Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[placeholder]

42 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

You expect lawyers & politicians to be honest ????

 

When you find 1, let us know.

Thanks for the cliched thinking.

Has it been revealed that any of the other justices have committed similar lapses?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

You expect lawyers & politicians to be honest ????

 

When you find 1, let us know.

Yes!  Call me crazy, but I expect judges in general and Supreme Court Justices in particular to be honest and follow the law.  When they are caught breaking the law the consequences should be swift and severe.

[placeholder]

I think if Thomas is incapable of understanding such simple and basic laws about the financial reporting, then he clearly doesn't have the ability to sensibly interpret the Constitution..

[pomchop]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I think if Thomas is incapable of understanding such simple and basic laws about the financial reporting, then he clearly doesn't have the ability to sensibly interpret the Constitution..

Absolutely.  A first year law student would understand that judges should and do recuse themselves all the time when there is even the appearance of a conflict.  The govt forms that Thomas was unwilling or unable to fill out are filled out by thousands of government employees every year who don't have law degrees but somehow are able to understand and fill out the required information.

 

Thomas is crooked as a stick and dumb as a bucket of mud.  What a great combination for a life time appointee of the supreme court of the USA.  Has a single republican called for him to resign or at least be investigated ?  Seems to say that republicans believe no one is above the law if they happen to be a republican.  Surprise surprise.

[KhunLA]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Yes!  Call me crazy, but I expect judges in general and Supreme Court Justices in particular to be honest and follow the law.  When they are caught breaking the law the consequences should be swift and severe.

Humans lie ... I do, and don't personally know 1 that has never lied.

 

Aside from that, yes, I would expect a SCOTUS judge to be a bit honest after attaining the post.

 

But after the ACA decision, I lost respect for the court.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Humans lie ... I do, and don't personally know 1 that has never lied.

 

Aside from that, yes, I would expect a SCOTUS judge to be a bit honest after attaining the post.

 

But after the ACA decision, I lost respect for the court.

So you're up to "a bit honest".  Really high standards there.

 

What do you think is the appropriate response when Thomas has been "a bit" dishonest on signed documents, every year, going back many years?

[GroveHillWanderer]

The more I read about Clarence Thomas the more it seems that he's just a serial scofflaw when it comes to financial disclosures.

 

As mentioned in the article below he also failed to disclose his wife's income for several years in a row. The writer of the articles points out that this is actually criminal behavior (but that it is unlikely he will ever get into any trouble over it because of the massive double standards involved).

 

Clarence Thomas' Criminal Behavior on Financial Disclosure

 

Thomas claimed that his failure to report correctly was because he didn't understand the disclosure rules, but the strange thing is that he had been declaring her income up until 2003 but didn't from 2003 to 2007 (a period during which when she earned nearly $700,000) and then failed to do so again in 2009, another year in which she is known to have been employed in what was apparently an extremely lucrative position.

 

So it seems that his lack of comprehension of these rules is a thing that comes and goes in what can only be described as a rather strange and mysterious way.

 

It also seems odd that a Supreme court justice, who is supposed to understand, interpret and rule on the most serious and complex issues of law in the United States, is suddenly afflicted by ignorance or lack of understanding when it comes to the matter of simple financial disclosure rules applying to themselves.

[GroveHillWanderer]

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, Harlan Crow was basically asked if he ever expected any kind of "quid pro quo" from his relationship with Clarence Thomas.

 

His answer?

 

Quote

“Every single relationship — a baby’s relationship to his mom — has some kind of reciprocity,“

Sounds rather like he's just "admitted the quiet part out loud."

 

Harlan Crow: There’s nothing wrong with my friendship with Clarence Thomas

[KhunLA]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

So you're up to "a bit honest".  Really high standards there.

 

What do you think is the appropriate response when Thomas has been "a bit" dishonest on signed documents, every year, going back many years?

Actually I have very high standards, especially compared to some of the thoughts and questions some AN members post.

 

Knowing I'm an inspiration to my daughter, yea, not honest with all my answers to her about me, my past, vices or hobbies.   Flat out lie, no, evade, hell yea.  ????

 

Lied to get employment, yes, lied on my taxes, yes.  Lie to wife/partner, no, as never needed to, or would.  That relationship would be over if I needed to lie.  Lie to a friend, no, they wouldn't be a friend if I did that.

 

Actually pretty squeaky clean, and many men, women wouldn't confide in me, when younger.   As if their wife/GF asked if they were cheating on them, they know I wouldn't lie.   People know they can trust me, which will keep a few friend, and lose many acquaintances.  Works out perfectly.

 

People who know me, learn quickly, not to ask me questions they don't want the answer to.

 

On topic, as always ... politicians & lawyers, nobody expects them to be honest.  SCOTUS ... hopefully does their duty, at that level, but we know that doesn't happen.

Edited April 18, 2023 by KhunLA

[placeholder]

36 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

On topic, as always ... politicians & lawyers, nobody expects them to be honest.  SCOTUS ... hopefully does their duty, at that level, but we know that doesn't happen.

When were you appointed spokesperson for everyone?

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

When were you appointed spokesperson for everyone?

I think the same time you were ????

[placeholder]

38 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I think the same time you were ????

 I never make the claim that "everone knows that etc" In fact, when someone says that the odds are very strong that what they're promoting is a very dubious assumption. It's a pity that not everyone knows that.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Actually I have very high standards, especially compared to some of the thoughts and questions some AN members post.

 

Knowing I'm an inspiration to my daughter, yea, not honest with all my answers to her about me, my past, vices or hobbies.   Flat out lie, no, evade, hell yea.  ????

 

Lied to get employment, yes, lied on my taxes, yes.  Lie to wife/partner, no, as never needed to, or would.  That relationship would be over if I needed to lie.  Lie to a friend, no, they wouldn't be a friend if I did that.

 

Actually pretty squeaky clean, and many men, women wouldn't confide in me, when younger.   As if their wife/GF asked if they were cheating on them, they know I wouldn't lie.   People know they can trust me, which will keep a few friend, and lose many acquaintances.  Works out perfectly.

 

People who know me, learn quickly, not to ask me questions they don't want the answer to.

 

On topic, as always ... politicians & lawyers, nobody expects them to be honest.  SCOTUS ... hopefully does their duty, at that level, but we know that doesn't happen.

How does this answer the question in my post:  "What do you think is the appropriate response when Thomas has been "a bit" dishonest on signed documents, every year, going back many years? "

 

That is professional dishonesty, and it's illegal.  Any comments on that?

[bendejo]

On 4/17/2023 at 12:11 PM, heybruce said:

Yes!  Call me crazy, but I expect judges in general and Supreme Court Justices in particular to be honest and follow the law.  When they are caught breaking the law the consequences should be swift and severe.

When the three SCOTUS justices assigned by DT were in their appointment hearings it became clear they were lying when asked about certain issues, and they all had the same response "I won't respond to hypotheticals."  What we saw is what we got.  I put the onus on the Democrat senators who let them slide in, three of which tried to run for president in 2020 but didn't get past the primaries (praise Allah for protecting us!), and I think those same three jokers will attempt to run again.  The Dems don't have the guts to fight as dirty as the GOP,  which The Lincoln Project keeps telling them, and they are correct.

Meanwhile vile creatures are crawling out the sewers and swamps and getting elected by the GOP, celebrating the impunity of being in that party. 

 

 

[bamnutsak]

2 hours ago, bendejo said:

When the three SCOTUS justices assigned by DT were in their appointment hearings it became clear they were lying when asked about certain issues

Regarding Roe/Casey/Dobbs...Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were "cagey" but IMO, they were not lying. Pivotal Senators heard what they wanted to hear.

 

What Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett Said About Roe at Confirmation Hearings

 

A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/#:~:text=What Gorsuch%2C Kavanaugh and Barrett Said About Roe at Confirmation Hearings

 

 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, bendejo said:

When the three SCOTUS justices assigned by DT were in their appointment hearings it became clear they were lying when asked about certain issues, and they all had the same response "I won't respond to hypotheticals."  What we saw is what we got.  I put the onus on the Democrat senators who let them slide in, three of which tried to run for president in 2020 but didn't get past the primaries (praise Allah for protecting us!), and I think those same three jokers will attempt to run again.  The Dems don't have the guts to fight as dirty as the GOP,  which The Lincoln Project keeps telling them, and they are correct.

Meanwhile vile creatures are crawling out the sewers and swamps and getting elected by the GOP, celebrating the impunity of being in that party. 

 

 

The Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. They couldn't stop them from being approved.  If you want to assign blame look to the so-called moderate Republican Senators. Although I don't think that even if they had voted against the nominees that would have been enough to stop them. Susan Collins did vote against Amy Barrett Browning but only on the grounds that the nomination was too soon before the election.

And the nominees didn't lie. They just used lawyerese to give ambiguous answers to Senators who wanted to be able to claim that they were misled. If they truly were misled, then they have no business being in the Senate.

[KhunLA]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

How does this answer the question in my post:  "What do you think is the appropriate response when Thomas has been "a bit" dishonest on signed documents, every year, going back many years? "

 

That is professional dishonesty, and it's illegal.  Any comments on that?

Don't have an answer, as don't follow the story, or care.   As I stated, lost respect for the SCOTUS and the USA a long time ago.  Part of the reason why I left.

[GroveHillWanderer]

6 hours ago, bendejo said:

I put the onus on the Democrat senators who let them slide in, three of which tried to run for president in 2020 but didn't get past the primaries (praise Allah for protecting us!), and I think those same three jokers will attempt to run again.  The Dems don't have the guts to fight as dirty as the GOP,  which The Lincoln Project keeps telling them, and they are correct.

The Democrats were in the minority and had no power to block their appointments.

[bamnutsak]

Clarence Thomas loan for luxury RV was forgiven, Senate Democrats say

 

Washington — Most of a $267,000 loan that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received from a wealthy friend to buy a luxury RV may have been forgiven, according to Senate Democrats. 

 

In 2008, nine years after Thomas' friend Anthony Welters lent him money to purchase a motorhome, the health care executive forgave the balance of the loan, according to a report from Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clarence-thomas-rv-loan-forgiven-anthony-welters-senate-finance-committee/

 

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_finance_committee_welters_thomas_memo_102523.pdf

 

I'm sure there's a good explanation. Nice to have a Sugar-Daddy I guess.

 

 

[stevenl]

Yes, as corrupt as it gets.
But nothing will come of it.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, bamnutsak said:

Clarence Thomas loan for luxury RV was forgiven, Senate Democrats say

 

Washington — Most of a $267,000 loan that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received from a wealthy friend to buy a luxury RV may have been forgiven, according to Senate Democrats. 

 

In 2008, nine years after Thomas' friend Anthony Welters lent him money to purchase a motorhome, the health care executive forgave the balance of the loan, according to a report from Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clarence-thomas-rv-loan-forgiven-anthony-welters-senate-finance-committee/

 

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_finance_committee_welters_thomas_memo_102523.pdf

 

I'm sure there's a good explanation. Nice to have a Sugar-Daddy I guess.

 

 

And the thing is, Thomas knew it was improper since he told friends he had purchased the vehicle through is savings.

“He told me he saved up all his money to buy it,” said Armstrong Williams, a longtime friend who worked closely with Justice Thomas in the Reagan administration.

https://archive.ph/qBxHY

[heybruce]

If he were a liberal justice the conservative not-news media would be going nuts.

[ozimoron]