Sotomayor and Gorsuch have similar issues. Fuck them both. Ethics are ethics
Kavanaugh had $200K in credit card debt, another $92K loan, and a $1.2 Million mortgage that were all mysteriously paid off almost the second after he became a justice.
"Too often, we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - JFK
"First Thoughts are the everyday thoughts. Everyone has those. Second Thoughts are the thoughts you think about the way you think. People who enjoy thinking have those. Third Thoughts are thoughts that watch the world and think all by themselves. They’re rare, and often troublesome."
I am not arguing that he broke the law or a rule, he didn't break any rule or law
. But then you post.
I am sure you can opine if you think disclosure rules are good/bad fair/not fair. Just because something is not a rule/law doesn't mean that it is still something that shouldn't be done. I don't think Justices should be accepting money from billionaires and that seems to be the sentiment of many people. I don't know your stance on that, maybe you'll opine.
People do not want the highest courts in the land being courted (given money) by billionaires. I'm sure you're ok with it based on your defense of this. That's ok to hold that opinion, and maybe you can explain why you hold that opinion. I am of the opinion that it's not ok because it seems like improper influence on a justice that could influence decisions. You can argue the merits of that position and why it's not a good position, or you can go the route of giving examples of other justices being given money by billionaires and pretending I am ok with it. I'll just say now I am not ok with it meaing that conversation would be pointless.
$100,000 for consulting for the entitity which filed a brief to strike down the votings rights act in the same year she was paid; which Justice Thomas voted in favor 5-4 to strike down.
No big deal
Last Edit: May 5, 2023 5:38:30 GMT -8 by nubulator
People do not want the highest courts in the land being courted (given money) by billionaires. I'm sure you're ok with it based on your defense of this. That's ok to hold that opinion, and maybe you can explain why you hold that opinion. I am of the opinion that it's not ok because it seems like improper influence on a justice that could influence decisions. You can argue the merits of that position and why it's not a good position, or you can go the route of giving examples of other justices being given money by billionaires and pretending I am ok with it. I'll just say now I am not ok with it meaing that conversation would be pointless.
Its not binary. If a university invited Sotomayor to speak, pays for her trip and accommodations, are you pissed off? Harvard's endowment dwarfs Crow.
Last Edit: May 5, 2023 8:46:45 GMT -8 by SanDiego11
$100,000 for consulting for the entitity which filed a brief to strike down the votings rights act in the same year she was paid; which Justice Thomas voted in favor 5-4 to strike down.
No big deal
So you think he would have sided with the liberals otherwise. LOL. Sure man. Should have been 9-0, we should look at why the 4 kooks voted the way they did and not with centrist Roberts.
Last Edit: May 5, 2023 8:46:17 GMT -8 by SanDiego11
People do not want the highest courts in the land being courted (given money) by billionaires. I'm sure you're ok with it based on your defense of this. That's ok to hold that opinion, and maybe you can explain why you hold that opinion. I am of the opinion that it's not ok because it seems like improper influence on a justice that could influence decisions. You can argue the merits of that position and why it's not a good position, or you can go the route of giving examples of other justices being given money by billionaires and pretending I am ok with it. I'll just say now I am not ok with it meaing that conversation would be pointless.
Its not binary. If a university invited Sotomayor to speak, pays for her trip and accommodations, are you pissed off? Harvard's endowment dwarfs Crow.
I am not pissed about Justice Thomas being invited/having expenses paid for to go to speaking at any events, going to CPAC etc. I am not ok with having vacations of his paid for, and having his wife being paid a salary by Crow.
Was I right about the assumption that you are ok with supreme court justices being paid for vacations (worth hundreds of thousands of dollars) paid for by rich elitists?
$100,000 for consulting for the entitity which filed a brief to strike down the votings rights act in the same year she was paid; which Justice Thomas voted in favor 5-4 to strike down.
No big deal
So you think he would have sided with the liberals otherwise. LOL. Sure man. Should have been 9-0, we should look at why the 4 kooks voted the way they did and not with centrist Roberts.
When would the line for you be crossed? If he was instead being paid by a liberal elitist instead of a conservative elitist and he sided with liberals on an issue that his wife was pushing for?
Last Edit: May 5, 2023 9:07:40 GMT -8 by nubulator
When would the line for you be crossed? If he was instead being paid by a liberal elitist instead of a conservative elitist and he sided with liberals on an issue that his wife was pushing for?
If he had a pattern of inconsistent voting that tied with anything nefarious. Simply doesn't exit man, its sensationalism.
I guess we should have always known that the most untouchable branch of government would be the most corrupt. In retrospect it makes perfect sense.
But is it though?
The justices were selected and largely vote along ideological lines. The Constitutionalists vote Originalist Constitution and the leftist vote for the left ideology agenda. We know largely how they will vote from the confirmation. It's why the sides seek ever younger nominees to hold a spot for a longer term aiding in the preferred advantage. We Know how Sotomayer will vote no matter what her financial issues are. If there is corruption it isn't the money issue. We know how the Conservatives will vote most of the time. Even when a Roberts breaks left (like Obamacare) it's not something tied to money and surely the left will never complain. Is there a vote by Thomas that stands out from his relationship with a billionaire? No one has cited any.
Contrast that with the other two branches that are entwined in trading favors and earmarks, have legislative influence over stocks, select cabinet heads that can impose rules and mandates affecting markets and profits, are forced to make compromises to attract voters....
This is another in a line of leftist shit political tactics to try and take a numerical advantage of the court that they desperately need to control of to protect their agenda because the Constitution won't. As soon as a repub is president the calls to replace justices and stack the court with more of them will vanish. Instantly or sooner.....
I am not pissed about Justice Thomas being invited/having expenses paid for to go to speaking at any events, going to CPAC etc. I am not ok with having vacations of his paid for, and having his wife being paid a salary by Crow.
Was I right about the assumption that you are ok with supreme court justices being paid for vacations (worth hundreds of thousands of dollars) paid for by rich elitists?
Not sure what you mean by "it's not binary".
Binary means its not 0 or 1. It could be 1.5. I'm ok with setting rules, although 'wife getting paid' would be a difficult one to manage or enforce. The judges, from Thomas to Sotomayor (who has some of the same issues, but none of the criticism) have a pattern of voting we can easily trace.
When would the line for you be crossed? If he was instead being paid by a liberal elitist instead of a conservative elitist and he sided with liberals on an issue that his wife was pushing for?
If he had a pattern of inconsistent voting that tied with anything nefarious. Simply doesn't exit man, its sensationalism.
I just don't see how people paying justice's in America outside of government dollars can be justified. It's like the bedrock of corruption - paying to play, and at the highest court in the land. It's impossible to know is not being influenced by someone who pays for extravagant vacations, paying their wife's salary for issues that go to the supreme court. Can Justice Thomas threaten that he will be more of a centrist if they stop providing perks to his family? We don't know.
It looks bad, we shouldn't have justices being paid by anyone outside of public funds.
I am not pissed about Justice Thomas being invited/having expenses paid for to go to speaking at any events, going to CPAC etc. I am not ok with having vacations of his paid for, and having his wife being paid a salary by Crow.
Was I right about the assumption that you are ok with supreme court justices being paid for vacations (worth hundreds of thousands of dollars) paid for by rich elitists?
Not sure what you mean by "it's not binary".
Binary means its not 0 or 1. It could be 1.5. I'm ok with setting rules, although 'wife getting paid' would be a difficult one to manage or enforce. The judges, from Thomas to Sotomayor (who has some of the same issues, but none of the criticism) have a pattern of voting we can easily trace.
Right, but there definitely needs to be a line. Although I agree with the sentiment in the other thread Tinley made about "banning congress and their immediate family from owning/trading stock" by Matt Gaetz and AOC, is the spouse and kids just not allowed to hold any jobs?
Maybe only allow judges that don't have any family or children
Last Edit: May 5, 2023 9:55:57 GMT -8 by nubulator
I just don't see how people paying justice's in America outside of government dollars can be justified. It's like the bedrock of corruption - paying to play, and at the highest court in the land. It's impossible to know is not being influenced by someone who pays for extravagant vacations, paying their wife's salary for issues that go to the supreme court. Can Justice Thomas threaten that he will be more of a centrist if they stop providing perks to his family? We don't know.
Nah, its not impossible to know. These judges have patterns. Now if we want to talk about someone who's voting pattern changed, maybe we should be investigating the likes of Souter. "went through ideological changes'. Hmmm, why?
I just don't see how people paying justice's in America outside of government dollars can be justified. It's like the bedrock of corruption - paying to play, and at the highest court in the land. It's impossible to know is not being influenced by someone who pays for extravagant vacations, paying their wife's salary for issues that go to the supreme court. Can Justice Thomas threaten that he will be more of a centrist if they stop providing perks to his family? We don't know.
Nah, its not impossible to know. These judges have patterns. Now if we want to talk about someone who's voting pattern changed, maybe we should be investigating the likes of Souter. "went through ideological changes'. Hmmm, why?
i don't know anything about Souter TBH. If we just rely on patterns, what's the point of them existing instead of just having chatGPT replace them by observing their past voting patterns and speech patterns.