I'm not sure what he actually believes. I have no doubt about his ability to lie. But, as George Costanza said, "It's not a lie if you believe it."
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
He didn't believe the things he lied about according to all the documentation/recordings leaked over the yrs and discovered during the recent trial.
He parlayed his boarding-school, 'little Ivy' education, and his connections into a shit-ton ton of money, like many other "Hollywood elite" entertainers
Well, when you call a FOX female senior executive a "c*nt" in a private message, it's likely to catch up with you sooner or later.
“No such thing as a slippery slope.”
www.foxnews.com
From transgendered to 'transabled': Now people are 'choosing' to identify as handicapped
Transableism is a newer term for those who identify as handicapped. These individuals wish to be blind, crippled or more. Medical experts weigh in on this troubling trend.
this is it though. It won't get any crazier. We promise.“No such thing as a slippery slope.”
From transgendered to 'transabled': Now people are 'choosing' to identify as handicapped
Transableism is a newer term for those who identify as handicapped. These individuals wish to be blind, crippled or more. Medical experts weigh in on this troubling trend.
Yay for diversity hires!
www.foxnews.com
Judge shreds Soros-backed prosecutor, moves to hold her in criminal contempt: ‘Rudderless ship of chaos‘
A Missouri judge moved to hold a George Soros-bankrolled prosecutor in criminal contempt, lambasting her office as a "rudderless ship of chaos."
that gun was a psycho. Only an AR-style rifle would do something crazy like that. I have to assume the man obtained it just 15 minutes before it started dealing death. Waiting period would have prevented this. A twenty or thirty year one, maybe.
If you’re prone to firing your gun in the front yard with houses around imo you forfeit the right to own one. That’s the epitome of irresponsible gun ownership. I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with having his weapons taken from him pending a psych evaluation.
I think anyone exhibiting reckless, endangering behavior with any potentially dangerous weapon, automobiles included, should forfeit his right to own anything more dangerous than a pillow.
Since some here will only read the slanted hit jobs on Thomas and Kavanaugh, thought you should see this and read it straight from the Court and note the unanimity of all signers.
What are you talking about, @pooponduke?
That letter in no way exonerates Clarence Thomas and his failure to disclose the gifts he received from Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow if that's what you're trying to convince us of. Rather, it declines a request to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and redirects all inquiries to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its Committee on Financial Disclosure.
Second, I don't see any "signers" of the letter besides the Court's counsel who transcribed the letter on the Chief Justice's behalf.
Nice try, anyway.
I think Clarence Thomas should should shoot everyone the bird when he opens his next gift and tell everyone to cry more about it.
I'm a little disappointed he hasn't played the race card. Would love to see how people get around that.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly, reading comprehension is required to participate.
Perhaps try, just once, a little more than scanning the first page and stopping. If one is not willing to put in any effort whatsoever . . . . .
I read the letter twice in its entirety, and then portions of it enough times to count for at least twice more. I began by giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but I have to ask you if you read the letter before linking it?
Please show me where in the letter Clarence Thomas is vindicated of the offense he is accused of. And please explain where and how the other eight Justices are unanimously in agreement and where are their signatures.
Can you answer these simple questions instead of claiming I lack the comprehension and effort to know what I'm talking about?
Give him a break. That’s everyone’s default sentiment when dealing with you.
Default sentiment? I would say a better term would be cop out, at least in this case.
I suspect @pooponduke came across this letter and without thoroughly reading and understanding its contents, he thought he could link it and deride those here who think Clarance Thomas needs to explain himself. I guess he figured no one would actually read the letter, but guess what? I did.
It's not a big deal. I simply called him out and now I'm watching him try to squirm his way out of it. I'm not at all surprised that you're advocating for him.
the letter makes reference to a ' 'personal hospitality' exemption' which has only recently been eliminated. The link I provide addresses it. I don't have the time right now, but I think a little digging might just suggest that Thomas was indeed taken off the hook, or more accurately, never put on it other than by...well, you know..
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...ure-rules-extend-to-us-supreme-court-justices
you haven't substantiated anything here. Are you sure it isn't you doing the squirming?
just wondering...instead of making AR-15 type rifles illegal, what if we just responsibly take care of what already is illegal as opposed to treasonously breaking the law addressing that and encouraging the consequences? Good idea, huh.
You'd better start digging because if you think Clarence Thomas is off the hook then you're dumber than you look.
From page 2:
Under the regulations [of the Judicial Conference], the Justices may not accept gifts from those who seek official action or do business with the Court, with only limited exceptions. Judicial ethics principles also provide that recusal is appropriate when a Justice has a financial interest in a party before the Court.
"Under the regulations [of the Judicial Conference], the Justices may not accept gifts from those who seek official action or do business with the Court, "
have I missed something, or what part of the bolded are you having trouble understanding?
Maybe we could try some really tough gun laws in somewhere like Chicago, and see how that works first......
Seriously?!
Yeah, I would say you've missed something, Boy Blunder, which is evidence that you don't really understand the argument you're making but rather making the argument simply to be the contrarian-in-denial I've come to expect.
Take your pick;
Supreme Court Did Review Case Involving Harlan Crow—Contradicting Clarence Thomas’s Claim
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm suing a company that was part of the Crow family real estate portfolio in 2004.
www.forbes.com
Judicial record undermines Clarence Thomas defence in luxury gifts scandal
Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow was linked to a conservative group that had court business while Thomas was on the bench
Conservatives Have Some Very Creative, Very Dumb Excuses for Clarence Thomas’s Corruption
Don’t let their friends distract you: The Supreme Court justice and his megadonor pal have had a malign influence on the judicial system.
newrepublic.com
Last edited:
first article; "Crow Holdings and Harlan Crow’s name do not appear on the 2004 court filings, according to Bloomberg, raising the possibility that Thomas may not have recognized their connection to Harlan Crow, Arthur Hellman, a judicial ethics expert at University of Pittsburgh School of Law, told the outlet."Seriously?!
Yeah, I would say you've missed something, Boy Blunder, which is evidence that you don't really understand the argument you're making but rather making the argument simply to be the contrarian-in-denial I've come to expect.
Take your pick;
Supreme Court Did Review Case Involving Harlan Crow—Contradicting Clarence Thomas’s Claim
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm suing a company that was part of the Crow family real estate portfolio in 2004.
Judicial record undermines Clarence Thomas defence in luxury gifts scandal
Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow was linked to a conservative group that had court business while Thomas was on the benchwww.theguardian.com
Conservatives Have Some Very Creative, Very Dumb Excuses for Clarence Thomas’s Corruption
Don’t let their friends distract you: The Supreme Court justice and his megadonor pal have had a malign influence on the judicial system.
Second article;
the article alludes to such indirect affiliations that common sense would dictate no need for recusal or reporting of gifts, and as with anything I've read about this nothingburger, it certainly fails to demonstrate any actual gift-induced influence.
the third article; "Shapiro’s claim is that Thomas is super conservative and would have voted the way Crow prefers regardless of how many nights the two spent yachting around the Mediterranean. This is probably true; it also doesn’t matter one whit."
Beyond this extraction, the article is a one-sided opinion hit piece that factually points to nothing and merits no consideration.
As one would expect considering the source, there is the usual amount of insinuation and innuendo here and little to indicate actual wrongdoing on the part of Clarence Thomas. Is he an axe-murdering influence peddler? Who knows? There just isn't anything presented that does more than suggest that to be the case.
Normally, I would ask the person to look at me and focus. I would then speak very slowly so nothing was unheard or not processed. Since you have to read, I'd say to simply take your time since your having troubles. As asked, here are your quotes:
"More generally, the Committee 33 provides guidance on the sometimes complex reporting requirements. Just last month, for 34 example, it provided clarification on the scope of the “personal hospitality” exemption to the 35 disclosure rules. Allegations of errors or omissions in the filing of financial disclosure reports are 36 referred by the Secretary of the Judicial Conference to the Committee on Financial Disclosure. 37 The Committee may send the filer a letter of inquiry, providing an opportunity for the filer to 38 respond as appropriate." (The numbers are simply line numbers, don't let that confuse you.)
"John G. Roberts, Jr. Clarence Thomas Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil M. Gorsuch Brett M. Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett Ketanji Brown Jackson"
Ignorance is no excuse, especially for a Supreme Court Justice.
If that's the case, then why won't the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Thomas go before the Senate Judiciary Committee and clear his name? According to you it should be an open and shut case. I wonder what they're afraid of? 🤣
It's interesting that you're trying to be condescending when you're the knucklehead who can't see the overwhelmingly obvious conflict of interest.
By the way, the numbers didn't confuse me but you could have simply enough deleted them to make your post read easier and eliminate the need for the asinine explanation in parentheses.
Last, the list of Justices' names are merely part of the Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices attached to the letter and "which all the current Members of the Supreme Court subcribe." They are anything but signatures. Can you not tell the difference?
Last edited:
What's interesting is how you continue to do this type of thing day after day. There's an old saying about when one finds themselves in a hole, they should stop digging. Of course, that would require one to realize how deep they really are.
Nothing about it was asinine as I quoted it exactly as it appeared by doing a cut and paste because you refused to read the actual document when you kept whining about having read the link multiple times and claimed that the letter failed to include such information. Had I eliminated the numbers, you would have gone off on some tangent about my altering the quote.
Can you actually read? I specifically used the phrase "note the unanimity of all signers." You even echoed this in your first responding post by stating "I don't see any 'signers'" Subsequently, whether due to lack of retention or comprehension, you changed the notation of signers to a demand for signatures. Thus, any difference was due to your slight of hand. Further, in this context, a typed "signer" is the same as one's signature. Here is the actual quote from the first two sentences of the document that you conveniently ignore (or didn't read) by focusing only on the letter.
"The undersigned Justices today reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and 3 practices to which they subscribe in carrying out their responsibilities as Members of the Supreme 4 Court of the United States. This statement aims to provide new clarity to the bar and to the public 5 on how the Justices address certain recurring issues, and also seeks to dispel some common 6 misconceptions."
So, yes, Sherlock, all of the sitting justices did sign off on the document attempting to "provide new clarity. . . to the public on how the Justices address certain recurring issues, and also seeks to dispel some come misconceptions." If only the public wouldn't be soooo lazy that they can't read what the Court has produced, and, if they do, not be so incapable of actually comprehending what they have read.
I'll be succinct because arguing with you and your fellow lamebrain bluetoe is giving me a headache:
What the nine Justices signed off on is the Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices which predates the letter and was merely attached as part of it. What the letter does not indicate is that all nine Justices have signed off on Clarence Thomas's innocence involving this conflict of interest between him and Harlan Crow as you erroneously claimed it does.
What the nine Justices signed off on is the Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices which predates the letter and was merely attached as part of it. What the letter does not indicate is that all nine Justices have signed off on Clarence Thomas's innocence involving this conflict of interest between him and Harlan Crow as you erroneously claimed it does.
Repeatedly being shown the door tends to do that. The rest stands on it's own as I've already addressed it.
that's just one of those convenient adages used when one has no real answer. For those of us who don't rely on such simplistic responses, of course there are times when one unintentionally acts out of ignorance because there is no such thing as being completely informed. It happens, and in this case, no harm no foul.
I can't speak for him but if it was me, I'd say it's because there's no need to to begin with, and certainly no need to expose myself to the usual dem witch hunt. He's an appointed Supreme Court justice, and a conservative one. Of course there are those lowlifes who will try to assassinate his character, especially since there isn't a chance to set up some bogus election to defeat him with.
If the Senate needs to explore SCOTUS ethics, which in and of itself isn't such a bad idea, they don't need his input to do so.
And that's all this is, a witch hunt. There is no evidence of judicial wrongdoing here There is no evidence of any quid pro quo. There really isn't even any conflict of interest, except as suggested by those with a vested interest in promoting that notion. There is only insinuation which the bottom-dealing libs are so famous for employing.
Thomas has promised to abide by the changes to the reporting requirements and there is no reason to think he won't. A molehill remains a molehill, but millions of libs are still itching to use those pitchforks. They are ready to make use of the torches they lit. They are being worthless libs bent on destroying whatever doesn't fall in line with them.
And as I pointed out in another post recently, the Supreme Court ethics that concern me are the ones that seem to be lacking when the Supremes take it on themselves to overstep their positions and write law, as they did in Roe v. Wade.
Just out of curiosity, and since you're being such a wiener all of a sudden about SCOTUS ethics, why aren't you whining about that clear and undeniable breech of not just ethics but of the Constitution itself?
Last edited:
"The only options were to go out of state to get an abortion or to carry the baby to full term, and Dorbert and her husband didn’t have the money to travel."
Lol. They didn't have the money to go out of state but plan on having a child? You know, as someone that has kids, I have found that raising them cost quite a bit of money.
Also, reading the twitter thread, it looks like CNN is twisting the truth. Apparently the law in Florida states that after 15 weeks, if two or more doctors are in agreement, the pregnancy can be aborted. I have a hard time believing that two doctors wouldn't agree if what is written in the article is true. The woman, CNN or both are lying for the purposes of pushing some narrative.
#fail
How bout reading the article before typing?
Apparently the entire article discusses this.
I have a hard time believing you are really too lazy to read the article, but it is easy to see you are brainwashed and lack the ability to see facts thru a neutral lens.
Key parts of the article:
Florida law allows abortions after 15 weeks if two doctors confirm the diagnosis of a fatal fetal abnormality in writing, but doctors in Florida and states with similar laws have been hesitant to terminate such pregnancies for fear someone will question whether the abnormality was truly fatal. The penalties for violating the law are severe: Doctors can go to prison and face heavy fines and legal fees.
The obstetrician referred Dorbert to a high-risk pregnancy expert.
....
The Dorberts told the specialist that they wanted to induce birth, terminating the pregnancy, to spare the baby, themselves and their older son from suffering. They said the doctor agreed that this was a sound decision.
....
But the doctor said he would need to check with his administration because of the Florida law that had gone into effect a few months before, banning most abortions after 15 weeks.
....
About a month passed without a decision. Finally, Dorbert’s obstetrician informed her that she wouldn’t terminate the pregnancy.
#tryLiteracy
I like how the baby dying in her arms is apparently so much more heartbreaking than killing it.
Similar threads
