Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"No mention of Ginni, of course," the Post quoted Leo instructing Conway."
Does that not tell you something?
PS: I don't know the particulars of the Sotomayor story other than she did disclose it in her financial statement, unlike Clarence in his conflicts, but the non-recusal is troubling although the particulars of that case are unknown to me at this time. In either case, the overall failure here is a lack of application of ethics by SCOTUS, particularly by the chief justice. Finally, Leonard Leo has directly shaped the conservative court and his influence can not be denied.

Originally Posted by James Brown

The Thomas's are conservatives.  Sotomayor is a liberal.   They have business and social dealings with their like-minded friends and business partners.  Where is the evidence of specific unethical behavior?  Does the fact that Thomas has taken a conservative position in 100% of the cases he hears, and he (gasp) has rich conservative friends automatically equal some sort of unethical behavior?  I don't see it.  It is not like he has denied certiorari in cases opposed by his rich friend.  At least not that I have heard of.    

Does the fact that a rich publishing company has paid Sotomayor millions for her literary works, while she heard petitions for cert opposed by this same publisher automatically equal unethical behavior?   This is a closer call, but it is not open and shut.  Maybe Sotomayor voted to grant cert?   I don't know.   

I think all of the justices are basically ethical people.  I think the shameless targeting of Thomas just because he is a conservative, a black conservative, is married to a conservative, and hangs out with rich conservatives is unethical journalism.   It is not like the Clintons, Obamas, AOCs, RBGs and the like never party with the rich Hollywood jet set crowd.  Do you think they pay their own way?  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, there's no 3 continuums that breaks down into 3 choices, just because YOU in all your arrogance and smugness have decided that YOU have listed the ONLY 3 possibilities that can exist.  

Gee, how typical of You.  

Those of course are not the only 3 choices.  I find your listing above to be as moronic a statement as I've seen lately. 

Anyone who has a thinking brain can come up with a myriad of other scenarios such as this accurate one that I'm positing. 

The justice dep't has made no delineation between those who were violent offenders and those who were simply going to the Capitol to protest, and didn't commit one act of violence.  

There are myriads who are still in jail for over 2 years now without a trial and many have done nothing more than get caught up in the situation where they were actually let into the Capitol that day as there are videos that show them being let into the Capitol, by police either earlier in the day, or at another entrance that wasn't closed off.  

So you can try to play your little game of pigeonholing me into choosing one of the 3 scenarios above that you claim are the ONLY choices and therefore my intimation about the Jan 6 defendant can ONLY fit under the auspices of the 3 situations that you put forth above.

It isn't, but don't let that stop You from your usual twisting of the facts.   

Another ridiculous assertion by you

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, there's no 3 continuums that breaks down into 3 choices, just because YOU in all your arrogance and smugness have decided that YOU have listed the ONLY 3 possibilities that can exist.  

Gee, how typical of You.  

Those of course are not the only 3 choices.  I find your listing above to be as moronic a statement as I've seen lately. 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Hmm, that's diametrically opposed to the the reporting I've been hearing and reading, specific to Thomas. The GOP right wing billionaire influencers like Crow and Leo haven't been funding Thomas, his wife and family, including Thomas's mother and the kid that he was the legal guardian of, just because they're nice guys. And it's difficult to fathom that failure to disclose the financial benefits, exclusive vacations on private jets and yachts to exotic locations, and the like somehow passes your sniff test...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

So then You know about the people who are still in jail, some after 2 years in jail, and facing various charges do you?

You seem to be the one defending the gov't so why don't you go ahead and inform us all of how often "trespassing" charges are brought against those who happened to be in the Capitol at the time, minded their business, and yet had swat teams of FBI show up at their homes and arrest them weeks or months later.

Many have been brought into DC and have been threatened that they either take a plea or risk being charged with some greater 'crime'.  So then the thug tactics by DC prosecutors are just dandy with you?

There have been over 1000 arrests.   All those people engaged in violence did they?  You must surely know since you are so confident that the DOJ is operating reasonably right?  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

This is called boycotting and not purchasing an item when a seller of the particular item, Anheuser-Busch expresses disdain and dislike for the very person who is purchasing the item, in other words their own customers.  I have no problem with boycotting a product line from a corporation when it is the corporation who expresses dislike of their very consumers.   

Let me explain the difference for the neophyte who is confused and lost as you obviously are.

Cancel culture is when a large group of individuals, politicians, news outlets etc... Use Their power and influence in an attempt to destroy the life of a single individual, and attempt to destroy his/her very life and existence, attempting to get this person shunned from society. 

This almost always occurs on the left, and when these ravenous people get their wish and do achieve their goals, it usually is never enough for these vile people, as they then usually engage in trying to the destroy the life of said individual and want to grind this person into the ground, which is always the goal of leftists.   

I don't condone that.  There is a gigantic difference between boycotting a large gigantic corporation and their products vs. a gigantic group of people in the millions attempting to destroy the life of a single person to the point where that person becomes a pariah and the scarlet letter wearer.

If you can't distinguish the difference between the 2 situations then that is probably why you now exhibit the traits of a radical leftist, since you're not able to delineate between the 2 instances.    LOL 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim,
Some of what you state is correct with regards to what Thomas had to disclose except he reportedly did not disclose all that of what he should have. Hence, he had to go back and amend disclosures filed years ago. Moreover, he should have known better given his years on the bench. 
Leonard Leo has directly shaped the conservative bloc in SCOTUS. His influence is undeniable. It may not be seen directly in a specific case before the court that he himself is advancing on his behalf but it is the overall structure of the conservative bloc that bears his ideology in the cases that are heard.
With regard to Thomas, and as I've noted in past threads, he's essentially a known quantity that we're seeing, a pattern of ultraconservative viewpoints being advanced by him, to the extent that he has been an outlier to the opinions and the decisions of the court. For example, "Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent in the Supreme Court's January order rejecting Trump's bid to withhold documents from the January 6 panel".  "In January, the Supreme Court rejected former President Donald Trump's bid to block the release of some presidential records to the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot."
"Only one of the nine justices dissented: Clarence Thomas."
"At the time, Thomas provided no explanation for why he would have approved Trump's request"
"But Thomas' objection came under scrutiny on Thursday after The Washington Post released a bombshell report that the justice's wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, sent text messages to Mark Meadows, then-the White House chief of staff, urging him to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election results after Trump's loss to Joe Biden."
https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-only-justice-dissent-in-trump-january-6-bid-2022-3
Additionally, "Trump lawyers saw Justice Thomas as ‘only chance’ to stop 2020 election certification"
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/02/trump-lawyers-saw-justice-thomas-as-only-chance-to-stop-2020-election-certification-00064592
Basically, as I've noted before, Thomas doesn't even have to show up to vote on a decision, it's already stamped on his forehead, or he can email, text or call it in or just use the same reply he issued from one of his previous "opinions" since they're all the same ultra-conservative outlier positions, no matter what...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I was remiss in adding that only Clarence Thomas has advocated bringing cases to him so they can be heard except when it pertains to his situation:
"He then expressly named the cases that guaranteed the rights to contraception, same-sex relations, and marriage equality — Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), respectively — as being appropriate for the court to “reconsider” given they relied on similar reasoning."
“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.
"(Observers noted that Thomas, a Black man who is married to a white woman, did not say the court should reconsider Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that also relied on the 14th Amendment to guarantee interracial marriage rights.)"
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/supreme-court-abortion-same-sex-marriage-contraception
and:
" Justice Clarence Thomas invites new legal challenges to contraception and same-sex marriage rights"
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/roe-wade-clarence-thomas-contraception-same-sex-marriage/
WTF?! What kind of a judge advocates for cases to be brought before him when it's obvious he's already made up his mind before hearing them?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I was remiss in adding that only Clarence Thomas has advocated bringing cases to him so they can be heard except when it pertains to his situation:
"He then expressly named the cases that guaranteed the rights to contraception, same-sex relations, and marriage equality — Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), respectively — as being appropriate for the court to “reconsider” given they relied on similar reasoning."
“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.
"(Observers noted that Thomas, a Black man who is married to a white woman, did not say the court should reconsider Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that also relied on the 14th Amendment to guarantee interracial marriage rights.)"
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/supreme-court-abortion-same-sex-marriage-contraception
and:
" Justice Clarence Thomas invites new legal challenges to contraception and same-sex marriage rights"
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/roe-wade-clarence-thomas-contraception-same-sex-marriage/
WTF?! What kind of a judge advocates for cases to be brought before him when it's obvious he's already made up his mind before hearing them?