Justice Thomas's concern about politicizing the SC.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by WillReadmore, May 20, 2022.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, good lord.

    The measure is whether the justice as a personal interest in the outcome of the case.

    It is NOT limited to the justice having a financial relationship with one of the parties in the case.
     
    WalterSobchak and Hey Now like this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False for the reasons stated. The justice only has to have a financial interest in the outcome. Thomas's wife absolutely DID financially benefit from the outcome of that case as per Justice Thomas's opinion in that case helped assure.

    And, his wife's attempts to overthrow American democracy ABSOLUTELY reflect on the political nature of the current SC.
     
  3. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is one of them yes. But it has to be a direct interest.

    If a judge's wife has stock or even works in a Band-Aid company and they rule on a case about adhesives that does not mean the judge has a personal or conflict of interest. Even if that adhesive company does business with the Band-Aid company. Having such as standard as you propose would undoubtedly end up requiring that half the judges having to recuse themselves from half the cases. All because of indirect relationships.
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse

    The issue is whether there is a possibility of bias or has a financial interest in the outcome.

    In the case of Justice Thomas's WIFE benefitting from the decision BOTH apply!!
     
    mdrobster likes this.
  5. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,163
    Likes Received:
    20,938
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And THERE it is, the cat is out of the bag. But if our justices(and generals and admirals) are politicians, we have a problem. This is a part of political society that we cannot touch or control(and our government can't touch or control it either), leaving it virtually unbounded or checked by anything.
     
  6. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree they tried to circumvent the democratic process, not sure how far that would have succeeded should they have stopped the ceremony.

    Note they are being sentenced and hopefully Trump will be prosecuted too
     
  7. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,360
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It puts the court in political play. It is the reason that presidential deliberations, many discussions with foreign leaders, deliberations of the federal reserve, deliberation of congressional caucuses and many committee hearings, etc. should not be made public. Premature politicizing has a deleterious effect on such deliberations.

    What case is that?
     
    glitch likes this.
  8. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,230
    Likes Received:
    3,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dems just can't stand a black Republican. Drives them nuts.

    A) The leak should not have happened.
    B) His wife's actions in AZ has nothing to do with politicization of the courts
    C) Whether or not his actions involving issues affecting his wife's business is also not politicizing the courts.
     
    RodB likes this.
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Having the Justice's wife be actively working to defeat American democracy through coercion of election officials raises serious questions concerning how deeply Anti-Americanism is entrenched in that family.

    Failure to recuse IS a politicization. The whole purpose of recusal is to draw a line between what are financial and political acts and the independent and enlightened interpretation of the constitution.

    It's there to maintain confidence in a court whose justices remain for life, ruling above ALL of our elected officials.
     
    mdrobster likes this.
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you suggesting that rape doesn't exist?

    Are you suggesting that women who are raped are lying about that horror?
     
  11. Heartburn

    Heartburn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,499
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love it when the left speaks of serious bipartisan support on issues.
     
  12. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know if there has ever been a worse justice in the history of the Supreme Court. But Thomas HAS to be the most hypocritical.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...and, his confirmation hearings proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is NOT the kind of person that should be in the position he has today.
     
    Golem likes this.
  14. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know if I've ever seen a worst claim but it HAS to be the most hypocritical.
     
    RodB likes this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thomas again proved his hypocrisy when he whined about the leak making the court look political, when his own actions have been serious reasons for seeing the USSC as being strongly political.
     
  16. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not surprised that you are defending the leaker.

    Clarence Thomas: “When Someone Uses Stare Decisis that Means They’re Out of Arguments”


    [​IMG]

    "Associate Justice Clarence Thomas made an interesting comment this weekend about the hold of precedent on the Court. After denouncing the recent leak of the draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade as “an infidelity,” Thomas dismissed the reliance on the principle of stare decisis, or the respect for precedent. That was one of the central arguments in favor of preserving Roe. Thomas, however, surprised many by dismissing the principle as the last line of defense for those without an argument on the merits."

    Justice Thomas requires the merits.

    "justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution and to “faithfully and impartially” interpret the law. It is bizarre to argue that they should vote for some interpretation of the Constitution that they believe is wrong and unfounded just to preserve precedent. If that view had prevailed in the past, Brown versus Board of Education would have upheld the racist precepts of “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson. When it comes to fundamental rights, justices should faithfully interpret the Constitution."

    Some of the Left seems a bit pissy these days about the Court. I wonder what's up with that?
     
  17. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,807
    Likes Received:
    9,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cannot be serious ?

    Lets just take off the table that he was paid/not paid (but we know that his family income would benefit from his decision). You cannot think that it is in any way ethical for any judge, let alone a SC judge to benefit in any from a decision before them in their court. If that potential exists in any case, they should recuse themselves. Thats how the system was set up, to make sure that decisions were based on the law, and not personal benefit.

    Now tell me you would be OK if this was a liberal Judge who made money from a decision they made on the court. I sure wouldn't be. And you have to admit that what happened here stinks, proof of benefit to him or not, it STINKS to high heaven.

    And we don't have to worry that the decisions they make "may" politicize the court, the nomination process proves that the court is politicized. You currently have 3 judegse who claimed in theo confirmation hearings that Roe was "settled" law, yet it looks like all 3 are voting to overturn it. But Im sure you will be OK with that since it meets that litmus tests for conservatives right ?
     
    Hey Now likes this.
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe people don't appreciate his hypocrisy.

    Maybe they don't like his proven background of overt sexual harassments.

    Maybe people actually know why there is stare decisis.
     
    Hey Now likes this.
  19. Hey Now

    Hey Now Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    17,075
    Likes Received:
    13,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe Ginni is the leaker? What say you then?

    Regardless, this entire post in a pretty shitty deflection attempt. A failed one however.
     
  20. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's perfectly clear on why there is Stare Decisis. Further for a supporter of President Felony Fingers to point at Justice Thomas is quite a hoot.

    We all watched the confirmation hearings. Justice Thomas was clearly telling the Truth, Anita Hill with her constant huddling with a table full of attorneys before answering every question to make sure she managed to testify without getting charged with lying to Congress was clearly lying.

    "A New York Times /CBS News telephone poll taken in October of 1991 showed that 58 percent of the adult respondents believed Thomas, whereas only 24 percent believed Hill."

    I'm surprised she even got 24%.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
    glitch likes this.
  21. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My post is fabulously on point and remarkably successful too.
     
  22. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,230
    Likes Received:
    3,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know if what he did was ethical or not. I'm just saying that even if what he did is unethical, it didn't politicize the court. Unless you think that one is the party of ethics and the other is not. That being said, apples and rockets
     
  23. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,807
    Likes Received:
    9,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    do you think EITHER party is ethical ?
     
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a political statement as well.

    There is NO QUESTION that Hill was telling the truth.

    Like with Kavanaugh, the sexual exploits of Republican candidates were purposefully ignored, to the point of ignoring the investigations that were well warranted and fully promised.

    So, guess what? We get a SC that is Catholic and has no respect for women - half of the US population!
     
  25. Par10

    Par10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Messages:
    4,230
    Likes Received:
    3,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope and that's not what I'm saying. Politicization would mean that he would be putting one party over the other or making a decision based on politics. If ethics is the reason for your issue with his statements on politicization , then you must believe one party is ethical and one is not.

    Doesn't really matter though. The SC is all about politicization. That's why those people get chosen. Biden wouldn't ever nominate a Republican even if that person was lock step with everything he believed in. Same goes for any other POTUS.
     
    AmericanNationalist likes this.

Share This Page