Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2023, 05:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So now  now someone goes all James Nares and go after COI in SC cases but still can't provide proof? if it's so easy to prove then there would be something there already (you don't think the media leftists wouldn't have found it by now?) Besides, i already proved he's incorrect on one of his general broad brush stroke claims by donating only to Reps. . 

Except I never made that claim. That's a straw man you created.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-07-2023, 03:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Harlan Crow is a founding member of Club for Growth, an organization with a PAC and Super-PAC that has been involved in several SCOTUS cases by advertising and giving financial support for one side. He is also on the board for AEI and has been for almost 30 years, a conservative think tank that regularly submits briefs to the SCOTUS.

(04-09-2023, 05:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except I never made that claim. That's a straw man you created.

So which side is he giving financial support to?

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2023, 06:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So which side is he giving financial support to?

(04-07-2023, 05:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't specify what political leaning Club for Growth spent money on, just that they supported one side of several cases before the SCOTUS. So no, not wrong. And you also didn't say "a specific example." In response to me saying he has funded conservative groups for decades that are putting cases through the courts, you said "[g]ot proof?" I provided it. Both Club for Growth and AEI receive significant funding from Crow and both have played roles in cases going to SCOTUS. This is all general knowledge that is publicly available to anyone with a Google search. I made the claim. I proved it.

Maybe you should read responses to your posts before doubling down on your statements.

[*pally*]

Crow sits on the board of AEI, which lobbies against tax hikes on billionaires and writes briefs to Justice Thomas. Crow lavished millions in gifts on Thomas. Is this corrupt? Probably.

Does it have the appearance of corruption? Absolutely.

Justice Thomas needs to resign. https://t.co/8Inbf9r2j3 pic.twitter.com/uMFjSyKzfh

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) April 9, 2023

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-09-2023, 07:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Maybe you should read responses to your posts before doubling down on your statements.

How hard is it for you to simply supply a link? 

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2023, 09:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How hard is it for you to simply supply a link? 

When I am on my phone? Very. I suck at using my phone for these things.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-09-2023, 09:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When I am on my phone? Very. I suck at using my phone for these things.

Did it make it to the SC? 
I can't find anywhere that the Biden's Billionaire tax has a ruling or is on it's way to the SC?

[NATI BENGALS]

Interestingly enough. The next time my billionaire friend takes me on a family vacation will be the first.

I’m sure most people have billionaire friends who just give them stuff. One of these days I’ll find mine.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-09-2023, 10:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Did it make it to the SC? 
I can't find anywhere that the Biden's Billionaire tax has a ruling or is on it's way to the SC?

What about unlimited campaign contributions? Would that help out a super wealthy?

[NATI BENGALS]

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855

It was shady back then. Even more shady now.

I'm pretty much talking out my ass. Because I have a hard time comprehending legal speak. We have English then for some reason really confusing horseshit English that is written different. But from my understanding Thomas was on the wrong side of the vote when it came to the whole Citizens United thing and he helped open the floodgates to essentially sell our democracy.

I'd love to be wrong.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-10-2023, 01:04 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: https://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/scalia-thomas-and-citizens-united-047855

It was shady back then. Even more shady now.

I'm pretty much talking out my ass. Because I have a hard time comprehending legal speak. We have English then for some reason really confusing horseshit English that is written different. But from my understanding Thomas was on the wrong side of the vote when it came to the whole Citizens United thing and he helped open the floodgates to essentially sell our democracy.

I'd love to be wrong.

very end of the article:

“I am a big critic of the Citizens United case. I would love to see it reversed,” said Hasen. “But this approach seems both unlikely to yield the desired result of seeing the case overturned and appears to be an unwarranted attack on the ethics of the Justices.”

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-10-2023, 02:13 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: very end of the article:

“I am a big critic of the Citizens United case. I would love to see it reversed,” said Hasen. “But this approach seems both unlikely to yield the desired result of seeing the case overturned and appears to be an unwarranted attack on the ethics of the Justices.”

And your own thoughts now? Over a decade later with current events and the same character in the story?

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2023, 10:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Did it make it to the SC? 
I can't find anywhere that the Biden's Billionaire tax has a ruling or is on it's way to the SC?

I was never speaking about one specific case; that was another poster.

Now, the social media post you are trying to bring up with me that I have no responsibility for mentions two things: lobbying against tax hikes and an amicus brief that was written by AEI to Justice Thomas for a case that was before him. You should look more carefully.

As for my post, AEI has a high level of activity when it comes to SCOTUS cases. I couldn't count the number of briefs they have submitted to the court.

[Dill]

(04-09-2023, 05:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I already blew up that no laws/rules were broken by the Thomas/Crow friendship. 

So now  now someone goes all James Nares and go after COI in SC cases but still can't provide proof? if it's so easy to prove then there would be something there already (you don't think the media leftists wouldn't have found it by now?) Besides, i already proved he's incorrect on one of his general broad brush stroke claims by donating only to Reps. 

Then, you got 2 guys who seems intent on making HC out to be some Nazi Dictatorship lover just because out of the thousands of things he owns and displays, displaying a few Hitler things in his own personal home obviously makes any Right-Winger troubling? Which i pointed out is nothing more than a few pieces in a vast collection (which some of you understand that he collects more than just that).

So pointing out that HC's collection involves more than just "Hitler" regalia and you calling it a strawman arguement cancels his entire collection? 

And yes, someone did post that he shouldn't have those statues in his Dictator Garden in his own personal back yard. 

You earn the "strawman" comments by refuting arguments that were never made. 

As you are doing now, when you say that I identified strawman features of your argument to cancel Crow's collection. I don't know and am not speaking for "someone." I, Pally, and Sunset made pretty clear we don't have a problem with a museum display of political ideologies, and you addressed us collectively in a single post.  You made our arguments strawmen by ignoring our qualification--imputing to us a claim we had not made and then "refuting" that because it's easier and keeps the corruption issue obscured.

You also seem to miss the point about the relation between a Supreme Court Justice and a billionaire who gives him vacations worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Claiming that the billionaire is free to give gifts to whom he chooses and Thomas is free to make friends with whom he will, so there is only wrongdoing if someone can prove that a $500,000 dollar gift one summer influenced a judgment which favored the billionaire a year or two later misses the problem entirely.

Because corruption is so damaging to democracy, and because it is so hard to prove, rules and ethical norms requiring the reporting of "gifts" are  to prevent even the perception as well as the possibility of such corruption. 


Someone appointed to know and uphold the law, Thomas, has failed to hold himself to the required ethical standard, and it is no defense of his behavior that no one has "proved" his billionaire benefactor directly benefited--though it would not be hard to prove the billionaires as a class have benefitted from Thomas' votes on cases involving campaign finance. And Crow in particular supports politicians who block ethics reform and stronger laws against corruption. Thomas can be counted on to keep the dark money flowing without oversight, as he lives a billionaire lifestyle off the books.

Related question: why do you suppose Thomas, the guy who jets and yachts around Pacific islands on someone else's dime, says he feels "more comfortable in a Walmart parking lot than on a beach"? The answer to the question will help you understand how the billionaires of this country manipulate middle and lower classes into to protecting billionaires' power at the expense of the rest of us.

[Dill]

(04-10-2023, 12:58 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Interestingly enough. The next time my billionaire friend takes me on a family vacation will be the first.

I’m sure most people have billionaire friends who just give them stuff. One of these days I’ll find mine.

Get yourself elected to Congress or appointed to the Supreme Court.

They'll find YOU quickly enough.

Just to be friends, of course.

This is a free country and the govt. cannot tell you whom you can be friends with.

It's part of your "freedom."

[*pally*]

It is interesting to note that this 25-year-old best-friend relationship did not start until AFTER Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court.

[kalibengal]

(04-06-2023, 09:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: Thomas may be the most compromised justice in my lifetime.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow


Long read so I won't copy and paste.

But I guess the law doesn't matter to him unless it benefits him.

They tried to warn us...

the title sounds like something on Netflix 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-10-2023, 07:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was never speaking about one specific case; that was another poster.

Now, the social media post you are trying to bring up with me that I have no responsibility for mentions two things: lobbying against tax hikes and an amicus brief that was written by AEI to Justice Thomas for a case that was before him. You should look more carefully.

As for my post, AEI has a high level of activity when it comes to SCOTUS cases. I couldn't count the number of briefs they have submitted to the court.

Isn't this report reviewed by all of the Justices, and not just Thomas?

So if there is misleading/bad/biased info in one of them, then the other Justices can feel free to point that out right? 

Has that happened already? I haven't heard much or read much about that?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-10-2023, 12:28 PM)Dill Wrote: You earn the "strawman" comments by refuting arguments that were never made. 

As you are doing now, when you say that I identified strawman features of your argument to cancel Crow's collection. I don't know and am not speaking for "someone." I, Pally, and Sunset made pretty clear we don't have a problem with a museum display of political ideologies, and you addressed us collectively in a single post.  You made our arguments strawmen by ignoring our qualification--imputing to us a claim we had not made and then "refuting" that because it's easier and keeps the corruption issue obscured.

You also seem to miss the point about the relation between a Supreme Court Justice and a billionaire who gives him vacations worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Claiming that the billionaire is free to give gifts to whom he chooses and Thomas is free to make friends with whom he will, so there is only wrongdoing if someone can prove that a $500,000 dollar gift one summer influenced a judgment which favored the billionaire a year or two later misses the problem entirely.

Because corruption is so damaging to democracy, and because it is so hard to prove, rules and ethical norms requiring the reporting of "gifts" are  to prevent even the perception as well as the possibility of such corruption. 


Someone appointed to know and uphold the law, Thomas, has failed to hold himself to the required ethical standard, and it is no defense of his behavior that no one has "proved" his billionaire benefactor directly benefited--though it would not be hard to prove the billionaires as a class have benefitted from Thomas' votes on cases involving campaign finance. And Crow in particular supports politicians who block ethics reform and stronger laws against corruption. Thomas can be counted on to keep the dark money flowing without oversight, as he lives a billionaire lifestyle off the books.

Related question: why do you suppose Thomas, the guy who jets and yachts around Pacific islands on someone else's dime, says he feels "more comfortable in a Walmart parking lot than on a beach"? The answer to the question will help you understand how the billionaires of this country manipulate middle and lower classes into to protecting billionaires' power at the expense of the rest of us.

Oh i know all of this, talk to the OP that posted a report about only the bad statues and nothing else about this guys collection, then Pally posted a Hitler document as well, out of the thousands that he could have posted. To me it appeared he was trying to further the Nazi angle.

Not sure why you are taking offense, you and one other poster said if it's part of a much larger collection then no problems, which i pointed that very thing out.

Media these days is get a couple facts, omit ones that don't support your bias and fill in the gaps with speculation. Print.

So far there doesn't seem to be much if any factual evidence that Thomas didn't follow the rules as they were. There's way too much speculation going on. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-13-2023, 02:03 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Isn't this report reviewed by all of the Justices, and not just Thomas?

So if there is misleading/bad/biased info in one of them, then the other Justices can feel free to point that out right? 

Has that happened already? I haven't heard much or read much about that?

We actually don't know, because the conversations over these cases between the justices is not in the public. I will let you in on a secret, though, the information in briefs is always biased.