20 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

So they take in their great nephew, their friend offers to pay for a year at his old school, that they can't afford, and they take him up on it. That's what you guys are so desperate to call "corruption"?  And I'm the one twisting myself into pretzels.  Stay desperate losers.

 JFC, they really are going down the "it's just a friend helping out" route. Even I'm surprised at the blatant hypocrisy.

As far as corruption goes, Thomas failing to recuse himself and then being the lone dissenter in the Jan 6th records case, knowing full well what his wife was up to, is far more egregious if you ask me. All this Harlan Crow business is more so icing on the cake and just reaffirms what we already know about Thomas' wiping his ass with the SCOTUS code of ethics.

9 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

As far as corruption goes, Thomas failing to recuse himself and then being the lone dissenter in the Jan 6th records case, knowing full well what his wife was up to, is far more egregious if you ask me. All this Harlan Crowe business is more so icing on the cake and just reaffirms what we already know about Thomas' wiping his ass with the SCOTUS code of ethics.

hey now, let's wait to see if megan comes up with an easily explained reason for this before we all go forming opinions based on facts. 

29 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It's a clear conflict of interest that at a minimum should've been disclosed and he should've recused himself from any case related to anything Crow was involved with. Same standard applies to Sotomayor or any other judge in a similar situation.

Why is this so hard? You know lower level judges HAVE to disclose these things right? If he had disclosed it and followed procedures, I'd agree it's a nothingburger but there have been MULTIPLE large unreported sums of money given to Thomas.  His mother still lives in the house crow purchased.  

And this shouldn't even need to be said, doesnt matter what side of political isle, this is unacceptable to anyone with half a brain.

2 minutes ago, Tweek said:

Why is this so hard? You know lower level judges HAVE to disclose these things right? If he had disclosed it and followed procedures, I'd agree it's a nothingburger but there have been MULTIPLE large unreported sums of money given to Thomas.  His mother still lives in the house crow purchased.  

And this shouldn't even need to be said, doesnt matter what side of political isle, this is unacceptable to anyone with half a brain.

Newly released video of Thomas being given the code of ethics:

6 hours ago, Kz! said:

 

Gorsuch also has a publishing contract with Random House and also didn't recuse himself from those same cases.  So funny when people expose their hypocrisy so easily...

Also, there's certainly an argument that Sotomayor, Breyer, and Gorsuch should have recused themselves from cases involving Random House as they all have publishing deals with them.  But the way the tweet is written, claiming she "took" money from the publisher is such a hilariously obvious agenda driven spin.  She didn't "take" money from Random House.  She EARNED $3 million in income for writing books.  Income which she disclosed on her financial disclosure report.

Again, an argument can certainly be made that her, Breyer, and Gorsuch should all recuse themselves from cases involving Random House (and Breyer has in the past), but the author of the tweet is clearly trying to spin to make it sound like this was some sort of "gift" to her. 

7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Gorsuch also has a publishing contract with Random House and also didn't recuse himself from those same cases.  So funny when people expose their hypocrisy so easily...

Are you terpman22 from The Fever? 

Sorry to interrupt. You all can get back to the Anita Hill debate.

2 hours ago, The_Omega said:

The rapid redefinition of "corruption" is what's changing.  

 

 

1) Thomas had custody of his nephew at the time.  

2) Thomas disclosed that another friend of his had paid $5,000 towards Martin's tuition.  So, clearly he thought it necessary to disclose as a gift that someone else was paying for Martin's tuition, he just didn't disclose it when Harlan Crow did it.  Hmmmmm............

So this entire argument is dead in the water. 

2 minutes ago, 91defense said:

Are you terpman22 from The Fever? 

Sorry to interrupt. You all can get back to the Anita Hill debate.

lol what?

19 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

lol what?

Obviously you're not him, lol. He's a different Eagles fan that went to Maryland on an old fantasy football message board that I used to frequent. 

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

It's still a gift. 

Not according to the IRS reporting rules it’s not. You think it should be, I don’t necessarily disagree and wouldn’t argue with it if they changed it. The fact of the matter is that it wasn’t though so this is more political nonsense. It’s obvious to any honest person what’s going on here. The Democrats are watching the clock run out on their opportunity to shift the balance of the court in their direction and can’t do anything about it normally, so you’re grasping at abnormal straws, trying to create scandals where they don’t exist. Change the rules then punish those who break them moving forward. You don’t get to retroactively apply your feelings to actions done in accordance with the rules of the past though. Your feelings are irrelevant.

11 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Not according to the IRS reporting rules it’s not. You think it should be, I don’t necessarily disagree and wouldn’t argue with it if they changed it. The fact of the matter is that it wasn’t though so this is more political nonsense. It’s obvious to any honest person what’s going on here. The Democrats are watching the clock run out on their opportunity to shift the balance of the court in their direction and can’t do anything about it normally, so you’re grasping at abnormal straws, trying to create scandals where they don’t exist. Change the rules then punish those who break them moving forward. You don’t get to retroactively apply your feelings to actions done in accordance with the rules of the past though. Your feelings are irrelevant.

Oh so if it’s not a gift, then why did he disclose the $5,000 tuition payment for Martin that was gifted from another friend? Hmm…..

The gist I’m getting out of everything is that there is Victorian era style corruption running rampant throughout all branches of government. 
 

Wheres Smedly Butler when you need him?

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

Not according to the IRS reporting rules it’s not. You think it should be, I don’t necessarily disagree and wouldn’t argue with it if they changed it. The fact of the matter is that it wasn’t though so this is more political nonsense. It’s obvious to any honest person what’s going on here. The Democrats are watching the clock run out on their opportunity to shift the balance of the court in their direction and can’t do anything about it normally, so you’re grasping at abnormal straws, trying to create scandals where they don’t exist. Change the rules then punish those who break them moving forward. You don’t get to retroactively apply your feelings to actions done in accordance with the rules of the past though. Your feelings are irrelevant.

IRS reporting rules and requirements under the ethics regulations that govern the supremes aren't the same thing. 

Perhaps you know that and are being intentionally misleading. 

Technically - until a change to these regulations in March - Thomas could have sorta tried to argue that accepting vacations from a billionaire weren't strictly required to be declared, though they certainly ought to have been and the update clarified this. 

But accepting a gift in the form of someone covering a significant expense such as tuition is absolutely covered by these ethics regulations.

So Thomas rich friend, who he is beholden to, paid for Thomas nephew, a nephew Thomas had custody over, to attend private school. It is estimated to be about $150,000 and he didn't disclose it. The Nephew also stated he went on undisclosed trips as well. 

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/us-elections-government/ny-billionaire-paid-private-school-tuition-for-clarence-thomas-20230504-jrfnzzuwwra2ndvj5slynfju2e-story.html

Billionaire GOP patron secretly paid private school tuition for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ nephew

Trying to get him to resign before Biden gets punted is one way to try to wrestle the supreme court back.

1 minute ago, lynched1 said:

Trying to get him to resign before Biden gets punted is one way to try to wrestle the supreme court back.

Punted by who?  The guy on trial for rape?

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

Punted by who?  The guy on trial for rape?

Hell he could punted by his own party or another aneurysm at this point. I'm satisfied with any result.

Just now, lynched1 said:

Hell he could punted by his own party or another aneurysm at this point. I'm satisfied with any result.

I see a lot of sad reeing in your future. 

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I see a lot of sad reeing in your future. 

See an opthalmologist 

They better hope this Justice Thomas story line takes off soon.

 

It has now been revealed that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $3 million from Penguin books but did not recuse herself when a case about the publisher came before the court.

11 hours ago, Kz! said:

 

 

5 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Gorsuch also has a publishing contract with Random House and also didn't recuse himself from those same cases.  So funny when people expose their hypocrisy so easily...

Also, there's certainly an argument that Sotomayor, Breyer, and Gorsuch should have recused themselves from cases involving Random House as they all have publishing deals with them.  But the way the tweet is written, claiming she "took" money from the publisher is such a hilariously obvious agenda driven spin.  She didn't "take" money from Random House.  She EARNED $3 million in income for writing books.  Income which she disclosed on her financial disclosure report.

Again, an argument can certainly be made that her, Breyer, and Gorsuch should all recuse themselves from cases involving Random House (and Breyer has in the past), but the author of the tweet is clearly trying to spin to make it sound like this was some sort of "gift" to her. 

 

2 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

They better hope this Justice Thomas story line takes off soon.

 

It has now been revealed that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $3 million from Penguin books but did not recuse herself when a case about the publisher came before the court.

Your boy already pointed this out, and just like him, your hypocrisy was exposed once again. 

14 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

They better hope this Justice Thomas story line takes off soon.

 

It has now been revealed that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $3 million from Penguin books but did not recuse herself when a case about the publisher came before the court.

They're trying so hard.  Keep spinning! 

15 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

 

 

Your boy already pointed this out, and just like him, your hypocrisy was exposed once again. 

First. Been busy, haven't been around for a bit.

Second. Do you really want to get into a debate about hypocrisy with me?

9 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

They're trying so hard.  Keep spinning! 

Spinning?

Isn't there outrage about "paid for" judicial opinions going on?

Or is this the liberal "I know how we can get the supreme court back without the poor polling court stacking idea" thread?