JFC ... how much more blatant can this get?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...yments-lawyers-supreme-court?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...yments-lawyers-supreme-court?CMP=share_btn_tw
Their fairly recent rulings on what constitutes bribes to politicians is all making sense now.maybe they think that naked corruption like that just isn't fun when done outside of the USSR. Plus, I imagine it's a lot easier to window or heartattack an NRA official, and the like, than it is a US Congressperson or SCOTUS justice when needed.
Then again, there are the "suspicions" that surround the death of Scalia, no? At least the GQPers certainly think so, but not willing to ask about the most likely scenario if it wasn't all natural.
Ok, there’s probably 100s of perfectly reasonable explanations for why Thomas’ current and former law clerks and personal friends pooled expenses for an office Christmas party. That isn’t the point. The point is that these things should all be REQUIRED DISCLOSURES so that the public doesn’t need to guess what the payments are for and can have CONFIDENCE that the highest court in the land isn’t COMPROMISED. That public trust is eroding fast and Roberts, Alito and Thomas et al are largely to blame if they can’t agree to be held to the same ethical standards as other judges in lower courts.JFC ... how much more blatant can this get?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...yments-lawyers-supreme-court?CMP=share_btn_tw
Ok, there’s probably 100s of perfectly reasonable explanations for why Thomas’ current and former law clerks and personal friends pooled expenses for an office Christmas party. That isn’t the point. The point is that these things should all be REQUIRED DISCLOSURES so that the public doesn’t need to guess what the payments are for and can have CONFIDENCE that the highest court in the land isn’t COMPROMISED. That public trust is eroding fast and Roberts, Alito and Thomas et al are largely to blame if they can’t agree to be held to the same ethical standards as other judges in lower courts.
But there is an untold, and far more complex, back story to Justice Thomas’s R.V. — one that not only undercuts the mythology but also leaves unanswered a host of questions about whether the justice received, and failed to disclose, a lavish gift from a wealthy friend.
His Prevost Marathon cost $267,230, according to title history records obtained by The New York Times. And Justice Thomas, who in the ensuing years would tell friends how he had scrimped and saved to afford the motor coach, did not buy it on his own. In fact, the purchase was underwritten, at least in part, by Anthony Welters, a close friend who made his fortune in the health care industry.
this is my shocked face
Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It
The vehicle is a key part of the justice’s just-folks persona. It’s also a luxury motor coach that was funded by someone else’s money.www.nytimes.com
this is my shocked face
Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It
The vehicle is a key part of the justice’s just-folks persona. It’s also a luxury motor coach that was funded by someone else’s money.www.nytimes.com
Clarence Thomas is pure evil and the planet would be better off without him
Impeachment and removal of essentially any major federal official is nearly impossible because you need 67 senators.He doesn't fucking care, and knows he is safe, as the first step to impeach a SC Judge is for the House to vote for impeachment and send it to the Senate for an impeachment trial.
It won't get that far, as the House is the gatekeeper.Impeachment and removal of essentially any major federal official is nearly impossible because you need 67 senators.
Expanding the court is the only viable solution.
Not relevant to my point though. No major official of either party will ever be convicted and removed regardless of who controls the house because you will never get 67 votes.It won't get that far, as the House is the gatekeeper.
In my opinion Democrats need to be sending a concentrated message to the American people, in addition to anything else they want to say, but continuously and with emphasis, that their lives will continuously get worse until they start voting for progressive Democrats, and by progressive I don't mean Woke on White Privilege, but awake to the power of the reason and the scientific method and expecially how it relates to human psychology. There was a time when some people were thought to have wisdom before the shouting of imbeciles, especially on social media, drowned them out.Not relevant to my point though. No major official of either party will ever be convicted and removed regardless of who controls the house because you will never get 67 votes.
As the Democrats showed it’s definitely possible to impeach people, it’s just impossible to convict them.
One could say that needing 67% in the Senate is not relevant to my original point either, as the House will block it from every being sent to the Senate.Not relevant to my point though. No major official of either party will ever be convicted and removed regardless of who controls the house because you will never get 67 votes.
As the Democrats showed it’s definitely possible to impeach people, it’s just impossible to convict them.
We need what’s her name to be present and ideally awake and have an intern next to her to nudge her to vote.What else is needed besides biden nominating justices and getting them approved? Is there any legislation required?
This assumes that Democrats would never convict one of their own no matter the charges. I think that's a very bad assumption.Not relevant to my point though. No major official of either party will ever be convicted and removed regardless of who controls the house because you will never get 67 votes.
As the Democrats showed it’s definitely possible to impeach people, it’s just impossible to convict them.
67 senators? Very unlikelyThis assumes that Democrats would never convict one of their own no matter the charges. I think that's a very bad assumption.
That really depends on the criminality. Unlike much of the GOP, Democrats still believe in the rule of law.67 senators? Very unlikely