may think that Green Grass is a Constitutional Scholar, but he’s just another lying conservative asshole who believes everything that Donald Trump and Clarence Thomas says, and he’s made up all this shit about himself and had many sock accounts here over the years. All in those “last few posts” are assertions with nothing behind them but bluster.

If you have separation of powers, EVERYONE should be answerable to SOMEONE - they should have ethical standards that are enforceable by SOMEONE. And YOU say the Supreme Court isn’t answerable to ANYONE - and as an American who believes in our democracy and rule of law, I just fucking strongly disagree with that.

If you want royalty and a King and a Court that isn’t answerable to the rule of law, I would suggest this may not be the country you want.

[Glennfs]

Well, royalty is what you want, right?

And I don’t give a shit about the “last few posts” - you may think that Green Grass is a Constitutional Scholar, but he’s just another lying conservative asshole who believes everything that Donald Trump and Clarence Thomas says, and he’s made up all this shit about himself and had many sock accounts here over the years. All in those “last few posts” are assertions with nothing behind them but bluster.

If you have separation of powers, EVERYONE should be answerable to SOMEONE - they should have ethical standards that are enforceable by SOMEONE. And YOU say the Supreme Court isn’t answerable to ANYONE - and as an American who believes in our democracy and rule of law, I just fucking strongly disagree with that.

If you want royalty and a King and a Court that isn’t answerable to the rule of law, I would suggest this may not be the country you want.

So says the man who wants one party rule

[gounion]

Not at all. I would just like an old-school sane GOP. Not a Trump Dear Leader personality cult.