Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by I Rod Kaufman

Jim, it's more than just a "bad look". When Thomas, for example, provides a self-made video of himself extolling his persona as "normal stock" in that he prefers RVing in Walmart parking lots to trips to the ocean or mountains, that's a deliberate misrepresentation of himself to the public. And, while as far as we know, he hasn't accepted any cash donations, his previously undeclared yachting trips and private jet excursions provided to him by Harlan Crow, each worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, can can reasonably be construed as another form of payment. Add to that the real estate deals and the tuition coverage of his relative, also provided by Harlan, then you begin to see the pattern of an established relationship, reportedly occurring during Thomas tenure on the court and not before it. Additionally, Thomas is the only SCOTUS justice I'm aware of that publicly called for conservative cases to be brought before himself and the court so he could hear them. Finally, in the Trump records appeal, he failed to recuse himself while his wife(aka his "friend" had persistently advocated for overturning a free and fair election, and he was only dissenting judge in that particular case.  
PS: I didn't add any emoticons so I don't know why it's there. Hope you had a nice filght.

Hi Rod, flight was fine, thanks!   Emoticon is caused by a ; symbol followed by another one, probably a ).  You can get rid of it by putting an otherwise useless space in between the symbols.    Big political news day, but not much input from me, I hate typing on my phone….  Have a great weekend.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Without any knowledge of what evidence will be presented to a jury, or even what each of the charges are, these morons do further damage to our system by saying this is a corrupt witch-hunt targeting innocent Satin. Even if Satin were innocent, I hope they all rot for this for casting so much doubt on our judicial system. Prosecutors do get it wrong at times, and people get acquitted in this country by jury's. There is little doubt Satin will not be so fortunate, but he will get a fair trial.

We’ll put.   My biggest fear as always is that this energizes Trump and base and makes his election more likely.   Satin is quite slippery.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Vacay? 

Visiting son in WA, mini 3 day weekend vacay!

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Firstly, the judiciary is the focus here.  In both countries the justices are hardly in 'poverty' - they make a good 6-figure  wage. Supreme Court judges are appointed in both countries so they don't need campaign donations like politicians do. That's why I'm singling out judges.  My concern is that folks are giving judges gifts of great value, trips etc.  This should never be allowed.  The implied mutual backscratching is obvious..  And seeing who the donors are makes it even more obvious.

Dave

  

I understand your point Dave, but it is totally obvious in this instance that there is no actual backscratching.      

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Sometimes violence is an appropriate response.  Do you get it?  

And I'll ask again, do you really want to continue down this road?  IMO, you're not helping yourself.  

In this context (an internet forum), I disagree completely.   Violence is never an appropriate response.   That said, I don't think you have ever committed violence as the result of an Astromart interaction.   You just threaten violence from time to time, and we all draw our own conclusions.   

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Yeah, and Clarence Thomas is just your basic "normal stock" Walmart RVer, too...

Hi Rod:

I'm not sure why this is such a big point in your view.   I myself enjoy tent camping and backpacking a lot.   So does my wife.   On the other hand, if we were fortunate enough to have a billionaire friend who wanted to host us in super-luxury at his or her compound, we would love that too!  A lot!  The RV statement and also hanging with billionaires do not seem to be inconsistent statements/activities to me.  Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The misrepresentation on his part is a big point. It speaks to his integrity or, rather, his lack of it. 

Misrepresentation?   Were RV/luxury yacht preferences part of his confirmation hearing?  I am totally not following you.   Maybe he honestly is more of an RV Walmart guy than a jet setter.   That does not mean that he has to say "no" to a jet set vacation just to preserve his Walmart credentials!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Enjoy the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5VIDyAy4Nw

Where do you find these boobs publishing fake news blogs?   

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Huh? Fake news? You want that, just tune into Faux...

Specifically, "fake" as in the world-globe graphic scrolling behind the blogger.  He looks like he is going for "Walter Cronkite," circa 1965, but with color!   I am sure that only 1/2 of the news he blogs is actually fake.   This story for example, he seems to think Margie was snubbed.   There are a lot of other explanations - for all the blogger knows, Trump and Margie had drinks and intimate conversation after the meetings.   

Anyway, you seem to have a whole stable of these small-potatoes leftie bloggers at your disposal.   Is there a subscription plan?   Jim

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

James, how can you definitively say this?   You are not party to private conversations that occurred between Thomas and his benefactor. They could set up anything at all and no one would ever know.

Of course I do not know what went on between them either.  But what IS real  is the appearance, the potential for the desires of the donor to show up in Thomas' voting record.   

Funny how we never hear Thomas say, "Oh, my good friend X, who buys me expensive vacations, is really concerned about this issue so I'd better recuse myself from this vote.  For appearances sake."   

Appearances are all we have.  Better to have rules in place to remove this sort of doubt in the integrity of the judiciary. No gifts, no 'donations' to judges. 

Dave

In this case Dave, I am very confident that there was no actual backscratching.  For starters, even according to the left leaning US press, the rich guy and his businesses have never had a case in front of the Supreme Court.   Also, Thomas's voting record is 100% conservative jurisprudence.  He never varies.  He is predictable.  Thomas was 100% conservative jurisprudence before he met his wealthy friend, and 100% after.  No one can point to any opinion by Thomas that would conceivably be different if Thomas was swayed by his friend.  Believe me, an army of Thomas haters are looking for that case.

All that said, you make a great point.   Lawyers are bound to avoid the appearance of impropriety.   This relationship has been sold to the public by Thomas's haters as improper.  So at this point, Thomas probably has to dial back the expensive vacations a bit.  I do not think the relationship was/is improper in actuality, but the appearance now matters.   Jim

p.s.  If the rules you want are implemented, many would want an exception for gifts of all expense paid trips to speak to the ABA at luxury conferences, or at prestigious law schools?   I would not want that exception.  Those institutions are almost exclusively left leaning and Justices like RBG received many dozens of luxury trips with speaking engagements.   (I have no problem with her left advocacy by the way).  Lots of fancy dinners with the deans and lefty donors afterward too.   If this sort of thing is banned at some point, I want it banned for private and "public" benefactors.  Jim