Writes Jonathan Chait in "Even Clarence Thomas’s Law Clerks Can’t Defend His Misconduct/A truly pathetic letter vouches for the disgraced Justice’s character" (NY Magazine).
Chait is reacting to an open letter in which 112 ex-clerks of Justice Thomas assert that "His integrity is unimpeachable" and "unequivocally reject attacks on his integrity, his character, or his ethics."
Posts
95 comments:
Coleridge wrote that a conflict of interest is the pulley on which good character is hoist into public view.
Today to the NYT it's evidence of corruption.
Maybe the resolving clue is that the NYT is corrupt. I haven't seen any good character hoisting over there in a while.
Thomas’s compliance with ethics rules
What are those rules, Chait? Where are they written and can you show compliance to them?
I'm quite sure that if the clerks asserted the opposite, their letter would become deeply consequential.
"Even Clarence Thomas’s Law Clerks Can’t Defend His Misconduct..
Chait is reacting to an open letter in which 112 ex-clerks of Justice Thomas assert that "His integrity is unimpeachable" and "unequivocally reject attacks on his integrity, his character, or his ethics."
Sounds Like, Chait doesn't have a Really Good gasp on the concept of 'Defend'
Other than being black, And conservative... What, exactly WAS this "Misconduct"?
he had friends?
Apparently these former clerks, including John Eastman, don't know much about ethics either.
Wow. That letter really punched Jonathan Chait right in his vagina. Such a slight is unforgivable. He'd better find each and every one of them and demand satisfaction lest we regard him a coward for not defending his vagina's honor.
Jonathan, the law clerks are sorry to have offended you so, milady.
The high-tech lynching continues.
Chait complains that they didn't catalog the accusations and try to refute them one by one, but that wasn't the task they took on. They were character witnesses and they talked about his character as they knew it. That's what character witnesses do. Are all 112 of them liars? Seems unlikely.
Chait sounds like he's an emotional wreck.
So if they vouch for his character, that means he's unethical. If they don't vouch for his character, that means he's unethical. I think I got it now.
But the standard used for Dem targeted guys is “Guilty until proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Sounds easy enough.
And how does one prove the Russians and the Chinese do not control the accused? The only known way is by changing their name to Biden, Obama, or Clinton. Kennedy is no longer recognized as an innocent family.
Now apply the same back to Chait and his entire career and capability to be read or believed falls apart.
The idea that 112 individuals can work for someone intimately and see their decision-making process and say "This is not a person who is bought or influenced by such things"....
And that their character testimony is meaningless...
Could only be said by someone who decided guilt before analysis of facts.
Well, it is Jonathan Chait whining, so it must be partisan and mostly untrue.
Has Chait ever spent any time with Thomas at all - any substantive time in close proximity on a daily basis? The clerks all have. But Chait reduces the clerk's reports of their experience to assertions to arising only form the conflicts posed by their "benefit from Thomas's prestige and influence." What about their observation of the man? (And anyway, doesn't a SCOTUS clerk benefit from the prestige of the SCOTUS itself, not just the judge for whom they clerked?)
Chait is showing his advanced stage of pride. His side must "win", and he doesn't care how shoddily he weights the evidence, how unfairly he sorts through the facts - he must win.
To the contrary, my experience in the working world tells me that the very best judges of boss are the people he supervises.
"[...] the disgraced [Justice] [...]" he claimed, without evidence.
Does Chait mistakenly believe that he could find 112 people to vouch for his integrity? Not unless we redefine the word “integrity.”
Progs can read minds. I have also learned the trick. It's easy. Watch.
Chait's motivations here are racist. There is no other possible explanation for taking the position he has taken. He's a racist and so is everyone who shares his views.
There you go. Works every time. Anyone can do it.
Does Chait mistakenly believe that he could find 112 people to vouch for his integrity? Not unless we redefine the word “integrity.”
"Democrats Accuse Black Man Of Going On Vacation"
Babylon Bee
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Apparently these former clerks, including John Eastman, don't know much about ethics either.
Field Marshall Freder is very good at criticizing people whose boots he would not be worthy to lick. The left's war on Thomas is another example from Democrats' days as KKK. "Uppity blacks" will be hanged.
A different TDS; Thomas Derangement Syndrome.
My ethical disclosure. Ginni Lamp Thomas was my law school classmate, but consider the following.
The so-called investigative journalism of Pro Publica is misleading, inaccurate, and full of innuendo. It is a continuation of the high-tech lynching of a great jurist simply because he is Black and conservative. He wouldn’t withdraw in the face of Anita Hill’s obvious lies. And for the Democrats, that was unforgivable. The Left doesn’t like his decisions so they attack him by any means necessary. This is consistent with the Left’s attempts to destroy the Supreme Court as an institution respected by all Americans. In the words of Sen. Charles Schumer, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” That sure sounds like an actionable threat of physical violence that the Department of Justice should investigate.
A critical examination of the Pro Publica report presents two questions: (1). Did any of the people who extended hospitality to Justice Thomas have any cases pending before the Supreme Court? (2). Were any ethics rules violated? The answer to both questions is a resounding “no.” Hence, there is no controversy here.
Justice Thomas was relying upon the well-established reporting exemption for personal hospitality. It makes no difference if his friends are wealthy. In America, we have bright-line rules. If the speed limit is 75 and you are driving 70, then you don’t get a speeding ticket; regardless of race or station in life.
Has Jonathan Chait bothered to track down the former clerks who didn't sign the letter and ask what they think? Thomas is just about to start his 33rd year on the court, and I believe every justice has four clerks per year, and that they do not stay for more than one year. That adds up to 128 clerks who have served a full year with him. Of the sixteen who did not sign the letter, I imagine something between 2 and 6 are dead: the earliest ones would be in their 50s, and even today people sometimes die young or relatively young. Some may be unavailable for other reasons: cloistered nuns, disgruntled hermits, skid row bums (high-flyers have been known to crash spectacularly). What about the dozen or so who are alive and well and did not sign the letter? What do they think? Surely Jonathan Chait is not the kind of lazy jerk who wouldn't bother to find out.
I'm curious. What rule did Thomas allegedly violate? If he violated a rule, somebody should enforce the rule. Chait's quarrel should be with the rule enforcers, if he claims a rule was violated.
And while Chait is at it, he should advocate evenhanded enforcement of all the rules, even for judges he likes.
I met Justice Thomas one time. He was in Omaha for a lecture and book signing. I was in the line waiting to talk to him and get him to sign the book and I noticed he was really sweating. The hotel staff brought him a towel and some water. He thanked the staff in a very kind way. I'm sure they were thrilled that he was so nice to them.
I would like to see a collection of strippers, hookers and drug dealers sign a petition attesting to Hunter's integrity and sensitivity and what a pleasure it was to work with him. You can tell quite a lot about a man by the way he treats his hookers.
I’ll just turn dishonest Jonathan’s phrase around and say that nothing that ProPublica published in their hit pieces on Thomas reveals any misconduct or damages his character in the slightest. None of the wealthy friends he hung out with had any business before the Supreme Court. Having wealthy politically engaged friends is not a crime. If it were the whole incestuous lot in DC-NY news and politics cesspool would be felons.
Who is this guy Chait to judge? A Lilliputian. The left’s attacks on Judge Thomas are as transparent as they come. Trying to make something out of nothing.
Yer damned right, Levi.
To think that Thomas would somehow be in the "liberal" block of justices, but for his "corruption" ignores everything we know about him.
The problem the left has is that the "liberal" justices are rather generic in their constitutional approaches. There's no diversity of thought there. The "conservative" justices are much more varied in their views and approaches. True diversity. Thomas is unique even among his "conservative" peers.
Imagine if just a few honest reporters had approached the famously fraudulent “letter signed by 51 former intel” officials with even half the skepticism Chait brings to this missive. Or to the crazy COVID claims. Or the Steele Dossier. Or to anything Adam Schiff bleated out about the secret evidence he claimed existed.
Nope the famous journ-0-lister is only pretending to do his job to go after the most senior black associate Justice. Racism straight up, using standard critical theory and leftist groupthink.
How dare the people who know him best contradict democrat party members who are trying to assassinate his character- the outrage!
Are we seriously supposed to believe that Chait or any of his ilk give a happy damn about Thomas' compliance or non-compliance with imaginary "rules" of financial ethics? Are we supposed to believe he would be writing about this if Thomas' judicial philosophy were the same as RBG's? What a dishonest shill.
This singling out Clarence Thomas for "ethics violations" seems very much to me like when they said Trump as POTUS had no business talking to Comey, head of the FBI. Everybody knew that! But they only got away with saying that by not comparing how other Presidents and their head of FBI had interacted. Which was as freely as they wanted to.
It was a targeted, created ethic that suited their needs of the moment. It only works if they only focus on one person and call that behavior wrong.
Every lawyer that argues before SCOTUS should now ask opposing counsel if they or their firm has any financial ties to any of the justices.
A House impeachment hearing in 2025 should set forth the entire factual record of malfeasance on the high court by both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Then the Senate trial will permit full argument.
The issue under consideration will be fundamental reform of the Supreme Court and possibly the federal judiciary as a whole. If appropriate, then Congress could introduce a constitutional amendment into the ratification process making appropriate reforms, such as fixed terms for all federal judges and accountability to laws passed by Congress regulating conduct. The instant case is simple.
It's just boys being boys.
Dems have a habit of lynching. It continues unabated.
The lynching continues. This democrat is just upset that the clerks are using democrat methods. State unequivocally ( I have ever been involved in my sons business ) your assertion and don’t provide any evidence to back it up. Do this over and over again even when the emails show otherwise. Democrats HATE when you use their tactics.
Chair is upset because he could not find 5 people who would vouch for his character. As usual, democrats accuse others of what they are actually doing. It’s good cover because the media picks up the baton.
I am appalled at the treatment of Clarence Thomas. Disgraceful.
I have read that Jonathan Chait rapes puppies in his spare time. Perhaps Chait's family and friends can respond to these rumors in a substantive and detailed defense of his character rather than just say they don't believe it.
They reject any question of his ethics!
Because there is no breech.
Can I get a duh?
Make it a large.
They reject any question of his ethics!
Because there is no breech
Can I get a duh?
Make it a large.
This may be a dupe. Blog glitch in the Matrix
I, for one, will take the written majority decisions of Justice Thomas and his clerks over the garbage dissents of the liberal wing of the Court any day, and the dissents of his when I must. Then I'll worry about his ethics if and only if his behavior is shown to have an effect on those decisions. Until then, he makes more sense than the rest of the Court, so like the drunken Grant, who fights and should get another do0zen bottles of whiskey, let the man have his vacay and get on with his decision writing.
Their position as his clerks gave them more insight into the factors that drove his decisions on how to vote in cases before him as well as the actual penning of the decisions that Thomas authored. They do legal research and propose which way the case should go, and often write first drafts of the opinions. In other words, they would recognize a case in which a Justice, particularly one like Thomas who uses a well-defined process for making a decision, was resolving a case in a way contrary to his or her judicial philosophy. I can think of no one better to identify whether ethical violations were affecting the decision-making process, which is the ethical issue of greatest concern.
Get back to me when Chait criticizes Biden for retreating back to a billionaire's home on Lake Tahoe following his shitty speech in Maui.
I firmly believe that Justice Thomas can accept whatever gifts his many billionaire friends give him and not give a fat shit about what this they think about this or that. I really do believe that, you can believe me.
You've got a DoJ running out of control around the country, working with State and Federal DAs to investigate and indict as many people surrounding the President's opponents as possible.
You've got participants and live observers of an out-of-control protest turned riot at the Capitol that has been turned into 'an event worse than 9/11' by some bizarre standards, arrested, even house-arrested and kept under wraps for years now- even before they are tried and sent away for the rest of their productive lives.
You've got a President who has taken millions from multiple foreign nationals and affected US policy while he was Vice President (and probably as President as well). And nothing from Chait on that.
You've got the National Archives holding onto (hiding) thousands of emails between Joe and his son's business partners, clearly the 'smoking gun', and nothing from Chait on that.
This is a short list. Washington DC is a city so bereft in ethics, it's hard to believe that anyone with ethics would want to live anywhere near there. But of those living near there, I would think among the most ethical would be those sitting jurists on the Supreme Court. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I were going to spout out about 'ethics in Washington' while I'm covering for the most corrupt Administration in the history of our nation- and it's not even close- I'd hope my friends would let me know when I'm getting embarrassing and maybe need to take a month or two away from what I'm doing.
The agenda has been set - Get Clarence No Matter What - and nothing is gonna move the cult followers.
Johnathan Chait is one of the most prolific liars involved in the invention and proliferation of the Russia collusion hoax.
Another fantastic liar who somehow continues to be employable by the MSM. The New Yorker and NY Magazine are CIA fronts.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html
As if turning on him couldn't also benefit their careers. Maybe more than sticking by him. I guess it's easier for Chait to believe that all 112 are unethical.
A critical examination of the Pro Publica report presents two questions: (1). Did any of the people who extended hospitality to Justice Thomas have any cases pending before the Supreme Court? (2). Were any ethics rules violated? The answer to both questions is a resounding “no.” Hence, there is no controversy here.
Justice Thomas was relying upon the well-established reporting exemption for personal hospitality.
Well, if there were no ethics rules violated (and just because you are right about this, doesn't mean it isn't appalling), that is because the ethics rules for Supreme Court Justices, created by the justices themselves, are so weak as to be meaningless.
And actually "Justice Thomas was relying upon the well-established reporting exemption for personal hospitality" is just bullshit. The exemption is only supposed to extend to invitations and stays at a private residence of the host, not a quarter million cruise through south east Asia.
Field Marshall Freder is very good at criticizing people whose boots he would not be worthy to lick.
Is this an argument? Or just an ad hominem attack? And why wouldn't I be worthy to lick Justice Thomas' boots, because he went to Harvard Law and I didn't? I thought you hated the "elites"?
I am appalled at the treatment of Clarence Thomas. Disgraceful.
And I am appalled at him using his position to enrich himself. Even his $697,000 RV was a gift from yet another conservative billionaire. Can you imagine how batshit crazy you all would go if you found out someone gave Joe Biden a $697,000 RV and he didn't report it.
"somehow makes them more rather than less suited to make this judgment." Somehow. Why would we not think that they people who worked with him so closely might have a basis for this judgement?
"their say-so as judges of character." Ah, he notices that. That is exactly what they are providing, their say-so as judges of character. Most of us would consider that reasonable evidence. Chait doesn't want to.
112 you say?
I thought only 51 were necessary...
The so-called investigative journalism of Pro Publica is misleading, inaccurate, and full of innuendo.
Can you provide some examples that demonstrate this accusation?
Didn't think so.
Any benefit to their careers is likely in the past.
As I impied in another comment Lefties are about wishful thinking. They wish Thomas and Trump were criminals, the border was secure, Biden was honest and competent, ths climate was in crisis, etc. The problem occurs when reality butts up against the wishes. Then they get vicious.
Was Chait on the job when the "intelligence" whores wrote that Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation and later when they were exposed as liars?
A solid defense can be mounted for Thomas. For Hunter, not so much.
Maybe more than sticking by him. I guess it's easier for Chait to believe that all 112 are unethical.
When you have John Eastman and John Yoo signing the letter, one bad apple might not spoil the whole bunch, but two might indicate the rot is spreading.
Freder: "And I am appalled at him using his position to enrich himself."
Oh, horseshit. You are appalled that he is a bulwark against progressive tyranny.
You are not appalled, apparently, at CNN's (Tapper) acknowledgement of tens of millions paid to the Bidens from China and Ukraine, Obama's current net worth of $70 million, or the Clinton's recovery from "flat broke" in 2000 to more than $100 million today.
It would be easier to take you lefties seriously if your amorality and hypocrisy were not so palpable.
"Even his $697,000 RV was a gift from yet another conservative billionaire."
False. In two respects.
Clarence Thomas has all the best enemies.
Here's a prediction; some big Biden dirt is going to be exposed. That seems to the pattern when the Praetorian Press decides to go after some conservative or another. Expect it to drop by the end of the day, right before the holiday weekend.
I didn't read the article or any comments above. That said, just by reading his decisions it seems to me he has been consistent to a fault always. Seems the people that worked closely with him and can attest to that are in a position to offer their opinions on the matter and, I think, those opinions carry more weight than some cuck that has an agenda.
If Thomas clerks don’t have standing on the justice reputation, who does?
Btw, I read, on this blog possibly, that Thomas picks clerks from less than the up on high Ivy League schools.
Questioning the integrity of those clerks could be problematic, if I understand the zeitgeist correctly.
I don't "discomfort" requires a case-by-case quid pro quo.
To me the problem is a supreme court justice identifying closely with a specific class, the ultra rich. Of course child labor is OK; it's good because it helps accumulate more capital which will produce more good things.
Can you imagine how batshit crazy you all would go if you found out someone gave Joe Biden a $697,000 RV and he didn't report it.
Man you really are clueless aren't you. They gave hundreds of thousands to his sister, brothers, daughter, grandchildren and then millions especially to Hunter so Joe didn't have to report it. Luckily for posterity Hunter recorded "holding 10%" of every transaction for The Big Guy / Pedo Pete / Dad.
What are YOU going to do when you find out how Joe bought two multimillion dollar homes on a Senator's salary? (No his "book sales" are far less than $1M so don't even go there.)
And I am appalled at him using his position to enrich himself.
Whatabout RBG? Do you even know?
But my favorite is gift from yet another conservative billionaire
At least his friends are Americans who can do this legally, unlike Joe Biden's benefactors from Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, China, The Ukraine(!), Belarus, Iraq etc. Actual corruption for which Joe bragged to the CFR doesn't bother you guys, only the appearance of corruption amongst Black justices gets your goat. How very progressive of you.
ChaitGPT strikes out again.
"Can you imagine how batshit crazy you all would go if you found out someone gave Joe Biden a $697,000 RV and he didn't report it."
So Freder, are you saying that is what finally pushed you over the edge? Thomas getting an RV? I don't know, Freder, you've been nuts for a long, long time. When did Thomas get this vehicle?
Chait and the MSM have NEVER cared about "ethics". Its all part of their plan to neutralize a SCOTUS that appears to have a 5-4 Conservative majority.
What's so frustrating about TV/MSM "conservative" pundits is they never point this out. Instead they impute good faith to people like Chait, and try to give a reasonable response.
"Don't you understand Mr. Chait..."
Yes, he understands. And he doesn't care. He's trying to influence the SCOTUS, not have a debate.
Trump repairing the Court - they just can't get over it. So great.
Sorry that Justice Thomas has to bear the brunt.
Again, the Center-right is always playing defense. never counter-attacks, never gets angry. So we these endless "You're wrong Mr. Lefty, Conservative X is NOt a racist/sexist/crook/whatever".
Which get us nowhere. If all you're going to do is try to get the ball to the 50 yard line, you lose.
To Jonathan: show us on the Raggedy Ann doll where the bad person touched you. Sheesh, what an overwrought fool.
@Freder: Honestly, I'd be relieved if all Biden did was neglect to report a $697,000 RV, but as it is we can't get an accurate figure on all the kick-backs and under the table payments he's taken throughout his political career.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
I am appalled at the treatment of Clarence Thomas. Disgraceful.
And I am appalled at him using his position to enrich himself. Even his $697,000 RV was a gift from yet another conservative billionaire. Can you imagine how batshit crazy you all would go if you found out someone gave Joe Biden a $697,000 RV and he didn't report it.
Field Marshal Freder is on fire today ! Why would someone bother to give Joe Biden an RV when he gets $50 million at a clip from his friends in China and Ukraine ?
Ah our Freder--and Jonathan Chait---are both foaming. Hydrophobia and hypocrisy go hand in hand.
I think that people who live and work with someone day by day for a year or more are in far better position tojudge someone's ethical character than are those in the drive by lefty media. But that's just me.
"Even Clarence Thomas’s Law Clerks Can’t Defend His Misconduct/A truly pathetic letter vouches for the disgraced Justice’s character"
Black folks are not permitted to have wealthy, generous friends. Wealthy generous friends are a Whites Only thing. Black folk are only permitted to have poor, selfish friends. Poor, selfish friends is a Coloreds Only thing.
Hope this clears things up.
The word “inadvertently” appears 16 times in Thomas’s explanation for failure to properly disclose his finances.
Freder: "And I am appalled at (Thomas) using his position to enrich himself."
Indeed. Now do the Bill, Hillary! and Joe.
I'll wait.
Freder: "And I am appalled at (Thomas) using his position to enrich himself."
Indeed. Now do Bill, Hillary! and Joe.
I'll wait.
That’s not all. The right-wingers oppose any judicial ethics codes whatsoever, but that’s to be expected as the right-wing irrationals lack any interest in ethics altogether.
The only way to deal plainly with them is to let them know that everyone understands their game: Finding a powerful hierarchy to follow so that rigid codes of personal loyalty may be enforced and all effort in rationally solving our country’s problems abandoned altogether. Conservative-authoritarians believe that might (power) makes right. Thomas is on the court, therefore everything he does is right. Every gift he receives is an acceptable form of tribute to his judicial power aimed at earning his favor for your case before him. This is how right-wingers view politics, government and the law. Corruption for them IS what government and jurisprudence should be!
All defenses of him contain no substance because - again - personal loyalty above all else. Vague paeans to his ambiguously defined “character” serve the purpose of bearing testimony to his awesomely empty identity. They find him awesome because he IS so empty. They admire how easily bought he can be while wielding that gavel.
It really is that simple for them. For they are equally empty.
Rich said...
"A House impeachment hearing in 2025 should set forth the entire factual record of malfeasance on the high court by both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Then the Senate trial will permit full argument.
The issue under consideration will be fundamental reform of the Supreme Court and possibly the federal judiciary as a whole. If appropriate, then Congress could introduce a constitutional amendment into the ratification process making appropriate reforms, such as fixed terms for all federal judges and accountability to laws passed by Congress regulating conduct. The instant case is simple."
Rich channeling his spiritual ancestor said...
I have here in my hand a list of 205 — a list of conservative names that were made known to the Washington Post as being card-carrying members of the Federalist Society and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Federal government.
White leftists like Chait cannot bear the idea of a Black man who does not let them tell him what to think or what is required to satisfy white leftists that he is Black enough for them to grant him their approval.
When the group behind these "investigations" looks at a single justice appointed by a Democrat President, I'll take them seriously. They have yet to point to a single actual violation, of the rules that apply to Justices but instead point to things that "look bad."
That there are people who pay Jonathan Chait to "write" is one of the true mysteries of the universe.
He's been doing the same frothing-at-the-mouth schtick for almost 20 years I have never understood the appeal. Can someone explain?
Sounds like a "consensus" to me.
Isn't that the way things get decided these days?
112 ex-clerks is a lot of ex-clerks, but there should be at least another dozen given the length of time Clarence Thomas has been on the Court. What do the others have to say about his ethics and why couldn’t the letter organizers get the ex-clerks of the other Justices to sign?
Blogger hpudding said...
That’s not all. The right-wingers oppose any judicial ethics codes whatsoever, but that’s to be expected as the right-wing irrationals lack any interest in ethics altogether.
hpudding with another irrational rant. Get some help or get back on your meds.
"hpudding with another irrational rant. "
He don't say much. But when he does, he don't say much.
Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor, like conservative judges, and like generations of judges before them, receive most of their free vacations, pandering, and largesse from academic institutions, NGOs and governments -- institutions that likewise have business constantly before the court. Sometimes there's a conference thrown in, but let's be real: they're not spending much time actually engaging academically, if at all. They're VIPs invited for the prestige that comes with their mere presence, no different from politicians selling influence.
Purported academic pursuit or recognition is the most common cover-up obscuring the grift of pleasure cruises, mansion stays, and pricey foreign travel. Even worse, many of these events openly celebrate specific rulings by the invited judge. If this isn't influence-peddling, what is?
I have attended events featuring the Carters, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Ginsberg. Exclusive venues, good food, a bit of vacuous speechifying, or not; honors and awards, or not: it was all really just expensive play-time and the ritual of the super-wealthy (ie. Harvard, Georgetown, Oxford and Cambridge, PBS executives, Planned Parenthood's biggest donors, etc.) magnifying their power through the presence of political and judicial elites.
Thomas chooses to do the same with industrialists. By the same, I mean the same. Instead of singling him out, Supreme Court gift rules should be extended to treat purportedly "nonprofit" fiefdoms such as Ivy League schools, billionaire think tank retreats, and fundraising events held by wealthy "nonprofits" to precisely the same standards with which they treat anyone else who treats Supreme Court justices to ermine freebies.
SC judges should understand that the uniqueness of the job requires living like a religious contemplative. David Souter, for all his faults, at least understood this and was disgusted by the other justices' "social" lives.
Rich, I will join your in your quest to eliminate Federalist Society influence when you join me in eliminating Ivy League law school and Planned Parenthood influence.
Spending time last month with primary and secondary school chums reminded me again of how much i loved going to school. Even in the days of corporal punishment!
I see Ivermectin Man got offended for being called out about his right-wing opposition to ethics and support for fascist hierarchies over a rational politics. But that’s ok. His pope calls him out for the same thing. And Fox Valley Machinist Man does the peanut gallery thing in support. You know, the guy who said that earth is warmer than space because the sun exists.
Real deep thoughts, guys. Keep it up!
Some people can talk loud while saying nothing in 140 characters or less.
I will join your in your quest to eliminate Federalist Society influence when you join me in eliminating Ivy League law school and Planned Parenthood influence.
Awesome. This will result in the elimination of nearly the entire Rogue’s Gallery of pernicious poseurs currently wrecking American jurisprudence from Leonard Leo to JD Vance (JD Yale) to Josh Hawley (JD Yale) to Ted Cruz (BA Princeton, JD Harvard) to Vivek Ramasmarmy (BA Harvard, JD Yale).
Thanks for the suggestion. Bring it on!
I don't personally have enough knowledge to know if Thomas is corrupt, though he certainly doesn't even to bother to abide by the wise advisory to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, given his travels with and paid for by wealthy "friends" who, no doubt, have personal interest in legal cases that may or have already come before the Supreme Court during Thomas' time on the court. There's also the the very plausible accusation of sexual harassment made against him by Anita Hill. (I believed her then and now, though many take it as a matter of faith--as they do of a rigged vote in 2020--that Ms. Hill lied and Thomas is pristine as snow.)
The greater concern I have is that seemingly a majority of powerful people in official positions in Washington are on the take in some way or other from powerful entities with whom they have "friendships" or business associations, often carried out in ostensibly social circumstances. Thomas is corrupt (or "corrupt") in the same way that virtually everyone in Washington is corrupt: they take it as a given that having and socializing with wealthy friends and benefactors is normal, appropriate and beyond reproach, socializing that often involves accepting paid-for trips and vacations and other gifts. All who depend on votes to acquire and keep their jobs depend upon generous campaign donations from powerful and wealthy entities who have great interest in the decisions made by their (haha--I mean "our") representatives in Congress, the White House, and, yes, by the members of the high court.
All such associations by anyone serving in government should be prohibited by law to enforce by edict the requirement to must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Violations should bring about sanctions of some sort against those who insist on maintaining open and active "friendships" with their powerful and rich benefactors. The corrupt will always find ways to keep their grifts going, of course, but it should be made difficult for them, something they will have to do in the dark, rather than their revealing openly in light of day the prostitutes they are to their powerful johns.
If this was the Right attacking the ethics of a black man all we'd hear is about the Right's racism but you don't hear any of that when they do it. They've been attacking him for 30 years....no, no, no, that's not racism.
Hpudding: if you're really so clever, you will have noted that by "pernicious influence," I was referring specifically to gifts bestowed to a government representative by any institution and recommending that NGO's and academic institutions be prevented from skirting the rules that apply to others via mass representational fraud.
The act of advocating for a candidate to be appointed is legal and not what I was discussing. Try reading harder.
Post a Comment