You get goofier by the minute IMO.The IMO says a lot. Proof, you need proof.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You get goofier by the minute IMO.The IMO says a lot. Proof, you need proof.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the free vacations and shit is a problem. I stand by that. Knowing people and deciding SCOTUS cases, however, is a different issue. Every justice knows people. You know people. I know people. We all know people. Knowing people in and of itself doesn't create a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety. Thomas knows people. Show a direct connection between someone he knows a case that he has decided. If you can't then that's bullshit. Two things can be true at the same time.You went from quotes like these....
To defending him with these quotes...
Dang man.
You're giving me whiplash.
Which means you have absolutely nothing.Ok so you’re going full RX ok I’ll bow out.
No it means I’ve been a member of this site and OP before it and understand how you operate and I refuse to play your stupid games.Which means you have absolutely nothing.
That is a mighty thin line you’re unsuccessfully trying to draw.I think the free vacations and shit is a problem. I stand by that. Knowing people and deciding SCOTUS cases, however, is a different issue. Every justice knows people. You know people. I know people. We all know people. Knowing people in and of itself doesn't create a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety. Thomas knows people. Show a direct connection between someone he knows a case that he has decided. If you can't then that's bullshit. Two things can be true at the same time.
Well then don't. I don't care. I really didn't intend to get drawn back into the politics forum.That is a mighty thin line you’re unsuccessfully trying to draw.
The general standard for disqualification//recusal is much broader than “a direct connection between someone he knows and a case that he has decided”.
Much broader.
I could show you, but I’ve got no interest in doing so.
I’m with @Vakarian74 ….you’ve gone full Rx, and it’s not worth it to engage with you when you do.
FULL RX IN EFFECT!!Well then don't. I don't care. I really didn't intend to get drawn back into the politics forum.
You are really wanting to allow Burisma Joe to select a replacement for a court that will surely hear both his and Trump’s appeals? Come on manThomas and his ilk are a travesty of what justice is supposed to be. If the Robert’s court won’t police its self, Biden needs to appoint two new “progressive “ judges. IMO
Prove Joe gained a dime from Burisma and we’ll talk. As long as you compare the two equally we have nothing to talk about.You are really wanting to allow Burisma Joe to select a replacement for a court that will surely hear both his and Trump’s appeals? Come on man
You get goofier by the minute IMO.
If you won’t recuse yourself on cases your wife has been lobbying for you might just be a highly rewarded pos.C’mon now. To put this in any kind of context you’d have go back to the justices that were on the bench when he was appointed, and investigate them and every one that’s served while he’s been a member to see if everyone’s historically done this or if he’s the anomaly. If he’s being singled out for something everyone’s done to some degree then this is distasteful but accepted behavior. If he’s the only one acting this way then he deserves to have every one of his decisions scrutinized and if there’s any scrap of proof he acted in any way in return for favors he should be removed from the court and severely punished. Your assertion that he’s on the take, but you don’t believe an investigation is necessary is really beyond silly. Is he dirty? IDK and neither do you, and there’s only one way to find out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Trump’s got 4 on the bench. Think they’ll recuse?You are really wanting to allow Burisma Joe to select a replacement for a court that will surely hear both his and Trump’s appeals? Come on man
Don’t hate the player, hate the gameTrump’s got 4 on the bench. Think they’ll recuse?
Come on man.
Figured as much.Don’t hate the player, hate the game
If you won’t recuse yourself on cases your wife has been lobbying for you might just be a highly rewarded pos.
Who’s we? Fellow troll farm members? If you are totally unaware of Ginni Thomas’s involvement and activities around January 6th and her lobbying efforts for right wing think tanks then you’re not paying attention or are willfully ignorant. But it’s okay because Clarence said they don’t talk politics at home, and billionaires just love him so much that they fund them at lifestyles of the rich and famous level for no apparent reason. The FACT that Clarence DIDN’T REPORT trips, tuition, flights, presents, Mothers house, wife’s salary, paintings etc. I’m sure is just a minor oversight in your tainted eyes, and Clarence is such a wonderful jurist that he can deal fairly with that which he clearly has at a minimum a conflict of interest. BSYou keep doubling down with unsubstantiated claims. We get it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who’s we? Fellow troll farm members? If you are totally unaware of Ginni Thomas’s involvement and activities around January 6th and her lobbying efforts for right wing think tanks then you’re not paying attention or are willfully ignorant. But it’s okay because Clarence said they don’t talk politics at home, and billionaires just love him so much that they fund them at lifestyles of the rich and famous level for no apparent reason. The FACT that Clarence DIDN’T REPORT trips, tuition, flights, presents, Mothers house, wife’s salary, paintings etc. I’m sure is just a minor oversight in your tainted eyes, and Clarence is such a wonderful jurist that he can deal fairly with that which he clearly has at a minimum a conflict of interest. BS
Repetition of facts is the only way to help a fanboy/cult member see truth!Keep doubling down with unsubstantiated claims. We still get it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk