|
|
| There are 31 comments on this blog. |
|
|
I read those and the rebuttal.
ProPublica essentially did a hit piece and lied in more than a few spots.
Then, didn't call out either Kagan or Sotomayor for similar "infractions"
I get that you've made up your mind before you read the articles (did you read them?) But you should be more skeptical when you see consistent "hit" pieces with almost the same wording.
A weird one right now is Dems demanding that Menendez resign........wtf??
Is he not innocent til proven guilty?
It doesn't look good for him but he gets the presumption of innocence until a jury decides, right?
Anyway, ProPublica fucked up on this one, there's not even much room for interpretation.....they just flat out ignored some facts that didn't fit with their narrative.
Go listen to some jazz, Rash.
It'll calm you.
|
|
|
Rashy, I realize it's probably futile but before you post these manic screeds, maybe you should learn more about "the good, the bad and the ugly" on some of your chosen targets.
"A Koch Industries company spokesperson issued a statement saying, "No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundation, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties"
These "evil" Kochs have given more money to good causes than you'll ever make in 100 lifetimes. They once backed Trump but have completely soured on the guy and actively support non-Trump candidates.
Read the wiki, you'll learn a lot. As with any human, there's both good and bad..
|
|
|
In this WSJ article, "Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake" Koch says;
"After President Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and the tea party (which pushed to slash federal spending) emerged, Mr. Koch threw his weight behind the new movement and its candidates. 'We did not create the tea party. We shared their concern about unsustainable government spending, and we supported some tea-party groups on that issue,' Mr. Koch wrote in an email.
'But it seems to me the tea party was largely unsuccessful long-term, given that we�re coming off a Republican administration with the largest government spending in history.'
Mr. Koch said he has since come to regret his partisanship, which he says badly deepened divisions. 'Boy, did we screw up!' he writes in his new book. 'What a mess!' "
He didn't say he "funded" Teat Party Movement, but he did support some aspects of the movement and its candidates, and at the same time he regretted that the movement deepened partisan political divide.
Koch didn't support Trump, but he approved Trump's appointment of all the Supreme Court Judges.
|
|
|
And I have to add that Koch Network is actively working to stop Trump from winning 2024 presidential nomination as it is stated in NY Times articles.
But what ProPublica article revealed that Koch Network was behind influencing Supreme Court judge, Thomas and his wife for the decision Citizens United v. FEC (dark money decision), and to overturn Chevron deference and to get rid of federal regulations (this will be the case soon this year).
Koch Network doesn't have a direct influence on MAGA movement, but their effort to influence the Supreme Court decisions are totally unacceptable, it should be considered as anti-governmental extremism, and it shared the same aspects of White Evangelicals push to ban abortion (overturning Roe v Wade).
And he militia movement is a right-wing anti-government extremist movement, so MAGA movement is an amalgam of all these anti-governmental forces, that is all I am saying.
|
|
|
ProPublica essentially did a hit piece and lied in more than a few spots.
Then, didn't call out either Kagan or Sotomayor for similar "infractions"
@Goebbels
Can you post links to those similar infractions?
Are you claiming pushing sales of one's book is a similar infraction as receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from billionaires that want you to vote a certain way?
|
|
|
Sotomayor? Infractions?
Seriously?
You must have dove off the deep end of a swimming pool head first into a pool of no water.
|
|
|
I apologize if I broadened the subject, and let's focus on this particular ProPublica article.
For me the convincing part of this article is backed by another article arguing ProPublica article regarding Koch Network trying to influence Chevron deference case, in order to obsolete governmental regulations.
"That doesn't exactly build up trust for Justice Thomas. And it does't encourage faith that
his jurisprudence is rooted exclusively in his own views of the Constitution and the law.
Thomas loves to say he is not evolving, right? He loves to say he is steady as a rock. But
there is one area where that has really not applied, which is this issue
of Chevron deference-deferring to administrative agencies and their reasonable
interpretations of ambiguous federal laws.
For years, Thomas was a strong supporter of Chevron deference and even wrote a major decision expanding it. But after he was cultivated by the Kochs and became their close friend, he drifted away from Chevron, ultimately renounced and repudiated Chevron deference and is now on the brink of
issuing or joining a decision that will overturn Chevron deference this coming term, in a
case that is partly funded and supported by the Koch network"
In other words, why Justice Thomas who doesn't evolve all of a sudden changed his view on Chevron deference? That is a crucial question here.
|
|
|
Liberal Salami Backrub Reacharound Festival?
No thanks.
|
|
|
"Are you claiming pushing sales of one's book is a similar infraction as receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from billionaires that want you to vote a certain way?"
Look guys, I'm not gonna do all your homework for you just because you can't get past a ProPublica headline. So, I can only assume that the billionaire in question is Harlan Crow. Here's a couple of tidbits that you can dig into on the SCOTUS site and other locations, then try to refute.....this time with evidence
#1 Harlan Crow has had NO cases before the court that would pose a conflict of interest
#2 The filings that Thomas made followed the letter of the law at the time they were made
#3 The inherited home in question (in one PP story) was an old hand-me-down and PP got the wrong address referencing the wrong property
#4 The referenced gifts of personal hospitality, including plane trips, were NOT required to be disclosed at that time according to the rules AND there was no business conflict since Crow had NO cases or was connected to cases appearing before the court. There is NO direct evidence of any quid pro quid.......at least not as much as there is in the FHB/FJB case anyway.
See attached "Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees" (AO-10)
More to come on Sotomayor but guys, guys..........this drive-by reporting has been going on with Thomas for years. Progs just cannot fathom how a black man could be a conservative, just shows your own racism.
And, if you're so ready to believe whatever they say about Thomas, why is it so difficult to believe that Biden has been a grifter his whole life using Hunter as his front? He is after all.......one guy with the power while Thomas is one guy out of nine.
|
|
|
Sotomayor............
I don't think she needs to be investigated at all and certainly ProPublica will never go after one of their own with flimsy evidence as is printed in the Thomas case, but here you go............
"A journalist of the right, Luke Rosiak of the Daily Wire, illustrates that point with a Wednesday piece about Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has developed a lucrative side gig as an author: “In all, she received $3.6 million from Penguin Random House or its subsidiaries, according to a Daily Wire tally of financial disclosures.”
This income was perfectly legitimate, and there’s no claim that Justice Sotomayor failed to make the required disclosures. So what’s the story? Twice—in 2013 and 2019—litigants who had sued the publisher alleging copyright violations lost in the lower courts and petitioned the justices to hear an appeal. The court denied both petitions. In both cases, Justice Stephen Breyer, another Random House author, recused himself from considering the petition. Justice Sotomayor didn’t.
Mr. Rosiak argues that the petitioner in the 2019 case, children’s-book author Jeannie Nicassio, “made a compelling argument that her case was worthy of being taken up by the Supreme Court.” The implication is that Justice Sotomayor showed favoritism toward her publisher by not recusing herself. But that’s nonsense. The decision to hear an appeal requires the agreement of four justices, irrespective of how many disagree. A recusal has the same effect as a vote not to hear the appeal."
In other words, there is no there there, just as there is no there there with Thomas...........unless you're a racist Prog with a pre-existing penchant for believing all things written by Progressive Press without further investigation.........or at least some critical eye to what's being written.
Look, I write a lot about FJB being a grifter but regardless, just as in the Menendez case......FJB is innocent until proven guilty (so to speak). And, I put it that way because an Impeachment Inquiry is a political maneuver, not a criminal court of law. At this point, it's not even an Impeachment, it's an inquiry simply allowing further investigation.
Regardless of how much you hate FDT, he didn't even get that much from Pelosi.
Here's what funny right now, the polls show that something like 46% of voters think that the FJB inquiry should move forward. In the first impeachment of FDT, it was only 34%............
|
|
|
Sorry Rash Creamer, didn't mean to forget you.
The Chevron Deference is just so much bullshit and should be overturned forthwith, looking forward to SCOTUS doing that soon.
SO typical of Progs, that can't seem to get what they want from the legislature, instead using the judicial branch to do their legislating for them.
Progs LOVE having faceless unelected bureaucrats doing for the Prog, what they can't get thru Congress and the Presi. Basically, the Chevron Deference violates the Nondelegation Doctrine. There are also arguments that it violates Article III.
Essentially, Congress writes vague laws that allows the bureaucracy to "interpet" them in any fashion they like AND the violations of basic fundamental rights becomes the norm instead of the exception.
Not gonna go thru the voluminous list of the damage they've done but the courts basically punted 40 years ago and said, "hey.......whatever the supposed experts say goes".........As can be seen in the pandemic, it really depends on which "expert" you choose to believe.
The last thing you want is for some GS-16, who's only interested in his pension and payroll, to make that decision. Guess it all depends on which ox the bull gores.
|
|
|
Do i get my reacharound now???
|
|
|
You're a pitcher not a catcher, GBD.
LOL
|
|
|
Pitchers and catchers have jobs.
|
|
|
^ catcher
|
|
|
"but their effort to influence the Supreme Court decisions are totally unacceptable, it should be considered as anti-governmental extremism"
Just so we all understand you, Rashy.
It's OK for anybody else to make efforts to influence SCOTUS
Just not THESE people, because YOU don't agree with their politics
Got it, thank you.
BTW, do you have any notion at all how many amicus briefs get filed at SCOTUS coming from all sorts of political viewpoints?
"Ninety-eight percent of Supreme Court cases now have amicus filings; over 800 briefs are filed each term and the marquee cases attract briefs in the triple digits. This is an 800% increase from the 1950s and a 95% increase from 1995."
Everybody wants a say, democracy is messy.
|
|
|
There's also people go about influencing Supreme Court Justices by staging protests out in front of their homes night after night when they about to render decisions.
Clear violation of Federal Law but the DOJ does nothing.
Some whack from CA is indicted for attempted murder of A Supreme Court Justice.
There's different types of methods of influence but what I described is mafia style thuggery.
|
|
|
"but their effort to influence the Supreme Court decisions are totally unacceptable, it should be considered as anti-governmental extremism"
Yeah.. bite me
|
|
|
That was Gash Creamer, Rashy's brother
So let's not talk about it, I hear it's a tragedy to have two like that in the family
|
|
|
Goebbels
Honestly, it’s always disappointing reading what you write. You twist yourself into a pretzel to try to make counter arguments that always fall flat.
Yes, everyone can influence the court WITH STRING ARGUMENTS. Conservative billionaires, through Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, have bought the Supreme Court. There is a huge difference.
|
|
|
*strong arguments
Everyone should admit that bribing Thomas has further eroded confidence in the Supreme Court. A person that gets that many perks owes favors. And that is his votes.
And the Tea Party movement didn’t have grassroots origins as originally claimed. It was started by the Koch Brothers.
|
|
|
First my answers to GDB
#1 Harlan Crow has had NO cases before the court that would pose a conflict of interest
Halan Crow scandal is just an example, you have to look at the whole picture, conservative's concerted efforts to overturn precedents that are supported by the majority of Americans Evangelicals, Leonard Leo/Federalist Society, Judge Thomas and his wife Ginnie, Alito, billionaires, Koch Network, special corporate interests etc
#2 The filings that Thomas made followed the letter of the law at the time they were made
That is the whole point of ProPublica articles regarding Thomas and Alito. In case of Thomas, his acceptance of enormous amounts of gifts, Crow's purchase of Thomas' property where his mother lives and the surrounding property. Thomas and Alito are acting as if there is no binding code of ethics. Every lawyer and every judge in the US has code of conduct, but why is it that only Supreme Court does not? How do you expect any reputation and its credibility from the Court's decisions without such binding code of ethics? Howeve,r their acceptpance of gifts could violate the existing Ethics in Government Act (USC 13106: Failure to file or filing false reports). And that is why the congress demanding that the Supreme Court should have its own Code of Ethics
#3 The inherited home in question (in one PP story) was an old hand-me-down and PP got
the wrong address referencing the wrong property
Wrong address or not, the fact that Crow purchased Thomas' property and its surrounding land is valid claim, and Thomas never reported it
#4 The referenced gifts of personal hospitality, including plane trips, were NOT required to be disclosed at that time according to the rules AN
I already answered that under #2
"The Chevron Deference is just so much bullshit and should be overturned forthwith, looking forward to SCOTUS doing that soon"
We have to realize that "The Clean Air Act", "Chevron Doctine", "The Clean Power Plan" are all these landmark decisions are our government, specifically EPA to regulate and enforce and protect our environment, via regional carbon programs, such as state level incentives for decarbodization. Conservativess'effort to overturn any of the above, especially Chevron doctrine is a plot to dismantle US government's oversight on our environment.
"It's OK for anybody else to make efforts to influence SCOTUS"
Even if it is OK to influence SCOTUS, in case there is clearly Koch involvement behind for overturning Chevron deference, Thomas has to recuse himself from the decision.
|
|
|
Now I have to go back to the subject I discussed in other blogs. Why is it that GOP is trying to take over Supreme Court, and that the so many decisions by their current majority ended up with overturning number of precedents that are useful and functional in the past for the majority of voters?
#1 Robert Court dismantled section 4 of 1965 Voting Rights Act (Shelvy County v Holder)? And section 4 requires preclearance requirements that each jurisdiction must submit any change in voting procedures to federal DOJ, and that weakened the Act. Ginsberg said it is throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm. As soon as it was voted down, each state started enacting voting restrictions that are not favorable to the black voters. This dismantling of section 4 occurred after the congress passed the renewal of 1965 VRA by bipartisan votes in 2013. Why did this happen?
#2 The court/s overturn of Roe v Wade. This created a total chaos in each state. Since federal protection is gone, some women has to travel to other states to do their abortion risking their lives. GOP/Evangelicals comes up with the ridiculous idea of fetal rights, and I can easily assume that GOP is trying to force national abortion ban
#3Citizens United v Federal Commission decision. That ruling reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend "unlimited funds" on elections. This has huge negative impacts on American democracy and our fight against political corruption. Since each donors don't have to disclose their names or their corporations, so called the flow of "dark money" became abundant and uncontrollable.
#4 Chevron Doctrine. If this is overturned (and it is most likely by this extremist partisan conservative judges currently resides in our Supreme Court), the government will lose oversight on our environment.
I can go on for more, but going back to the top, why GOP is so desperate in their attempt to control our election (voting rights restrictions, flow of dark money) and forcing women to become second-class citizen by removing federal protection for abortion, and getting rid of environmental protection? The answer is easy. GOP after their short success with the Southern Strategy, becoming a party of Whites (Christians), a party of Great White Switch or White Identity Politics, their strategy didn't work in a long term at the end, due to their dwindling population. GOP became a party of Minority. And their presidential candidates never won popular votes since then.
Reine Priebus was aware of this situation, and he tried to steer away from the party of Whites, and made a proposal for GOP to become a party of multi-racial democracy. But GOP, a party of minority with corporate interests became more and more extreme, aggressive, violent. Hence their Rule of Minority became tremendously apparent in every way, by taking over Supreme Court with partisan-hacked judges, by appealing to Evangelicals with overturning Roe v Wade, by appealing to their billionaire donors and gun lobbyists with the decision of Citizens United, totally ignoring the will of the majority of US voters.
That is a real tragedy of this party and it became worse with Trump election who had an ambition of becoming a US Autocrat. How do we deal with this party of lawfare and the fixation to more power at the expense or our democracy? That is the biggest question we have to face.
|
|
|
From the Federalist:
ProPublica Smear Of Justice Thomas Reveals A Partisan Double Standard For SCOTUS
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/28/propublica-smear-of-justice-thomas-reveals-a-partisan-double-standard-for-scotus/
|
|
|
^
Not worth reading, especially any article written for Federalist, which is backed by Leonard Leo.
|
|
|
Rashy, why would anybody read your screed........since you can't be bothered by reading any kind of factual evidence..............Kool-Aid anyone?
"Yes, everyone can influence the court WITH STRING ARGUMENTS. Conservative billionaires, through Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, have bought the Supreme Court. There is a huge difference."
Bottom line?
You're just pissed as hell that YOUR side no longer controls SCOTUS.
Hence the desire by the Prog to increase court size, somehow thinking that all of the new justices would be appointed by them, lol.
Reminds me of when Harry Reid was warned NOT to go nuclear with the Senate rules on judge appointments/approvals.......he did it anyway.
AND, Progs got fucked in the ass by his change.
Same would likely happen with SCOTUS size increase.
NOW that they've lost their grip on "judicial legislating" from the bench, the only avenue they have is to attempt to besmirch somebody's reputation (Thomas).........but they've also tried the same trick with Alito.
It's not like these idiot conservative judges don't give the Prog what they want often enough. Recall Justice Roberts saving the ACA.........twice!
My recommendation for Progs?
Cry, cry some more and cry a lot.
Post blogs on HX and then cry some more.
).gif) 
|
|
|
Republicans, stole control of the Supreme Court. Republicans have had control of
Clarence Thomas since they nominated that corrupt piece of shit. You so called Republicans are consumed with accumulating power at all costs. You insurrectionests have wishlists of people to arrest and to execute when you reclaim power. You Sadistic fuckers enjoy seeing women in Texas have to allow their non viable pregnancies turn septic before a doctor is allowed to save their lives.
You insurrectionests are destroying our constitutional republic that separates us from the rest of the world. Now our democracy is being used against itself. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, stealing the SCOTUS, state legislatures passing unconstitutional laws.
It seems stealing, cheating, limiting rights and lying will be on the GOP headstone or the USA headstone. I can't believe I have to worry about the survival of our way of life because of the spineless politicians who mistake Narcissism for power. Idiots.
|
|
|
^ Let the crying begin
I'm here to help with your 5150 form...........it's only 72 hours, dm me
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas is a house boy.
|
|
|
"Republicans, stole control of the Supreme Court. Republicans have had control of
Clarence Thomas since they nominated that corrupt piece of shit. You so called Republicans are consumed with accumulating power at all costs. "
This is a heap of septic nonsense.
Last I checked Presidents make Judicial appointments. The control is not stolen unless Woke factions try to tear down, discredit, or remove a Justice from the bench.
And what's this business of "having control of Clarence Thomas" about? He's not a robot. He's a Conservative justice and his job is to interpret the US Constitution as written. The guy didn't show up with a remote control unit.
You should be more worried about who has control of FJB. Meaning, who sends him shitloads of money.
Accumulating power at all costs?... WTF, really?
SCOTUS is one of the last institutions not completely dragged corrupted like the DOJ, FBI, CDC, DHS, or the Dept of Indoctrination .
Get real.
|
|
|
Unfortunately the nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and the Roberts court has lost the faith of the majority of the population with a new low only 40% approval. Thomas's obvious corruption isn't the only reason but it's not helping.
|
| There are 31 comments on this blog. |
|
