Where’s Clarence Thomas …and Ginny?

[Aloha Hoosier]

i was thinking it had to have been more than that to cause someone to switch parties.

There were many factors and it was a slow process. If I had to point to two primary factors, it was when nearly every Democrat voted against taking action, to include the use of force, to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and the other was the deep dishonesty of the 1992 Presidential election. I lived in California at the time so I expected some of that, but I was just flabbergasted by the dishonesty of the local and national news about President GHW Bush and Bill Clinton's dishonesty as a person. I thought he was a serial liar, and he was, but he looks like Honest Bill in comparison to Donald Trump. Trump now has the distinction of being the most dishonest person to be elected in my lifetime - and that includes Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Really? We can now propagandize based on the views of spouses? I guess this also makes sons and daughters open books?

My second cousin on my moms side was a racist asshole. Guess I can’t get elected.

Has nothing to do with the topic. Please post something relevant if you’d like to discuss. Like why Thomas didn’t recuse himself?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Neither of those making the allegations were up for confirmation. They're not investigated and vetted like the nominees are. In the end, neither of them made allegations that would stand up to scrutiny.

Whose scrutiny exactly?

 

[UncleMark]

Shouldn’t Thomas have recused himself from the case? Doesn’t his vote seem a little suspect now? Sure seems like conflict of interest.

Definitely a bad look that Clarence was the one dissent to releasing documents. I'd like to be a fly in the wall when this news broke.

Thomas should most definitely recuse from any/all questions about Trump's post-election behavior. His wife is on that "team".

Roberts should be beside himself. But to my knowledge, there's really nothing he can do to force Thomas to recuse if he doesn't do so voluntarily. That he didn't in the archives case is disturbing. Future cases could be far less open-and-shut, and his vote could be decisive.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Has nothing to do with the topic. Please post something relevant if you’d like to discuss. Like why Thomas didn’t recuse himself?

Why should he?

If he wasn’t a black man married to a white woman, nobody would care - same as Anita Hill.

Just another high tech lynching by the Democrats.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Why should he?

If he wasn’t a black man married to a white woman, nobody would care - same as Anita Hill.

Just another high tech lynching by the Democrats.

He should recuse because his wife was involved??? You enjoy playing obtuse on here way too much. Why waste your time? If you’re not interested scroll on by.

 

[Crayfish57]

He should revise because his wife was involved??? You enjoy playing obtuse on here wait too much. Why waste your time? If you’re not interested scroll on by.

Wow, that was a tough read. Do you have a translation for those of us that read in English?

 

[iuwclurker]

Wow, that was a tough read. Do you have a translation for those of us that read in English?

She said **** off jackass.

 

[Crayfish57]

She said **** off jackass.

Really that is what she said? You two hanging out tonight or something?

 

[iuwclurker]

Really that is what she said? You two hanging out tonight or something?

I was translating her above text in simple English for you.

 

[Crayfish57]

I was translating her above text in simple English for you.

Wow, that would me her even more qualified to be a lousy teacher then wouldn't it? Right back at you sunshine!

 

[zeke4ahs]

Wow, that would me her even more qualified to be a lousy teacher then wouldn't it? Right back at you sunshine!

Yes that would me her all right. Lmao

 

[Crayfish57]

Yes that would me her all right. Lmao

''He should revise because his wife was involved??? You enjoy playing obtuse on here wait too much. Why waste your time? If you’re not interested scroll on by. ''

Look familiar before you edited it? You are too funny

 

[Crayfish57]

Yes that would me her all right. Lmao

#1 I am not a teacher and #2 you really aren't any good at this either.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

"It’s also curious how little information is coming out about Judge Thomas’ health conditions. He was supposed to be released from the hospital days ago."

And when "they" out your cousin don't you dare get hospitalized.

How much health information was released about Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg?

She was 'participating ' in The Court's sessions......then oops, she was gone.

 

[UncleMark]

How much health information was released about Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg?

She was 'participating ' in The Court's sessions......then oops, she was gone.

Mitch had to off her before the election, dumbass. Shesh.

 

[Bowlmania]

There were many factors and it was a slow process. If I had to point to two primary factors, it was when nearly every Democrat voted against taking action, to include the use of force, to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and the other was the deep dishonesty of the 1992 Presidential election. I lived in California at the time so I expected some of that, but I was just flabbergasted by the dishonesty of the local and national news about President GHW Bush and Bill Clinton's dishonesty as a person. I thought he was a serial liar, and he was, but he looks like Honest Bill in comparison to Donald Trump. Trump now has the distinction of being the most dishonest person to be elected in my lifetime - and that includes Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.

And not just dishonest, but utterly devoid of character and any semblance of a moral compass. His own sister, retired Federal Court Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, is on tape saying "he has no principles. None." His conduct is indefensible but his legion of devotees include people here who turn a blind eye to his immorality, or foolishly argue that he's no worse than everyone else, or suggest his only transgressions are "mean tweets."

I was raised to believe that character matters. I'm sure you were too. I don't know how a man can deliver that message to his son or daughter and then bring the kid to a Trump rally.

 

[zeke4ahs]

How much health information was released about Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg?

She was 'participating ' in The Court's sessions......then oops, she was gone.

We were constantly updated on her conditions. That’s why I wondered about Thomas.

 

[NPT]

I was raised to believe that character matters. I'm sure you were too. I don't know how a man can deliver that message to his son or daughter and then bring the kid to a Trump rally.

To be honest if I was trying to teach my son or daughter character a rally for any politician is one of the last places I would take them.

 

[Bowlmania]

To be honest if I was trying to teach my son or daughter character a rally for any politician is one of the last places I would take them.

Thanks. As I said, a common "defense" is that he's no worse than everyone else.

 

[NPT]

Thanks. As I said, a common "defense" is that he's no worse than everyone else.

I didn't say that at all... that's what you read into it. The other side of that coin is a lot of people must feel it's okay to lie and cheat up to a certain point but if you go over that it's bad. I don't go along with that at all. All politicians lie and try to manipulate people... that is not the example that I'd want my son or daughter to follow.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

He should recuse because his wife was involved??? You enjoy playing obtuse on here way too much. Why waste your time? If you’re not interested scroll on by.

By your logic, no black justice should rule in any case involving race discrimination - since it will/might involve/benefit his/her family, I respectfully disagree.

Plus, AND MORE IMPORTANT, RELEVANT and ACCURATE, according to CNBC:

"Of the nine justices, only Clarence Thomas would have granted Trump’s application for an injunction blocking the release of the records to the select committee, at least temporarily until the court could hear arguments in the case."

Thus, the MERITS of the issue whether a current President could block the Executive Privilege assertion of a prior President WAS NOT BEFORE SCOTUS.

Again - not that the facts ever matter to the Trump/anti-Trump sycophants - according to CNBC:

"Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court did not determine the ultimate questions of whether and when a former president can obtain a court order blocking the release of records, despite an incumbent president saying they can be released. The ruling noted that those questions are “unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns.” " (DAMN RIGHT they do - and these are EXACTLY the kind of questions SCOTUS is supposed to resolve - if we believe in our Constitution. Can't wait for a future President to be asked if Biden's assertions of Executive Privilege over text messages with his son about the Russian computer fiasco will be accepted or rejected. What then? The rules will "different" - that's what.)

It is also entirely possible that Thomas - after hearing arguments about that issue - would have voted against Trump's argument anyway.

So once again, the Great Trump Mind Control Virus means nobody gives a shit about THE LAW - its just about TRUMP, and whatever rules apply to the other 330,000,000 citizens should be ignored and special pro or anti Trump rules should be made up out of whole cloth.

YOUR argument (1) is wrong about the MEANING of Thomas' vote, and (2) SPECULATES that he KNEW his wife's communications might be responsive to a subpoena, and (3) SPECULATES that that his wife's "involvement" was the basis for his vote.

Shame on you. A teacher should know better.


CNBC Article

Text of SCOTUS Opinion

 

[DANC]

Shouldn’t Anita Hill be presumed innocent of lying?

You had sex with a goat.

Shouldn't I be presumed innocent of lying?

 

[UncleMark]

You had sex with a goat.

Shouldn't I be presumed innocent of lying?

Hill's credibility was at stake. You, well...

 

[DANC]

I just don’t understand why a successful, professional woman ( both Hill and Blasie Ford) would put their entire reputation on the line to lie about something like that. Neither were desperate for money or had anything at all in their background to lead someone to believe they would lie like that. Let alone the stigma they would have for the rest of their lives.

Because they're D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S, sweetie.

They like to play the victim - big bucks in that nowdays.

 

[DANC]

Hill's credibility was at stake. You, well...

She got the publicity she craved. Her credibility didn't suffer a bit with your crowd.

How was the sex with the Goat?

 

[DANC]

Aloha, note I haven’t made any claims about her telling the truth. Not a single one. I have asserted that she had no reason to lie. That’s my presumption of her innocence. Clarence Thomas also deserved a presumption of innocence. You didn’t grant that to her. Your presumption is that her claim is dubious. That is not a presumption of innocence in terms of the charge of lying.

Your entire argument resolutely looks at it from his point of view and entirely and utterly ignores hers. Hyper partisan, whether you realize it or not.

She was not the one being questioned. She made the accusations and it was up to her to prove it.

She couldn't prove anything. Not. One. Thing.

Your side got caught in an attempt at electronically lynching a black man. Own it.

 

[Crayfish57]

Because they're D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S, sweetie.

They like to play the victim - big bucks in that nowdays.

She is just insufferable. All the BS she goes on about would love to have her employer see what kind of crap she posts

 

[zeke4ahs]

Because they're D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S, sweetie.

They like to play the victim - big bucks in that nowdays.

Lol, sure thing Danny Boy. Tell me which party is driving around in their big old trucks crying about mandate, or masks, or whatever their problem is these days. Tell me which party still can’t accept an election that was a year and a half ago. Try again, Danno.

 

[zeke4ahs]

By your logic, no black justice should rule in any case involving race discrimination - since it will/might involve/benefit his/her family, I respectfully disagree.

Plus, AND MORE IMPORTANT, RELEVANT and ACCURATE, according to CNBC:

"Of the nine justices, only Clarence Thomas would have granted Trump’s application for an injunction blocking the release of the records to the select committee, at least temporarily until the court could hear arguments in the case."

Thus, the MERITS of the issue whether a current President could block the Executive Privilege assertion of a prior President WAS NOT BEFORE SCOTUS.

Again - not that the facts ever matter to the Trump/anti-Trump sycophants - according to CNBC:

"Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court did not determine the ultimate questions of whether and when a former president can obtain a court order blocking the release of records, despite an incumbent president saying they can be released. The ruling noted that those questions are “unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns.” " (DAMN RIGHT they do - and these are EXACTLY the kind of questions SCOTUS is supposed to resolve - if we believe in our Constitution. Can't wait for a future President to be asked if Biden's assertions of Executive Privilege over text messages with his son about the Russian computer fiasco will be accepted or rejected. What then? The rules will "different" - that's what.)

It is also entirely possible that Thomas - after hearing arguments about that issue - would have voted against Trump's argument anyway.

So once again, the Great Trump Mind Control Virus means nobody gives a shit about THE LAW - its just about TRUMP, and whatever rules apply to the other 330,000,000 citizens should be ignored and special pro or anti Trump rules should be made up out of whole cloth.

YOUR argument (1) is wrong about the MEANING of Thomas' vote, and (2) SPECULATES that he KNEW his wife's communications might be responsive to a subpoena, and (3) SPECULATES that that his wife's "involvement" was the basis for his vote.

Shame on you. A teacher should know better.


CNBC Article

Text of SCOTUS Opinion

Interesting. Such a shame that an awful lot of lawyers disagree with you. Not sure why this is something a teacher should know when it appears attorneys don’t agree…

 

[zeke4ahs]

Interesting. Such a shame that an awful lot of lawyers disagree with you. Not sure why this is something a teacher should know when it appears attorneys don’t agree…

I know you consider yourself one of the country’s most respected legal scholars, but here’s some differing opinions. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...ked-by-ginni-thomass-stop-the-steal-texts/amp

 

[Bowlmania]

Because they're D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S, sweetie.

They like to play the victim - big bucks in that nowdays.

No one plays the victim like your Orange Crush. He's turned it into a lucrative art form.
P.S. And it's "nowadays," Einstein.

 

[Crayfish57]

No one plays the victim like your Orange Crush. He's turned it into a lucrative art form.
P.S. And it's "nowadays," Einstein.

Were you born stupid?

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Interesting. Such a shame that an awful lot of lawyers disagree with you. Not sure why this is something a teacher should know when it appears attorneys don’t agree…

Many of the Democrat political hack lawyers paid to dodge the actual facts also defended Bill Clinton … until the dress semen.

I read and linked the actual opinion.

Anybody who wants to disagree with me better quote from it to support their opinion, because they are wrong.

The “case” was about an injunction. Not the merits.

You speculated. You were wrong. You should stop spreading misinformation. But you won’t, because the politics, not the truth, is what matters to you.

 

[Crayfish57]

Many of the Democrat political hack lawyers paid to dodge the actual facts also defended Bill Clinton … until the dress semen.

I read and linked the actual opinion.

Anybody who wants to disagree with me better quote from it to support their opinion, because they are wrong.

The “case” was about an injunction. Not the merits.

You speculated. You were wrong. You should stop spreading misinformation. But you won’t, because the politics, not the truth, is what matters to you.

Zeke has no clue , she merely regurgitates Leftist BS hoping it somehow makes her look intelligent to someone.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think this topic is pretty simple.

If you think Ginny Thomas' texts are very relevant to Clarence Thomas' job, but you don't think Hunter Biden's laptop is very relevant to Joe Biden's job, you are probably a political hack.

If you think Hunter Biden's laptop is very relevant to Joe Biden's job, but you don't think Ginny Thomas' texts are very relevant to Clarence Thomas' job, you are probably a political hack.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Many of the Democrat political hack lawyers paid to dodge the actual facts also defended Bill Clinton … until the dress semen.

I read and linked the actual opinion.

Anybody who wants to disagree with me better quote from it to support their opinion, because they are wrong.

The “case” was about an injunction. Not the merits.

You speculated. You were wrong. You should stop spreading misinformation. But you won’t, because the politics, not the truth, is what matters to you.

Oh my. I posted an opinion piece by legal scholars and you’re telling me I’m posting misinformation? That’s really rich. What did I say that was misinformation. I asked why he didn’t have to recuse himself and said I thought he should. You have an awful lot of room to talk about politics and truth. Pot. Kettle.

 

[zeke4ahs]

She is just insufferable. All the BS she goes on about would love to have her employer see what kind of crap she posts

My employer and I talk about politics all the time… known him for twenty years, Jethro. Speaking of insufferable, you are by far the biggest jackass I have ever encountered on these boards in 20 years. If you are anything like you are on these boards. I feel bad for anyone who knows you. You’re the guy, just like your hero Trump , who everyone makes fun of behind your back and no one wants to sit by. If you ever go out, that is. Stop following me around. Stop your obsession. It’s weird. It’s creepy. It’s pathetic. Get a hobby. Or read an actual book. Try to think of an actual discussion or opinion, no matter how stupid, and do something besides insulting everyone you disagree with. You’re a pathetic little man .

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My employer and I talk about politics all the time… known him for twenty years, Jethro. Speaking of insufferable, you are by far the biggest jackass I have ever encountered on these boards in 20 years. If you are anything like you are on these boards. I feel bad for anyone who knows you. You’re the guy, just like your hero Trump , who everyone makes fun of behind your back and no one wants to sit by. If you ever go out, that is. Stop following me around. Stop your obsession. It’s weird. It’s creepy. It’s pathetic. Get a hobby. Or read an actual book. Try to think of an actual discussion or opinion, no matter how stupid, and do something besides insulting everyone you disagree with. You’re a pathetic little man .

I don't think anyone here is making fun of Cray behind his back.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I don't think anyone here is making fun of Cray behind his back.

I know that was totally out of line, but I’ve had it. He’s now followed me over to the basketball boards to call me names.