@mott-the-hoople saidI'm in favor of disclosure and recusal in the case of conflicts of interest.
george soros's son has visited the whitehouse 14 times since biden was installed...are you for or against?
1 edit
Clarence Thomas works in the public sector. I've seen public sector employees turn down free pens and bottled water from conference exhibitor tables since they would've been seen as gifts.
A vacation on a yacht with a price tag equivalent of your yearly salary? This would at the very least warrant a disclosure.
A vacation on a yacht with a wealthy friend who stands to benefit from a razor thin 5-4 supreme court decision? Maybe would raise a few eyebrows. Seems weird why he wouldn't disclose that. Shouldn't he know better? Maybe there's a reason he didn't disclose it.
@shavixmir saidYou are still buying the big lie that Trump called for violent insurrection. You know he called for peaceful protests and there is nothing illegal about that. He didn't tell people to go into the capitol building. Ray Epps did that.
It’s not a lie. That’s republican spin-doctoring.
However, I’m on about his claims the election was stolen. When no proof can be found, every recount proved as much, Fox news knew it was pushing this lie and every court case proved otherwise.
That is undermining democracy and destabalising a country. Very dangerous behaviour. And in many countries he would be shot ove ...[text shortened]... gans in New York deserves community service.
The punishment should suit the crime and the criminal.
People have the right to claim elections were stolen. Hillary Clinton did that, so stop crying about something both sides do. You were never outraged when HRC made election stealing claims. You are only outraged when republicans do it. You condone it when democrats do it.
@metal-brain said🥱
You are still buying the big lie that Trump called for violent insurrection. You know he called for peaceful protests and there is nothing illegal about that. He didn't tell people to go into the capitol building. Ray Epps did that.
People have the right to claim elections were stolen. Hillary Clinton did that, so stop crying about something both sides do. You were ne ...[text shortened]... stealing claims. You are only outraged when republicans do it. You condone it when democrats do it.
Just to be clear, eh, from my perspective there’s very little difference between the republicans and the democrats. I would’t vote for either capitalist 💩-bag parties.
Actually, the only real difference is that a good many republicans have turned loopy and left planet Earth for stupidity.
@wildgrass saidYou said that one "should be skeptical". I'm asking what does skepticism have to do with anything. I already understand that judges may need to recuse themselves in some scenarios.
If it is disclosed like it should then this is where recusal systems will apply. If he's actual friends with a multimillion dollar contributor to one particular political party, and then a case like citizens united comes across his desk, he should recuse himself for a conflict of interest.
That's what's actionable.
Did someone fail in being skeptical enough? Does this action kick in only if our "skepticism" neurons fire?
Seems like we could make rules that apply independent of whether we're skeptical or not. You are suggesting that Thomas would have needed to recuse himself on a case like CU. That could be debated of course, yet it seems to be an independent conversation. In other words, we could debate that without even having to do any self-analysis on whether or not we were "skeptical" about Thomas' vacation with a friend.
Could you see another judge saying something like "you went on vacation with so and so and there is a case before the SC he may be a party to. Hmm. Let me decide if I'm skeptical or not before I give you an opinion on what you should do."
I'm not asking "What is actionable?" I am asking "What is actionable that is triggered by whether we're skeptical or not?"
1 edit
@techsouth saidI answered your question about what's actionable. This response seems unnecessarily semantic. What is skepticism? Skepticism is doubt. Clarence reports dozens of gifts he has received but doesn't report travelling on one the most expensive yachts in the world multiple times with a giant republican megadonor who directly benefits from specific decisions he has made? Huge red flag, if you posses any ounce of skepticism.
You said that one "should be skeptical". I'm asking what does skepticism have to do with anything. I already understand that judges may need to recuse themselves in some scenarios.
Did someone fail in being skeptical enough? Does this action kick in only if our "skepticism" neurons fire?
Seems like we could make rules that apply independent of whether we're skeptic ...[text shortened]... actionable?" I am asking "What is actionable that is triggered by whether we're skeptical or not?"
I guess if we want to get super technical on your question then the actionable item is , be more skeptical. Don't let corrupt holes walk all over you. Just report it, Clarence. Recuse yourself if obvious conflicts exists. This reassures skeptics that he's not corrupt.
@wildgrass said"who directly benefits from specific decisions he has made"
I answered your question about what's actionable. This response seems unnecessarily semantic. What is skepticism? Skepticism is doubt. Clarence reports dozens of gifts he has received but doesn't report travelling on one the most expensive yachts in the world multiple times with a giant republican megadonor who directly benefits from specific decisions he has made? Huge red ...[text shortened]... larence. Recuse yourself if obvious conflicts exists. This reassures skeptics that he's not corrupt.
and what is that?
@mott-the-hoople saidDude, nobody need have benefitted from it.
"who directly benefits from specific decisions he has made"
and what is that?
The point is, is that it is dubious behaviour.
When you’re a public employee or a judge or a politician you declare things. Even minor things, so that everything you do is above board and clean.
This is so blatantly dodgy, not declaring it is a complete lack of integrity.
If the man is unable to judge that, how the hell can you expect him to judge anything else?
1 edit
@shavixmir saidSince there’s very little difference between the republicans and the democrats then democrats have turned loopy and left planet Earth for stupidity too. Right?
🥱
Just to be clear, eh, from my perspective there’s very little difference between the republicans and the democrats. I would’t vote for either capitalist 💩-bag parties.
Actually, the only real difference is that a good many republicans have turned loopy and left planet Earth for stupidity.
Perhaps Clarence stopped being corrupt and that is why the establishment wants him removed.
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-rules-against-donald-trumps-efforts-keep-documents-1-6-committee-1670999
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/supreme-courts-decision-not-hear-elections-cases-could-have-serious
@metal-brain saidOr perhaps not?
Since there’s very little difference between the republicans and the democrats then democrats have turned loopy and left planet Earth for stupidity too. Right?
Perhaps Clarence stopped being corrupt and that is why the establishment wants him removed.
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-rules-against-donald-trumps-efforts-keep-documents-1-6-committee-1670999
h ...[text shortened]... rg/election-integrity/commentary/supreme-courts-decision-not-hear-elections-cases-could-have-serious
Dude, stop with Carlson sort of questioning technique. It’s fukking pathetic.
@shavixmir saidNo, you just can't help but contradict yourself.
Or perhaps not?
Dude, stop with Carlson sort of questioning technique. It’s fukking pathetic.
Why do so many democrats watch Tucker Carlson?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/02/democrats-fox-news-entertainment-conservative-liberal-00004843
@shavixmir saidwhat you mean is…if a conservative judge goes against liberal wishes you libs attack with anything you can drag up
Dude, nobody need have benefitted from it.
The point is, is that it is dubious behaviour.
When you’re a public employee or a judge or a politician you declare things. Even minor things, so that everything you do is above board and clean.
This is so blatantly dodgy, not declaring it is a complete lack of integrity.
If the man is unable to judge that, how the hell can you expect him to judge anything else?
lets just be truthful for a change
@shavixmir saidbut shytmixer loves hunter and joe selling America to the highest bidder
Dude, nobody need have benefitted from it.
The point is, is that it is dubious behaviour.
When you’re a public employee or a judge or a politician you declare things. Even minor things, so that everything you do is above board and clean.
This is so blatantly dodgy, not declaring it is a complete lack of integrity.
If the man is unable to judge that, how the hell can you expect him to judge anything else?
@metal-brain saidI don't watch Mother Tucker. He makes me want to throw up. I don't watch Hannity for the same reason.
No, you just can't help but contradict yourself.
Why do so many democrats watch Tucker Carlson?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/02/democrats-fox-news-entertainment-conservative-liberal-00004843