• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Justice Thomas accepted millions in gifts from right wing mega donor

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Roberts has declined to attend. Cowardice confirmed.

If you are a religious repug there are different rules for you, be it in Congress or on a bench. I think someone will have to kill a judge or two before they get it in their heads again this is why we have oversight, avenues of redress.
 
Last edited:
kage69 said:
Roberts has declined to attend. Cowardice confirmed.

If you are a religious repug there different rules for you, be it in Congress or on a bench. I think someone will have to kill a judge or two before they get it in their heads again this is why we have oversight, avenues of redress.
Click to expand...

And you can't even subpoena him because of Feinstein's staff pulling off "Weekend at Diane's".

The Ds just do not understand how to even begin a political fight. Let alone win one.
 
ivwshane said:
What the founding fathers didn’t count on was that we’d have a two party system and one party would be anti democratic and have enough power to virtually grind congress to a halt.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. The two-party system formed almost instantly. Before we even had the Bill of Rights, we had a two-party system. By the second election the parties had formed. Never in America's history has a third party lasted more than 2 election cycles, and always causing the party that they are most associated with (usually the one they split apart from, and most often the conservative party) to lose massively to the opposition party. One of the very first parties was Hamilton's Federalist Party, who were literally anti-democratic preferring instead a strong centralized government that more resembled European monarchies.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I disagree with that. The two-party system formed almost instantly. Before we even had the Bill of Rights, we had a two-party system. By the second election the parties had formed. Never in America's history has a third party lasted more than 2 election cycles, and always causing the party that they are most associated with (usually the one they split apart from, and most often the conservative party) to lose massively to the opposition party. One of the very first parties was Hamilton's Federalist Party, who were literally anti-democratic preferring instead a strong centralized government that more resembled European monarchies.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, my point wasn’t that only two parties would exist, it’s that one of the two parties would be willing to grind government to halt.
 
Last edited:
SMOGZINN said:
I disagree with that. The two-party system formed almost instantly. Before we even had the Bill of Rights, we had a two-party system. By the second election the parties had formed. Never in America's history has a third party lasted more than 2 election cycles, and always causing the party that they are most associated with (usually the one they split apart from, and most often the conservative party) to lose massively to the opposition party. One of the very first parties was Hamilton's Federalist Party, who were literally anti-democratic preferring instead a strong centralized government that more resembled European monarchies.
Click to expand...
I agree. What the framers didn't put into the Constitution was the Senate filibuster with the supermajority override requirement. That is purely a contrivance of the Senate and is toxic to democracy.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I disagree with that. The two-party system formed almost instantly. Before we even had the Bill of Rights, we had a two-party system. By the second election the parties had formed. Never in America's history has a third party lasted more than 2 election cycles, and always causing the party that they are most associated with (usually the one they split apart from, and most often the conservative party) to lose massively to the opposition party. One of the very first parties was Hamilton's Federalist Party, who were literally anti-democratic preferring instead a strong centralized government that more resembled European monarchies.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that George Washington was-by far-the most widely known and influential founding father and one of his major philosophical positions was that political parties were poison. While I agree with Washington in principle, as you pointed out Washington was doomed to fail on that point.
 
Wanna read something funny? Part of the engine that is the right wing media echo chamber you have to find someone to write an article defending anything so more widespread media outlets can quote it. Basically how their propaganda spreads. They found a writer to defend Uncle Clarence and his corruption. Turns out this writer attended one of these trips. The circle of corruption is complete.

 
Due to various reasons, the SC at this point is an illegitimate kangaroo court, thanks to the GQP stealing seats, it's rulings based nothing in law but based in feels, and the conservative justices clear and present corruption.

Between getting shot at any given moment in this country and having a mockery as your top judicial court in these parts, we have entered shithole nation status.

Thanks Repubs!
 
PPi54vX.png


But he's allowed to have friends people! But but, Alito wants to talk about who might have leaked the decision. We need a real Congress to impeach and remove this fool, SCOTUS is cartoonishly corrupt.
 
Pens1566 said:
Here's the link:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

I mean come on ... how obvious does this have to get, delivering him briefcases full of cash DURING a SCOTUS hearing on camera?
Click to expand...
Must be nice to have a Sugar Daddy funding Pubs in SCOTUS. Corruption runs deep with the Roberts court.

I would be in favor of expanding the court but how do you stop the cycle of adding justices if Republicans take over the WH and Senate?

Still think defunding is an option. Show those corrupt fucks they are not a Star Chamber. Accountability is one of the ingredients needed for this Democracy to work. At a minimum, until they can take action, NO funding increases for the foreseeable future.

Republicans complained Dems are just going after Thomas and claimed RBG and Sotomayor took trips. Let's see a breakdown of all contributions to all justices so we can evaluate. I doubt Jackson has been there long enough to line her pockets, but I could be wrong.

Here's something they could try. Issue a request to the newest members of the court separately. Jackson and ACB. Maybe one of them since they are so new will feel a tinge of responsibility to the country and show up. I doubt that works so the next step is a subpoena from Congress to Roberts.

At the same time send letters of referral from Congress to DOJ to investigate if Thomas has violated any laws which I think is likely.
 
Last edited:
Pens1566 said:
I mean come on ... how obvious does this have to get, delivering him briefcases full of cash DURING a SCOTUS hearing on camera?
Click to expand...
Soon oral arguments will be bidding wars.

Lawyer: let's just cut to the chase, my firm is prepared to pay each of you 1 million dollars to vote for our side to win.

Thomas: That is a very convincing argument, but we need to hear what the other side offers, and then check the bids from the amicus briefs. Just as a note of order, I personally would really like a two-week vacation in the Maldives.
 
HomerJS said:
Must be nice to have a Sugar Daddy funding Pubs in SCOTUS. Corruption runs deep with the Roberts court.

I would be in favor of expanding the court but how do you stop the cycle of adding justices if Republicans take over the WH and Senate?

Still think defunding is an option. Show those corrupt fucks they are not a Star Chamber. Accountability is one of the ingredients needed for this Democracy to work. Until they can take action, NO funding increases for the foreseeable future.

Republicans complained Dems are just going after Thomas and claimed RBG and Sotomayor took trips. Let's see a breakdown of all contributions to all justices so we can evaluate. I doubt Jackson has been there long enough to line her pockets, but I could be wrong.

Here's something they could try. Issue a request to the newest members of the court separately. Jackson and ACB. Maybe one of them since they are so new will feel a tinge of responsibility to the country and show up. I doubt that works so the next step is a subpoena from Congress to Roberts.

At the same time send letters of referral from Congress to DOJ to investigate if Thomas has violated any laws which I think is likely.
Click to expand...
You go "nuclear". Pack the shit out of the courts. Add 1000 justices if you need to. now pubs have to add at least as many for a 50/50 court split.

Or as the saying from untouchables goes "when they send one of yours in the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue"

At some point, expanding the courts further becomes impractical for both sides. The "game" becomes so onerous that no one wants to play anymore, so now you can start fresh with (hopefully) good faith discussions about what things should look like
 
Nothing that requires legislative action will happen until at least early '25, and that hinges on Ds retaining the POTUS (probable), senate (iffy, toss up), and retaking the house (who the fuck knows). And likely some creative skirting of the #s/votes in the senate due to filibuster rules. This means packing, enforced ethics requirements, funding cuts, impeachments are all but off the table.

So what does that leave us? Referral to DOJ for obvious cases like this one. Executive ignoring rulings outright. I say do both. Can't go another 2 years with nothing done to limit this shit.
 
Fenixgoon said:
You go "nuclear". Pack the shit out of the courts. Add 1000 justices if you need to. now pubs have to add at least as many for a 50/50 court split.

Or as the saying from untouchables goes "when they send one of yours in the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue"

At some point, expanding the courts further becomes impractical for both sides. The "game" becomes so onerous that no one wants to play anymore, so now you can start fresh with (hopefully) good faith discussions about what things should look like
Click to expand...
I had an idea of expanding the court to 12 with equal representation. This would force more decisions based on the merits of the case because at some point a justice would have to vote against their own ideology. Court has a big ego and they wouldn't like a lot of ties so it would incentivize them to come to consensus.

Also no more picking their own cases. Makes it too easy to push an agenda.

No more shadow dockets maybe with an exception stays of execution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top