Ol' Clarence Thomas has raked in it, hasn't he?
- Thread starter Syskatine
- Start date
Justices are not required to disclose invitations and travel that are considered "personal hospitality" and the Supreme Court is not subject to an ethics code.
He’s going nowhere. This is a nothing burger.
He’s going nowhere. This is a nothing burger.
Spot on. Centskafag shows a lack of familiarity with the operation and structure of SCOTUS that any first year law student possesses.
Is yer shepherd shit britches? After all he hired a tard in kenjante.
Bryers took 233 trips with friends.
The justices have professional rules of conduct that apply to them.
But, if the rules should be changed, then go ahead propse some.
The justices have professional rules of conduct that apply to them.
But, if the rules should be changed, then go ahead propse some.
I’m not a big fan of it either way but as far as I’ve read Thomas broke no laws or rules of the court. Plus there’s absolutely no way you are going to convince me that Thomas is the only Justice in history to ever do this.
Seems like this is just something to get the simple minded liberals to rattle their fake moral sabers.
Anything to distract from real problems is all that the media and politicians are good for.
Seems like this is just something to get the simple minded liberals to rattle their fake moral sabers.
Anything to distract from real problems is all that the media and politicians are good for.
Would Trump ever embarrass a race with this ill advised selection? Of course not. It was the left who taught me at an early age I'm 1/4 house boy, token, "white boy", traitor and Uncle Tom. The lab boys could tell us if Justice Thomas is 100%.
If you guys don't like it win an election were SCOTUS are going to retire. lol
BTW:
“Ol' Clarence Thomas has raked in it, hasn't he?”
Exactly WTF does “raked in it” mean?
Don’t expect these chickensh!ts to admit the obvious…that would be asking far too much of the herd.
carry on
They're okay with it if it;s their side. Bearcat in another thread says it's okay for Trump to take money while in office through his business interests but not Biden, lol.
In a liberal's mind, the only politicians that can be corrupt are Republicans/Conservatives. Even though there is video evidence of Brandon shaking down the Ukraine, Hunter's charades and Hillary's lap top to name a few.
It's all about the end game for liberals and they don't car how unethical, unintelligent or immoral they look to get there. They have the media on their side who think the same way.
What a whiny little titty baby b!tch post lol. Just replace liberal with LeFtiSt and you have an @2012Bearcat post.
You guys need some new angles of attack haha…not quite so linear and huddled together where a single missile strike takes the whole clan out.
carry on
THey ignore facts and just bitch about democrats, lol.
Did you hear about your dear leader shaking down Zelensky? A U.S. col. heard it, got pissed, and Trump tried to bury the call on a different server, then defied confressional subpoenas, then got impeached twice. He insisted Zelensky announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent and was squatting on the aid to resist Putin, who eventually invaded and Trump called a genius.
@ClintonDavidScott watch this response.....
Oh -- Putin and Trump also endorsed each other. LOL any thoughts on that while you're wringing your hands about someone shaking down Ukraine?
Welp, another conservative justice raking it in, too.
I can't recall the Supremes having these corruption issues before the conservative wing got control. Just another example of conservative corruption.
I can't recall the Supremes having these corruption issues before the conservative wing got control. Just another example of conservative corruption.
Good Lord, you’re a bitter and hateful person.
Dumbass has no clue how certiorari at the SCOTUS works. If SCOTUS denies your appeal, it’s because not even 4 of the nine justices voted to hear the case. Even if Thomas had recused himself from “not voting” for the writ (see the logical contortions there, counselor?), it still would have been denied.
Also, if you’d read the entire article, you’d have learned that Harlan Crow was essentially uninvolved with the entity that was party to the case.
There have been many Conservatives on this board who have been critical of their own, and yet you stay true to the cause. Thanks for proving my point.
There hasn’t been a one of you call out Clarence Thomas lol
What a whopper crock of sh!t haha
carry on
What evidence do you have to refute it? Regardless, all Thomas did (or rather didn’t do) was simply not vote to grant the writ — the identical thing that he wouldn’t have done had he recused.
Carrion, pedo.
Actually you get what you give. You're quick with name calling and hateful responses when someone disagrees with you. An example is my post above and your response. Carry on. LOLOLOLOL
Last edited:
Would you like examples of that, in just the last few days, being complete utter bullsh!t?
No…you don’t…and you know it lol
carry on
Your response to my first post above.
Thomas previously told Bloomberg that it was OK for him to accept gifts from Harlan Crow because the GOP mega-donor did not have "business before the court."
But the 2004 appeal ties the Crow family name to a case that did come before the Supreme Court: In January 2005, the court denied the appeal petition, a $25 million copyright claim brought by an architecture firm against Trammell Crow Residential Co., a development company that's part of the real estate empire built by Crow's father. The Supreme Court's decision ultimately benefitted Trammell Crow Residential.
Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself from a 2004 appeal tied to Harlan Crow's family business, per Bloomberg
An appeal involving a company in Harlan Crow's real estate empire contradicted Clarence Thomas' claim that Crow had no business before the court.
www.businessinsider.com
carry on
LOL have you ever seen cult-think like this? It's like the Heaven's Gate cult. Defend their tribe no matter what.Thomas previously told Bloomberg that it was OK for him to accept gifts from Harlan Crow because the GOP mega-donor did not have "business before the court."
But the 2004 appeal ties the Crow family name to a case that did come before the Supreme Court: In January 2005, the court denied the appeal petition, a $25 million copyright claim brought by an architecture firm against Trammell Crow Residential Co., a development company that's part of the real estate empire built by Crow's father. The Supreme Court's decision ultimately benefitted Trammell Crow Residential.
Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself from a 2004 appeal tied to Harlan Crow's family business, per Bloomberg
An appeal involving a company in Harlan Crow's real estate empire contradicted Clarence Thomas' claim that Crow had no business before the court.
carry on
For years, states had an "appearance of impropriety" standard for judges and it kept the public from questioning if they were on the take. Welp, conservatives take charge and.....
What action did Thomas undertake in the case that appears to be “improprietous”? All he did was not vote in favor of a writ. The same thing he wouldn’t have done in the case of a recusal. You should sue Dollar General Law School for a refund.
Last edited:
