knapplc Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 They uncover something new almost every day. Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 33 minutes ago, knapplc said: They uncover something new almost every day. These liberal smear jobs are a joke! *newly established BS ethical guidelines require that I reveal to you that Harlan Crow bought my last house. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 14 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said: These liberal smear jobs are a joke! *newly established BS ethical guidelines require that I reveal to you that Harlan Crow bought my last house. One begs to question why propublica is only looking into “conservative” leaning Justices? 1 Link to comment
Dr. Strangelove Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 29 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: One begs to question why propublica is only looking into “conservative” leaning Justices? Hopefully they look into both! 2 Link to comment
ZRod Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 5 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said: Hopefully they look into both! Agreed. I think rational people can also realize that money paid to you from a book deal is massively different than someone paying for lavish vacations on a yacht, buying multiple properties from you including your mom's home that she still lives in, and paying for your kids tuition... As well as not disclosing your full income over multiple decades, or maybe even falsifying it. Oh, and your wife trying to over throw a presidential election. 1 2 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 6 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said: Hopefully they look into both! NPR mentioned that Ruth Bader Ginsberg had accepted some questionable perks. So investigate away. This is all either inappropriate or not for the 9 incredibly powerful and unelected people whose decisions directly affect the lives of millions. 2 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 21 minutes ago, ZRod said: Oh, and your wife trying to over throw a presidential election. Ginni really does put Clarence and his rightwing benefactor into a skeevier light. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: NPR mentioned that Ruth Bader Ginsberg had accepted some questionable perks. So investigate away. This is all either inappropriate or not for the 9 incredibly powerful and unelected people whose decisions directly affect the lives of millions. Yep....investigate them all, if there is evidence something unethical was done...then deal with it. What bothers me the most is that there isn't any type of code of conduct for the SC. That is what I would hope would come out of this. Maybe it's a situation where, all this has been done and none of it breaks a law or current rule. But....you can change the rules so that if futre justices do this, there is a specific way to handle it. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 2 hours ago, ZRod said: Agreed. I think rational people can also realize that money paid to you from a book deal is massively different than someone paying for lavish vacations on a yacht, buying multiple properties from you including your mom's home that she still lives in, and paying for your kids tuition... As well as not disclosing your full income over multiple decades, or maybe even falsifying it. Oh, and your wife trying to over throw a presidential election. So the lavish liberal justices trips don’t count 2 Link to comment
funhusker Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: So the lavish liberal justices trips don’t count How did you get to this? Serious question. In the post he agreed that suspicious gifts need to be looked at for both liberal and conservative justices. 4 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 1 minute ago, funhusker said: How did you get to this? Serious question. In the post he agreed that suspicious gifts need to be looked at for both liberal and conservative justices. No, it was a run on sentence that pertained to what Thomas has been accused of. He compared the Sotomayor story to the Thomas story never linking in liberal justices. He knew what he was doing. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: No, it was a run on sentence that pertained to what Thomas has been accused of. He compared the Sotomayor story to the Thomas story never linking in liberal justices. He knew what he was doing. Where in his post did he say lavish gifts to liberal justices don't count? 2 1 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 44 minutes ago, funhusker said: Where in his post did he say lavish gifts to liberal justices don't count? He didn’t, nor did he address them like he did the Thomas stuff. Hence my post 1 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 53 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: He didn’t, nor did he address them like he did the Thomas stuff. Hence my post Hence my post. By your logic, I can then assume you're okay with conservative justices getting gifts since you didn't mention them in this post. Got it... 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 5, 2023 Share Posted May 5, 2023 5 minutes ago, funhusker said: So I can assume you're okay with conservative justices getting gifts since you didn't mention them in this post. Got it... I’ve already posted about what I think in this thread not too long ago. Seems You didn’t read it 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts