Report on Thomas’ Travel Habits Politics Plain and Simple

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcalibur254
Not surprising you have issues with the person of color in a position of power.
And his heterosexual wife as well.
BAMN will BAMN.

Why point out that his wife is heterosexual?
If she was a he would your tune be different?

Bet somebody else would, wouldn't they 😁

a reply to: incoserv

And just think, Hank Johnson has a law degree 😁

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Remember the sword cuts both ways. Are you naive enough to believe that the liberal judges can pass the same standards you want applied to Thomas? We are only just hearing about Thomas what, decades after it started. Pretty likely the members on the left can be accused of similar "issues", just no one has spoken out about it.

That's the whole point of the article. He has done nothing out of the ordinary for all of the judges.

But, the left reeks of desperation.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: hangedman13

... and yet only one judge is consistently, and rightfully, being called out for impropriety.

Exactly! Because the left is desperately scared.

Beside the fact that progressives have absolutely no sense of nor capacity for self-awareness. The progressive pot will curse the kettle for its blackness while proclaiming that it doesn't see color.
:

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: incoserv

And just think, Hank Johnson has a law degree 😁

Frightening! Imagine what it'd be like to have that idiot represent you in court.

He should demand a refund of his tuition from his alma mater.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: hangedman13

Except this stuff about Thomas is not new. Questions about Ginni's PAC have existed since the Citizens United decision was made in 2010. And the stuff about not disclosing Ginni's income was discovered in 2011.

You can claim that all of the judges have skeletons in their closets, and yet only one judge is consistently, and rightfully, being called out for impropriety.

It's new to the public now is it not? As for my claims, why is it that now you are discussing it? Oh because it became a talking point in the past few days. If it was an issue over a liberal judge you would be defending them. So in a decade, with more than half that time a liberal was in the white house, it wasn't examined?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why do you keep attacking Members? 😁

Clearly because he/she/it has nothing of substance to add to the discussion. Best to just ignore.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: incoserv
... And you don't find that concerning? ...

What I find concerning is rabid progressives who can't see past the end of their own noses, who will villify a decent man while lauding criminals and perverts as heros.

That is concerning.
:

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: incoserv

Justices are not required to disclose invitations and travel that are considered “personal hospitality” and the Supreme Court is not subject to an ethics code. ...

And you don't find that concerning?

Sure, but it applies to all of the justices, even your new favorite marxist.

We could point to the years he reported that Ginni didn't have any income, even though she was making very good money at the time.

Linky? I'm sure this egregious violation made the headlines somewhere?

Or how about the fact that Ginni created the first PAC using $500,000 from Crow shortly before the Citizens United decision was announced? I guess those two just got real lucky that the Citizens United decisions made PACs legal.

Linky? I'm sure this egregious violation made the headlines somewhere?

Or how about the fact that Thomas lied about Crow not having any business before the SCOTUS? Crow sits on the board of AEI which has filed numerous amicus briefs to the SCOTUS, including one last year that was cited in a SCOTUS decision?

Ummm... people who file amicus briefs are not parties with business before the court.

It takes time for them to get a SC justice.
Examine how they handled Scalia before they murdered him.
Obama gathered the dirt on him and it was Scalia pals that had to take him out to avoid what Obama was doing with the dirt.

Think about this.
They murdered a SCJ and there was no investigation.
Both sides in on that one.
Thomas is more difficult.
They have to manufacture it because only the left wants to remove him.
How else could you murder a SCJ and get away with it?

originally posted by: hangedman13

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: hangedman13

Except this stuff about Thomas is not new. Questions about Ginni's PAC have existed since the Citizens United decision was made in 2010. And the stuff about not disclosing Ginni's income was discovered in 2011.

You can claim that all of the judges have skeletons in their closets, and yet only one judge is consistently, and rightfully, being called out for impropriety.

It's new to the public now is it not? As for my claims, why is it that now you are discussing it? Oh because it became a talking point in the past few days. If it was an issue over a liberal judge you would be defending them. So in a decade, with more than half that time a liberal was in the white house, it wasn't examined?