Clarence Thomas' corrupt political behavior

[Craig234]

What Craig considers to be a crime, many others that have the proper understanding do not.

Partisanship is great when one stands on the sidelines cheering on.

Where he pulls his information from is also partisan.
Not to say that is is wrong; but it is very possible to be twisting the facts to encourage rabid supporters. What happens on the surface is presented; what happens later can easily be forgotten when is changes the picture.

Case in point.

Had the filings of forms (these are not tax forms) actually been so illegal; the Dems would be climbing all over the issue to satisfy Cragi's bloodletting lust.
Instead, nothing has been done. Because it is a dead, non impeachable issue. Great to make hay out of; but no legality behind it.

So, you can't disprove a single word in the post, but your entire argument is, if Democrats aren't 'climbing over themselves', then that disproves the facts. Sorry, that's idiocy.

 

[woolfe9999]

I address the issue at hand.

The source is a joke. Find me something from a real credible source and then we can talk.

If I look I am sure I would have no problem finding some right wing nutzo web site that makes corruption charges against Obama as well.

Obama's wife worked at a hospital ($300k a year) and Obamcare will give hospitals lots and lots of new money. OMG!!! It's corruption!!! Obama is only trying to fill his wives pockets!!! Quick call a news conference.

The problem with that request is that you come pre-armed with a self-contained myth that the entire MSM is "liberal biased." Accordingly, it is unclear what source you would accept. Of course you'd accept Fox News, but we both know this isn't going to get any coverage there.

 

[ProfJohn]

The problem with that request is that you come pre-armed with a self-contained myth that the entire MSM is "liberal biased." Accordingly, it is unclear what source you would accept. Of course you'd accept Fox News, but we both know this isn't going to get any coverage there.

The media IS liberal, but I don't discount everything they say.

I have started dozens of threads based on stories out of the Washington Post. They do good work and write lots of good stories, but I think they fall for selection bias (what should we report what shouldn't we)

But Truth-out is a complete joke run by a bunch of crazy left wing blogers/writers. They wrote completely false stories about Karl Rove and stood by them even when they turned out to be false. Based on that I find no reason to trust them with anything they say.

If this story is such a big deal then find me a story about it in any big city newspaper or national media website.

Think about it. If there was something real and tangible about this charge the MSM would be all over. We are talking about the news organizations that hired people to dig through Sarah Palin's trash and begged people to help them read those e-mails hoping to find something juicy to use against her. These people would wet their pants if they thought they could nail Thomas to the wall.

 

[Craig234]

Think about it. If there was something real and tangible about this charge the MSM would be all over. We are talking about the news organizations that hired people to dig through Sarah Palin's trash and begged people to help them read those e-mails hoping to find something juicy to use against her. These people would wet their pants if they thought they could nail Thomas to the wall.

If you can disprove something in the post, do it. You haven't. Stop lying.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, the article is a joke.

The charges are a joke.

The website is a joke.

And you are a joke for posting it and pretending that it is meaningful.

Every link in the article is to himself. "As reported in January (be me) and posted on this web site (that I run)" And we should take him serious??

Check out his story on the Wisconsin court 'assault' http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8594
It is one long attack piece on Proser that glosses over "An alternate description of the incident, offered by supporters of Prosser'" Unfortunately the 'alternate' version looks to be reality.

And yet we should have faith in anything he writes?

 

[ProfJohn]

OMG look at this story!!

I can't believe that Justice Breyer would stand up for Thomas!! What is the world coming too.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...ick_up_for_clarence_thomas_in_their_ways.html

Breyer answered the question more directly. "As far as what your wife does, or your husband, I myself try to stick to a principle that a wife or husband is an independent person, and they make up their own minds as to what their own career is going to be," he said. "If the wife decides she wants this career, that's just fine with me. If there is something in the disclosure form every year, I have to disclose every penny that I earn or have as an asset, that my wife earns or have an asset, that my children earn or have as an asset. And it costs quite a lot of money to pay an accountant to do that, because you know one thing wrong and there's going to be a headline."

"If I recuse myself on the Supreme Court, there is nobody else [to take my place]," he said. "And that could change the result. I think the fact that my wife, who happens to be a clinical psychologist... when I get a case about psychology, I sit in those cases."

/thread

 

[EagleKeeper]

So, you can't disprove a single word in the post, but your entire argument is, if Democrats aren't 'climbing over themselves', then that disproves the facts. Sorry, that's idiocy.

It is not that I am trying to disprove the facts.

When you have to depend on a blog; rather than legal arguments to justify your outrage. They blog is an opinion peace; not a fact piece. There may be some facts but also twisted so suit his theories.

Just like the 9/11 thread. Find a anomaly and chew on it; ignoring the other evidence that is factual but goes against the theory.

It is the fact that all the Dem hired guns and groupies are unable to find a legal standing on the issue to do anything.

So they try to agitate the masses.

 

[Craig234]

It is not that I am trying to disprove the facts.

It is the fact that all the Dem hired guns and groupies are unable to find a legal standing on the issue to do anything.

So they try to agitate the masses.

So, informing the public of a scandal, is 'trying to agitate the masses'.

 

[sportage]

booga booga booga Clarence Thomas! boooga booga booga Conservative! booga booga booga!

There, that oughta frighten Craig for the day

And Thomas just ran over your cat... and kidnapped your son.
Then he bombed a walmart killing 100 people.
And pissed on the Lincoln Memorial.
Still feel the same?
When does he cross the line for you?
Your name wouldnt happen to be... Clarence THomas?

 

[dali71]

And Thomas just ran over your cat... and kidnapped your son.
Then he bombed a walmart killing 100 people.
And pissed on the Lincoln Memorial.
Still feel the same?
When does he cross the line for you?
Your name wouldnt happen to be... Clarence THomas?

Are you high, or just mentally retarded?

 

[nonlnear]

And Thomas just ran over your cat... and kidnapped your son.
Then he bombed a walmart killing 100 people.
And pissed on the Lincoln Memorial.
Still feel the same?
When does he cross the line for you?
Your name wouldnt happen to be... Clarence THomas?

Running over a cat and pissing on the Lincoln memorial help even out the bad karma from kidnapping the kid and bombing Wal-Mart (which is itself a wash to any vegan/hipster types) so I'd say he's still got some room before he hits the line.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Clarence Thomas is an American hero!!
Personally I think Clarence Thomas was the best appointment ever to the U.S Supreme Court!

 

[blackangst1]

Since you consider yourself fair, why dont you also address other possible conflicts of interest? Like Alito's ruling in the FCC/Disney decision? Or Breyer's interest in Wal Mart while hearing Wal-Mart vs Dukes?

Oh thats right. Its another Craigfail123 conservative bashing thread. Sorry. Carry on.

 

[Generator]

Thomas is just an awful judge. He's more of a internet troll than a justice. Apparently the guy doesn't talking during hearings and is always bending over backwards in his arguments to just troll with ridiculous opinions.

They say the supreme court is above politics, but with shitty judges like Thomas and constant 5-4 decisions its pretty obvious no one is above the fray. This whole government is broken.

 

[Double Trouble]

The source for the allegations / charges is laughable. Let me know when someone reputable puts together something with a semblance of reality. It's easy to take "facts" out of context, fail to show the complete picture and then throw out crazy allegations and accusations.

Also, from what I can tell, the whole "benefits from cases he rules on" angle is a major major reach. Overall, I find what's presented against Thomas to be uncompelling, no different than what you could come up with for several others members in other cases. If that changes and something real ever comes up, I'm sure the main stream media will be all over it.

 

[halik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthout

Truthout is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit,[1] progressive news organization in the United States that operates a web site[2]

I'll take a side of bias with my premade opinion plz

 

[EagleKeeper]

So, informing the public of a scandal, is 'trying to agitate the masses'.

IF it was a scandal that was a legal issue; it would have been addressed.

They can not come up with something; so they want to agitate instead.

It is not a scandal unless the sheep believe. Baa..

 

[PokerGuy]

Just more drivel from a leftist nutjob site. Yawn. Just makes it clear that Thomas must be doing a good job if they're all frothing at the mouth to try and discredit him.

 

[CLite]

The supreme court is an absolute joke. The fact that almost every single ruling falls along partisan lines shows that both sides of the court are heavily affected by their party affiliation. No independence exists and the nation suffers because of it.

 

[Craig234]

The supreme court is an absolute joke. The fact that almost every single ruling falls along partisan lines shows that both sides of the court are heavily affected by their party affiliation. No independence exists and the nation suffers because of it.

No, it doesn't show that about 'both sides'. It only takes one side be radical.

I guess if you attack Obama for not invading Canada, you're 'both partisan'?

 

[EagleKeeper]

And the side that is radical is the side the one does not support.

Always getting in the way of ones' political agenda.

The shame....

 

[CLite]

No, it doesn't show that about 'both sides'. It only takes one side be radical.

I guess if you attack Obama for not invading Canada, you're 'both partisan'?

You are naive if believe the judges appointed by Democrat presidents are angels of independence.

In the case of this specific ruling I believe the republican judges were being radical and stomping on our constitution. However, if I look at the history of all rulings I'm quite sure the other side has had their fair share of constitution thrashing.

 

[Craig234]

You are naive if believe the judges appointed by Democrat presidents are angels of independence.

In the case of this specific ruling I believe the republican judges were being radical and stomping on our constitution. However, if I look at the history of all rulings I'm quite sure the other side has had their fair share of constitution thrashing.

To discuss who is radical requires being somewhat informed, hence why people like Eaglekeeper can't discuss it.

There's plenty of room to disagree with and criticize many rulings. No justices come to mind that are 'radical' like the four here; note I don't include Kennedy who ruled with them.

Bork was, but was not confirmed. Harriet Meiers was horribly unqualified, but I have no information she would have been a radical, just a likely terrible justice.

The Federalist Society is an ideological group wanting to overturn the conventional legal culture in the US. It's well on the way to doing so, highly organized, recruiting all kinds of people in the legal profession and has many judges placed in every position in the country - including, IIRC, these radical four, including the Chief Justice who denied ever being a member - then saying he 'forgot' when proof was found he'd been an official. Federalist Society isn't identical with radical, but there's a good correlation.

They have an agenda, and the traditionalist judge are losing a lot of 5-4 rulings.

 

[PokerGuy]

Usual Craigfail. The guys on the 'other side' must be crazy radicals with evil motives. My team of course has honorable intentions and is always right.

 

[fskimospy]

Usual Craigfail. The guys on the 'other side' must be crazy radicals with evil motives. My team of course has honorable intentions and is always right.

Do you have any idea how many times you've made posts accusing liberals of being crazy radicals?