Posts: 16,197
Threads: 413
Reputation:
59959
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
Right now, SCOTUS is at a very low approval rating and the public has very low trust in the court. If I were a Senator with a D next to my name, I would be holding hearings on this from now until election day. This would be the main topic. The integrity of the courts, judicial partisanship, all of it. Make it clear to the American public that the group intended to provide everyone with a fair shake and follow the law is so easily swayed and that this is something one party is defending. Whether or not any laws or policies were violated, the appearance is enough to cause an issue and it should be discussed.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 38,768
Threads: 1,710
Reputation:
55651
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
Since the old Kavanaugh thread is locked let's put this here.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/28/brett-kavanaugh-investigation-omissions-senate-sexual-assault-claims
Quote:Revealed: Senate investigation into Brett Kavanaugh assault claims contained serious omissions
The 2018 investigation into the then supreme court nominee claimed there was ‘no evidence’ behind claims of sexual assault
Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
@skirchy
Fri 28 Apr 2023 03.00 EDT
- [/url]
- [url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Revealed%3A+Senate+investigation+into+Brett+Kavanaugh+assault+claims+contained+serious+omissions&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2023%2Fapr%2F28%2Fbrett-kavanaugh-investigation-omissions-senate-sexual-assault-claims%3FCMP%3Dshare_btn_tw]
A 2018 Senate investigation that found there was “no evidence” to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault against the US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh contained serious omissions, according to new information obtained by the Guardian.
The 28-page report was released by the Republican senator Chuck Grassley, the then chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. It prominently included an unfounded and unverified claim that one of Kavanaugh’s accusers – a fellow Yale graduate named Deborah Ramirez – was “likely” mistaken when she alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a dormitory party because another Yale student was allegedly known for such acts.
The suggestion that Kavanaugh was the victim of mistaken identity was sent to the judiciary committee by a Colorado-based attorney named Joseph C Smith Jr, according to a non-redacted copy of a 2018 email obtained by the Guardian. Smith was a friend and former colleague of the judiciary committee’s then lead counsel, Mike Davis.
Smith was also a member of the Federalist Society, which strongly supported Kavanaugh’s supreme court nomination, and appears to have a professional relationship with the Federalist Society’s co-founder, Leonard Leo, whom he thanked in the acknowledgments of his book Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State.
Smith wrote to Davis in the 29 September 2018 email that he was in a class behind Kavanaugh and Ramirez (who graduated in the class of 1987) and believed Ramirez was likely mistaken in identifying Kavanaugh.
Instead, Smith said it was a fellow classmate named Jack Maxey, who was a member of Kavanaugh’s fraternity, who allegedly had a “reputation” for exposing himself, and had once done so at a party. To back his claim, Smith also attached a photograph of Maxey exposing himself in his fraternity’s 1988 yearbook picture.
The allegation that Ramirez was likely mistaken was included in the Senate committee’s final report even though Maxey – who was described but not named – was not attending Yale at the time of the alleged incident.
In an interview with the Guardian, Maxey confirmed that he was still a senior in high school at the time of the alleged incident, and said he had never been contacted by any of the Republican staffers who were conducting the investigation.
“I was not at Yale,” he said. “I was a senior in high school at the time. I was not in New Haven.” He added: “These people can say what they want, and there are no consequences, ever.”
The revelation raises new questions about apparent efforts to downplay and discredit accusations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh and exclude evidence that supported an alleged victim’s claims.
A new documentary – an early version of which premiered at Sundance in January, but is being updated before its release – contains a never-before-heard recording of another Yale graduate, Max Stier, describing a separate alleged incident in which he said he witnessed Kavanaugh expose himself at a party at Yale.
It has previously been reported that Stier wanted to tell the FBI anonymously during the confirmation process that he had allegedly witnessed
Kavanaugh’s friends push the future judge’s penis into the hand of a female classmate at a party. While Republicans on the Senate committee were reportedly made aware of his desire to submit information to the FBI, he was not interviewed by the committee’s Republican investigators.
The committee’s final report claimed there was “no verifiable evidence to support” Ramirez’s claim.
It is not clear how the film’s director, Doug Liman, obtained the recording, or whom Stier was speaking to when it was recorded.
Stier, the chief executive of a Washington nonprofit who formerly served in the Clinton administration, declined to comment to the Guardian.
He is married to Florence Pan, a prominent judge on the US court of appeals in Washington. Pan sits in the seat that was vacated by Ketanji Brown Jackson, the US supreme court justice, and is seen as a possible future candidate for the US high court.
Maxey adamantly denied any allegation that he exposed himself to Ramirez at any time. Asked if he had ever visited Yale at the time of the alleged incident, Maxey said he had visited his older brother, Christopher, who was an older student at Yale, on a limited number of occasions when he was a senior in high school, but that they had not attended any freshmen parties.
Maxey, a Republican activist, has gained prominence in conservative circles for his role in sharing a portable hard drive of data from Hunter Biden’s laptop with members of the media, including the Washington Post. When he was reached by the Guardian, Maxey said he was in Europe and claimed he had “just” given the hard drive to Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary.
Maxey has said he obtained the hard drive from Rudy Giuliani. He previously worked as a researcher for Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast but the two have since had a falling out.
While Maxey seemed in his interview with the Guardian to have been annoyed that Smith – whom he said he didn’t know or recall interacting with – named him in an accusatory email, he also separately defended Kavanaugh, who he said had behaved like a “choir boy” while attending Yale.
Smith’s email arrived in Davis’s inbox six days after the New Yorker first published details of Ramirez’s accusation. In the article, Ramirez described how Kavanaugh had allegedly exposed himself drunkenly at a dormitory party, thrusting his penis in her face in a way that caused her to touch it without her consent in order to push him away. Ramirez, who was raised as a devout Catholic, described feeling ashamed, humiliated and embarrassed after the alleged assault, and recalled how Kavanaugh had allegedly laughed as he pulled his pants up.
Kavanaugh has denied the incident took place.
Ramirez, through a spokesperson, declined to comment.
Smith did not respond to several requests for comment.
It is not clear whether Smith, a Denver-based partner at Bartlit Beck, knew or had a relationship with Kavanaugh while or after both attended Yale as undergraduate students, or what prompted him to send Davis the email, which was an apparent attempt to clear Kavanaugh of suspicion.
According to his online biography, Smith attended the University of Chicago’s law school after graduating from Yale and – like Kavanaugh – was part of the legal team that represented George W Bush in the 2000 presidential recount in Florida.
Redacted emails show that Smith also appears to have shared his accusation about Maxey with federal investigators. While the name of the accuser and the accused were redacted, records released by the FBI show that an individual made the exact same claim as Smith made to Davis to the FBI shortly after the email was sent to Davis. In it, the individual wrote: “I submitted this same information to a staff member of the Senate judiciary committee, Mike Davis, because I know him, and he suggested I also submit it to you.”
Davis declined to comment. The Republican staff on the Senate judiciary committee declined to respond to a request for comment.
The FBI was at the time involved in its own review of sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. The investigation, conducted under FBI director Christopher Wray, another Yale graduate, has widely been derided as a “sham” by Democrats led by the Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Senate judiciary committee.
Whitehouse’s office is expected to release a report into the FBI’s handling of the Kavanaugh investigation by the end of this year.
But Roberts see no reason to answer any questions about his court.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 13,301
Threads: 1,987
Reputation:
76928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(04-28-2023, 01:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Since the old Kavanaugh thread is locked let's put this here.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/28/brett-kavanaugh-investigation-omissions-senate-sexual-assault-claims
But Roberts see no reason to answer any questions about his court.
It is crazy how intertwined all these relationships are. All these prominent Republicans coming out of Yale...but somehow it is a bastion of liberalism.
Everything goes back to Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. We hear all day everyday stuff about 92-year-old George Soros. But Leo has his thumb and very deep pocketbook on every single aspect of the Republican Party and most especially the Judiciary. He provided the list of approved judges for Trump to use to make his nominations. ALL conservative members of SCOTUS are members and of course, the ones Trump nominated were better known for their loyalty to extreme conservative (Federalist Society) ideas rather than the Constitution. Every bad decision coming out of the courts has his fingerprints all over them.
He controls a slush fund of over a billion dollars with the goal to take over every aspect of American life and drive it with his brand of conservatism.
https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-teneo-videos-documents
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 13,301
Threads: 1,987
Reputation:
76928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 4,302
Threads: 7
Reputation:
15106
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood:
(04-28-2023, 08:12 PM)pally Wrote:
Questioning one leads to questioning all. Dude tried keeping everyone else's skeletons locked away and let someone catch wind of one of his.
The SCotUS is beyond compromised; it's flat out owned by private interests.
Posts: 16,197
Threads: 413
Reputation:
59959
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(04-28-2023, 08:12 PM)pally Wrote:
Not sure why they are saying this is "breaking" news. This is several months old at this point: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/31/jane-roberts-legal-recruiting-work-agencies-cases-supreme-court-00080515
Grifters gonna grift.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 13,301
Threads: 1,987
Reputation:
76928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
Everyone needs a friend like Harlan Crow. Today’s revelation is that Crow paid the private school tuition for Thomas’s grand nephew. The nephew was being raised by Thomas. Tuition for this private boarding school was $6000 per month. It was not disclosed nor is it permissible under any personal relationship rule. In fact this could be a “gift” that would require declaring on his taxes as well.
Thomas is so compromised he had to resign…but he is so arrogant that he thinks he is bigger than the court and won’t
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 13,301
Threads: 1,987
Reputation:
76928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
And the hits keep on coming
In Jan 2012 Leonard Leo. pocketbook of the Federalist Society, ordered KellyAnne Conway to bill a nonprofit group, he was associated with, tens of thousands of dollars and to give that money to none other than Ginni Thomas. The nonprofit group was Judicial Education Project which filed a brief in the case that essentially ended up gutting the Voting Rights Act. Ginni Thomas's name was not to appear on any of the paperwork
https://wapo.st/3LXYRHC
Quote:[color=var(--wpds-colors-gray40)]Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25K,” the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have “No mention of Ginni, of course.”[/color]
[color=var(--wpds-colors-gray40)]Conway’s firm, the Polling Company, sent the Judicial Education Project a $25,000 bill that day. Per Leo’s instructions, it listed the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting,” the documents show.[/color]
All in all about $100,000 was funneled through the JEP to Thomas
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 7,369
Threads: 264
Reputation:
30210
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
wow man
Posts: 38,768
Threads: 1,710
Reputation:
55651
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
Oh. 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court?CMP=share_btn_tw
Quote:Lawyers with supreme court business paid Clarence Thomas aide via Venmo
Payments to Rajan Vasisht, an aide from 2019-21, underscore ties between the justice and lawyers who argue cases in front of him
Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
@skirchy
Wed 12 Jul 2023 06.00 EDT
- [/url]
- [url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Lawyers+with+supreme+court+business+paid+Clarence+Thomas+aide+via+Venmo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2023%2Fjul%2F12%2Fclarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court%3FCMP%3Dshare_btn_tw]
Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.
The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.
Vasisht’s Venmo account – which was public prior to requesting comment for this article and is no longer – show that he received seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously served as Thomas legal clerks. The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment is listed as either “Christmas party”, “Thomas Christmas Party”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials.
However, it remains unclear what the funds were for.
The lawyers who made the Venmo transactions were: Patrick Strawbridge, a partner at Consovoy McCarthy who recently successfully argued that affirmative action violated the US constitution; Kate Todd, who served as White House deputy counsel under Donald Trump at the time of the payment and is now a managing party of Ellis George Cipollone’s law office; Elbert Lin, the former solicitor general of West Virginia who played a key role in a supreme court case that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; and Brian Schmalzbach, a partner at McGuire Woods who has argued multiple cases before the supreme court.
Other lawyers who made payments include Manuel Valle, a graduate of Hillsdale College and the University of Chicago Law School who clerked for
Thomas last year and is currently working as a managing associate at Sidley, and Liam Hardy, who was working at the Department of Justice’s office of legal counsel at the time the payment was made and now serves as an appeals court judge for the armed forces.
Will Consovoy, who died earlier this year, also made a payment. Consovoy clerked for Thomas during the 2008-09 term and was considered a rising star in conservative legal circles. After his death, the New York Times reported that Consovoy had come away from his time working for Thomas “with the conviction that the court was poised to tilt further to the right – and that constitutional rulings that had once been considered out of reach by conservatives, on issues like voting rights, abortion and affirmative action, would suddenly be within grasp”.
None of the lawyers who made payments responded to emailed questions from the Guardian.
According to his résumé, Vasisht’s duties included assisting the justice with the administrative functioning of his chambers, including personal correspondence and his personal and office schedule.
Vasisht did not respond to an emailed list of questions from the Guardian, including questions about who solicited the payments, how much individuals paid, and what the purpose of the payments was. The Guardian also asked questions about the nature of Thomas’s Christmas party, how many guests were invited and where the event took place.
Reached via WhatsApp and asked if he would make a statement, Vasisht replied: “No thank you, I do not want to be contacted.”
Legal experts said the payments to Vasisht raised red flags.
Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W Bush administration and has been a vocal critic of the role of dark money in politics, said it was “not appropriate” for former Thomas law clerks who were established in private practice to – in effect – send money to the supreme court via Venmo.
“There is no excuse for it. Thomas could invite them to his Christmas party and he could attend Christmas parties, as long as they are not discussing any cases. His Christmas party should not be paid for by lawyers,” Painter said. “A federal government employee collecting money from lawyers for any reason … I don’t see how that works.”
Painter said he would possibly make an exception if recent law clerks were paying their own way for a party. But almost all of the lawyers who made the payments are senior litigators at big law firms.
Kedric Payne, the general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, said that – based on available information – it was possible that the former clerks were paying their own party expenses, and not expenses for Thomas, which he believed was different than random lawyers in effect paying admission to an exclusive event to influence the judge.
He added: “But the point remains that the public is owed an explanation so they don’t have to speculate.”
Thomas has been embroiled in ethics scandals for weeks following bombshell revelations by ProPublica, the investigative outlet which published new revelations about how the billionaire conservative donor Harlan Crow has paid for lavish holidays for the justice, bought Thomas’s mother’s home, and paid for the judge’s great-nephew’s private school education. The stories have prompted an outcry on Capitol Hill, where Democrats have called for the passage of new ethics rules.
Thomas is known for having close relationships with his former clerks. A 2019 article in the Atlantic noted that the rightwing justice has a “vast network” of former clerks and mentees who are now serving as federal judges and served in senior positions throughout the Trump administration.
The large presence of former Thomas clerks, the Atlantic noted, meant that the “notoriously silent justice may end up with an outsize voice in the legal system for years to come”.
Thomas’s chamber did not respond to a request for comment
.
I'm not a SCJ but I've never made anyone pay to come to my Christmas party. 
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 11,105
Threads: 59
Reputation:
44060
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(04-27-2023, 11:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right now, SCOTUS is at a very low approval rating and the public has very low trust in the court. If I were a Senator with a D next to my name, I would be holding hearings on this from now until election day. This would be the main topic. The integrity of the courts, judicial partisanship, all of it. Make it clear to the American public that the group intended to provide everyone with a fair shake and follow the law is so easily swayed and that this is something one party is defending. Whether or not any laws or policies were violated, the appearance is enough to cause an issue and it should be discussed.
SCOTUS's approval ratings are a matter of perception, and it's largely due to the reversal of Roe, which you and I both agreed with from a logical standpoint. Undermining faith in a branch of government for doing its job is a far more egregious attack on our democratic system than the January 6th riot. And honestly anyone perpetuating it is just as bad as the people who participated in January 6th, from the point of degrading our Constitutional system.
Posts: 13,301
Threads: 1,987
Reputation:
76928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(07-12-2023, 08:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court?CMP=share_btn_tw
.
I'm not a SCJ but I've never made anyone pay to come to my Christmas party.
Isn't it amazing how many "friends" Clarence Thomas has that just seem to always pick up the tab for him for everything
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 5,239
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23505
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(07-12-2023, 08:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: SCOTUS's approval ratings are a matter of perception, and it's largely due to the reversal of Roe, which you and I both agreed with from a logical standpoint. Undermining faith in a branch of government for doing its job is a far more egregious attack on our democratic system than the January 6th riot. And honestly anyone perpetuating it is just as bad as the people who participated in January 6th, from the point of degrading our Constitutional system.
Phew, this seems like a tough stance to take. What constitutes undermining faith is a vague term to begin with, and to call it more egregious than rioting in the Capitol to overthrow an election? Imho, that is a stretch.
And it's not a given all branches of government deserve full faith from every non-subversive individual at all times. As a principle that seems like giving them carte blanche and shield them from all scrutiny, which does not seem quite right. It's also hardly a stance many people take on the other two branches, how often is faith in the POTUS undermined? Does anyone have faith in Congress? And as for the current SCOTUS, well all the stories about gifts and donations and so on are getting a bit much to just overlook. And at some point, assuming all alleged deeds were true, I could not fault anyone for losing faith in the institution and say so.
Posts: 16,197
Threads: 413
Reputation:
59959
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(07-12-2023, 08:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: SCOTUS's approval ratings are a matter of perception, and it's largely due to the reversal of Roe, which you and I both agreed with from a logical standpoint. Undermining faith in a branch of government for doing its job is a far more egregious attack on our democratic system than the January 6th riot. And honestly anyone perpetuating it is just as bad as the people who participated in January 6th, from the point of degrading our Constitutional system.
The justices are undermining faith in their branch, themselves. The intention of checks and balances and separation of powers is that there is oversight between the branches of each other. If there are red flags with regards to ethics and impartiality in the judiciary that is 100% the purview of Congress and it is their responsibility to look into that. Far from being an attack on our system it is upholding their constitutional responsibility. As the power of impeachment lies with Congress, it is their responsibility to enact this oversight.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 11,105
Threads: 59
Reputation:
44060
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(07-12-2023, 08:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: Phew, this seems like a tough stance to take. What constitutes undermining faith is a vague term to begin with, and to call it more egregious than rioting in the Capitol to overthrow an election? Imho, that is a stretch.
And it's not a given all branches of government deserve full faith from every non-subversive individual at all times. As a principle that seems like giving them carte blanche and shield them from all scrutiny, which does not seem quite right. It's also hardly a stance many people take on the other two branches, how often is faith in the POTUS undermined? Does anyone have faith in Congress? And as for the current SCOTUS, well all the stories about gifts and donations and so on are getting a bit much to just overlook. And at some point, assuming all alleged deeds were true, I could not fault anyone for losing faith in the institution and say so.
There's a huge difference between the public not having faith in an institution and major figures of two of the three branches of government labeling the third as illegitimate. Criticism is one thing, disagree with a particular decision all you want. But to publicly attack the integrity of the court is beyond the pale. Schumer even directly threatened justices by name in a press conference. So yes, while I don't, and never have, downplayed the events of January 6th, the constant, and public attacks on a bedrock branch of our government by the other two is just as bad, if not worse in regards to long term damage.
Did we not hear about how declaring our elections as illegitimate is a danger to our democracy? How can these attacks be construed differently?
(07-12-2023, 08:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The justices are undermining faith in their branch, themselves. The intention of checks and balances and separation of powers is that there is oversight between the branches of each other. If there are red flags with regards to ethics and impartiality in the judiciary that is 100% the purview of Congress and it is their responsibility to look into that. Far from being an attack on our system it is upholding their constitutional responsibility. As the power of impeachment lies with Congress, it is their responsibility to enact this oversight.
Similar to my answer to Hollo above, there is a massive difference between enacting oversight as a branch of the government, i.e. functioning as intended, and a prolonged, planned and deliberate smear campaign against the judicial branch. The thing is, you're a smart guy you know exactly why it's being done. It's both testing the waters and prepping the public to pack the court with liberal justices to "restore integrity" or whatever bullshit talking point will be used to justify such a naked power grab. It's an especially bad look, considering the court trended liberal for a very long time, with no such advocation for extreme action from the GOP. But the minute the court trended strongly conservative all of the sudden its alarm bells time and there's a need for dramatic action.
Both of you are intelligent and able to see beyond the present. I'd be utterly shocked if you didn't both see the final intent inherent in the current attacks on the SCOTUS.
Posts: 13,301
Threads: 1,987
Reputation:
76928
Joined: May 2015
Mood:
(07-13-2023, 12:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a huge difference between the public not having faith in an institution and major figures of two of the three branches of government labeling the third as illegitimate. Criticism is one thing, disagree with a particular decision all you want. But to publicly attack the integrity of the court is beyond the pale. Schumer even directly threatened justices by name in a press conference. So yes, while I don't, and never have, downplayed the events of January 6th, the constant, and public attacks on a bedrock branch of our government by the other two is just as bad, if not worse in regards to long term damage.
Did we not hear about how declaring our elections as illegitimate is a danger to our democracy? How can these attacks be construed differently?
Similar to my answer to Hollo above, there is a massive difference between enacting oversight as a branch of the government, i.e. functioning as intended, and a prolonged, planned and deliberate smear campaign against the judicial branch. The thing is, you're a smart guy you know exactly why it's being done. It's both testing the waters and prepping the public to pack the court with liberal justices to "restore integrity" or whatever bullshit talking point will be used to justify such a naked power grab. It's an especially bad look, considering the court trended liberal for a very long time, with no such advocation for extreme action from the GOP. But the minute the court trended strongly conservative all of the sudden its alarm bells time and there's a need for dramatic action.
Both of you are intelligent and able to see beyond the present. I'd be utterly shocked if you didn't both see the final intent inherent in the current attacks on the SCOTUS.
Seriously, it is beyond the pale to question the integrity of the court? A court with no apparent ethics rules? A court who has a Justice, barely qualified, that was slammed through less than 2 weeks before an election. A court who has 3 justices hand picked by a lobbying organization with questionable financing? A court that reverses a decision after saying in their confirmation hearings that was settled law. A court where lawyers arguing owe their positions to the wife of the Chief Justice. A court where a Justice refused to recuse himself on a case where his wife was closely involved. A court who has a Justice whose $500,000 in debt was magically paid off when he was nominated. A court with a Justice who apparently lets billionaires pay his way to the tune of millions of dollars.
Come on….this is a court screaming for scrutiny. They’ve ruined their own integrity by their own arrogance.
If John Roberts had a spine, he would demand Clarence Thomas resign but that won’t happen. So as long as they continue to have Justices with major ethical issues hanging over their heads, they will continue to fall in trust with the citizens
When you make more money in “gifts” futon your billionaire buddies than you do your job, citizens have the obligation to question not only his integrity but his decisions that always seem to benefit them and not us.
Fueled by the pursuit of greatness.
Posts: 11,105
Threads: 59
Reputation:
44060
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(07-13-2023, 12:58 AM)pally Wrote: Seriously, it is beyond the pale to question the integrity of the court?
Yes. All of its members were confirmed as every other member has been. If you can't question the integrity of a POTUS election without endangering our democracy then you can't do this without doing so either.
Quote:A court with no apparent ethics rules?
The court has ethics rules. Garbage leftist talking point.
Quote:A court who has a Justice, barely qualified, that was slammed through less than 2 weeks before an election.
Please explain why said justice is "barely qualified".
Quote:A court who has 3 justices hand picked by a lobbying organization with questionable financing?
Immaterial. Where all three justices confirmed in the same process as every other SCOTUS justice? You're doing a marvelous job of providing me with examples of what I'm talking about btw, so thank you for that.
Quote:A court that reverses a decision after saying in their confirmation hearings that was settled law.
Are you saying precedent should never be overturned? Please do make that argument for us.
Quote:A court where lawyers arguing owe their positions to the wife of the Chief Justice. A court where a Justice refused to recuse himself on a case where his wife was closely involved. A court who has a Justice whose $500,000 in debt was magically paid off when he was nominated. A court with a Justice who apparently lets billionaires pay his way to the tune of millions of dollars.
Good lord, someone overdosed on leftist talking points. I hope you posses the ideological equivalent of an epi pen.
Quote:Come on….this is a court screaming for scrutiny. They’ve ruined their own integrity by their own arrogance.
I'm sure this is the perception of hard left ideologues. Nothing you're saying surprises me at all, it's all in the Dem playbook for delegitimizing the SCOTUS. I do hope you're at least getting paid for carrying their water.
Quote:If John Roberts had a spine, he would demand Clarence Thomas resign but that won’t happen. So as long as they continue to have Justices with major ethical issues hanging over their heads, they will continue to fall in trust with the citizens
Sure, that's the issue. It's not that the Dems have been dying to pack the court since they lost control of it for the first time in decades. If what you say is true then let Congress act as is there remit under our system of governance. I know you prefer to try this case in the media, hence the current Dem strategy, because it's only a "threat to our democracy" if the Dems say it is.
Quote:When you make more money in “gifts” futon your billionaire buddies than you do your job, citizens have the obligation to question not only his integrity but his decisions that always seem to benefit them and not us.
Who is "them" and who is "us"? Because based on your post I in on way ever want to be associated in an "us" with you on this issue.
Posts: 10,415
Threads: 550
Reputation:
50411
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood:
Looks like liberal justices getting rich too by prodding staff to buy her books.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sotomayors-wealth-skyrocketed-since-joining-supreme-court-raising-ethics-concerns
But hey, she is a liberal so the spin is coming from the liberals in the forum.
The liberal way, personally attack anyone you disagree with and since more conservatives SC justices, do all you can to get them removed or discredited. Obama once said elections have consequences, Trump did more for the constitution by appointing 3 justices, all constitutional scholars. This is one of the many reason liberals hate President Donald J. Trump.
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
Posts: 38,768
Threads: 1,710
Reputation:
55651
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(07-13-2023, 11:58 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Looks like liberal justices getting rich too by prodding staff to buy her books.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sotomayors-wealth-skyrocketed-since-joining-supreme-court-raising-ethics-concerns
But hey, she is a liberal so the spin is coming from the liberals in the forum.
The liberal way, personally attack anyone you disagree with and since more conservatives SC justices, do all you can to get them removed or discredited. Obama once said elections have consequences, Trump did more for the constitution by appointing 3 justices, all constitutional scholars. This is one of the many reason liberals hate President Donald J. Trump.
At least she did something to earn the money and wasn't just gifted things by millionaires.
Quote:One reason for the sharp increase in Sotomayor's investments and overall wealth is the money she's made from writing books. On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that her staff has often "prodded" public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children's books — works that have made her at least $3.7 million since joining the Supreme Court and continue to rake in six-figure royalty payments annually.
According to the AP, Sotomayor's publisher, Penguin Random House, has played a role in organizing her talks, even pressing public institutions to commit to buying a certain number of copies or requesting attendees purchase books to obtain tickets.
Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from multiple cases before the Supreme Court involving Random House, despite earning significant money from her book deal with the publisher.
SOTOMAYOR DIDN’T RECUSE HERSELF FROM RANDOM HOUSE CASES AFTER GETTING $3 MILLION FOR HER MEMOIR
![[Image: sotomayor-book.jpg?ve=1&tl=1]](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/07/640/320/sotomayor-book.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor holds a copy of her book as she visited with students during a celebration to dedicate the new Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center in Denver, May 2, 2013. (RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
"Justice Sotomayor is a good person who appears to have made a mistake by having her staff sell her books, including what appears as pressure on schools and libraries to buy a minimum number of her books before her speaking engagements," Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, told Fox News Digital. "She acknowledges she made a mistake by failing to recuse from several cases involving her book publisher. The Supreme Court has adequate mechanisms in place to deal with these mistakes, and the Supreme Court has already taken corrective measures."
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch also didn't recuse himself from a case involving Random House, despite having his own lucrative book deal with the publisher.
Following the AP's report, the Supreme Court defended Sotomayor in a lengthy statement, insisting there was no illicit activity and denying attendees of events featuring Sotomayor were ever required to purchase her books.
"Judges, including justices, routinely travel and speak to university, college and law school audiences and affiliated individuals and entities. Judicial staff play an important role in assisting on issues of ethics, travel, and security," the statement read. "Chambers staff assist the justices in complying with judicial ethics guidance for such visits, including guidance relating to judges; publications. For example, judicial ethics guidance suggests that a judge may sign copies of his or her work, which may also be available for sale, but there should be no requirement or suggestion that attendees are required to purchase books in order to attend."
Sotomayor isn't alone in making good money from writing books. Multiple justices currently on the Supreme Court are earning high-dollar payments from book deals — Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for example, received a reported $2 million advance for a forthcoming book. Such activity is raising alarm bells among ethics experts who closely observe the high court.
Apples and oranges. Other than she should have recused herself.
Apparently she admits that, unlike Thomas for example.
But hey, you tired whataboutism. Good try?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 11,105
Threads: 59
Reputation:
44060
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(07-13-2023, 11:58 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Looks like liberal justices getting rich too by prodding staff to buy her books.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sotomayors-wealth-skyrocketed-since-joining-supreme-court-raising-ethics-concerns
But hey, she is a liberal so the spin is coming from the liberals in the forum.
The liberal way, personally attack anyone you disagree with and since more conservatives SC justices, do all you can to get them removed or discredited. Obama once said elections have consequences, Trump did more for the constitution by appointing 3 justices, all constitutional scholars. This is one of the many reason liberals hate President Donald J. Trump.
What rankles is the extreme hypocrisy by the left on this issue. January 6th, rightly condemned as an attack on our democracy. Questioning the integrity of our presidential election, right condemned ass an attack on our democracy. Schumer threatening justices by name? POTUS and numerous Dem members of Congress directly attacking the court's validity in the mainstream press? Nah, that's no problem.
What the Dems are doing in regard to SCOTUS is as bad, and IMO worse, as either of the other two examples. At least for the other two you could say they were fringe people, Trump not being your typical politician. In this case we have career politicians directly attempting to delegitimize one of the three branches of our Federal government. It's insidious, deliberate and nauseating.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
