Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[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.