1. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

SCOTUS - US Supreme Court (and other court stuff)

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by rogue49, Jun 17, 2019.

  1. boink

    boink Slightly Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Seattle
    Yeah. His wife is a real nut job. She's like a Mike Lindell with a sex change. Even with a previous life excursion into cultism she's unable to muster the self examination to realize she's in another cult !

    If you don't have the capacity stop and look at yourself in the mirror as a regular exercise of mental health, to don't belong anywhere near these kinds of places.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    It's clear that Thomas, at least when he was much younger, could be extremely vulgar when it came to discussing sex. Esp in front of women who didn't want to hear it. If he had any black friends (I can see him going full immersion into white society), did he boast about his "white woman" GF/wife?

    If anyone thinks my comment is racist because of black male stereotyping, no, I'm making it because I've seen that behavior live & in person. I consider such behavior atypical, but Thomas seems to have that braggard personality.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. boink

    boink Slightly Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Seattle
    I don't think it's racist to point out, it's definitely a thing.

    But for real, A date with Anita Hill would be something to boast about big time. She's clearly intellectually engaging and I bet a great conversationalist. Let alone that she's way more attractive just to look at, though boasting about a date isn't really... I don't know, realistic as it's not exactly an achievement like a job promotion or a bonus, it's more like luck of hitting it off on personality to me.

    But given that point of view Ginny isn't someone to boast about no matter how you evaluate her.

    Now I would date Liz Cheney cause I feel like we could talk rationally about stuff and no hang up on ludicrous stuff like weather the world is flat or round...
    I would totally date Laura Coats or Ashly Allison on CNN for everything you'd typically put on your dating scales.

    What are you gonna talk to Ginny about ?
    The last Walmart parking lot you camped in ?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. boink

    boink Slightly Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Seattle
    That said, Ginny and Thomas are definitely two pubic hairs on a coke can, if not peas in a pod.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  5. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    Uncle Thomas (credit J-L Cauvin) is back in the news.

    Clarence Thomas Discloses Private Trips Paid By Billionaire Friend

    The article mentions a Judicial Conference needing to refer this to the Justice Dept for further investigation. I'm going to check into this.


    *****
    On a lighter note...
    Does Uncle Thomas ever spend his own money on anything? Does he go to say Macy's and just take what he wants?


    *****
    An example of my cluelessness...
    Harlan Crow is Thomas' biggest sugar daddy. It took me a while to figure out Crow is the Crow in Trammel-Crow. At one time it seemed as though nearly every commercial real estate development in Houston was a Trammel-Crow project.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    Governance & the Judicial Conference


    You might need to forgive me for the following link. In a way it's insulting to anyone who is literate and semi-intelligent, but it's also one of the most sucint explanations of the SCOTUS I've read.

    The Judicial Branch


    The main thing for this post is the SCOTUS is part of the Judicial Branch, which makes it subject to the Judicial Conference.

    Exactly how the Judicial Conference could establish new rules, and/or strengthen existing rules, to better control the SCOTUS isn't clear to me. It seems any action could be challenged, and possibly heard by the SCOTUS.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    From what I've been led to understood, this is good for the appealate courts and on down
    But SCOTUS is not affected by them.
    I believe the only one can make the rules is the chief justice.

    Congress may investigate and push for other things,
    but they can't even subpeona them, only invite. (Roberts just turns down Schumer to force any justice to speak)

    I could be wrong but I haven't heard otherwise.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    Nothing I read mentioned Judicial Conference having any direct control over SCOTUS.

    It sounds as though a suggestion, only a suggestion, could be given to Roberts.
     
  9. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North
    What's fucked up is even the "liberal" judges are pushing back against a code of ethics.
    I don't think they have done anything like Thomas but I think they have developed friendships with these assholes and really don't want the boat to get tipped over.
    It's the frog in the slowly boiling water thing.
    They know how fucked up it is but hey, they know these people and they are all right.
    Fucking liberals are the worst sometimes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    Agreed.

    And I wonder if the dirt the justices have on each other plays a role in their unity against meaningful ethics rules.
     
  11. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Clarence Thomas recuses himself as Supreme Court rejects ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman's appeal

    I can't believe that Clarence Thomas actually recused himself. :eek:
    Which he should do, it's the right thing to do.
    * (although having his wife get as far as she did in the Big Lie, is a BIG anchor on him in the first place)
    I just cannot believe he did it...he's notoriously obstinate and unapologetic.

    He must be under a lot of pressure from his fellow justices, to do so.
    It's not from his typical ethics.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    I'm shocked.

    The SC ruling is moot in that the emails were already provided, but it's not in the sense it should prevent any future action should someone want to make another challenge.


    The next portion of the article shows the SC rejected a suit claiming NPD Trump can't run for POTUS because he's excluded under 14th Adm, Sec 3.
     
  14. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Yes, but that just means they punted and it goes back down to the last appeal level, where it was rejected.
    But it's not like the other lawsuits in other states, this guy really didn't have standing.

    However, it makes you wonder if SCOTUS will basically let the states decide.
    Which means the state AG's or state Secretaries of State or other authorities per whatever state laws will make the decision for their state.
    The Election Committees have already indicated in many of the states with lawsuits, they don't want to make the call...putting it in higher state VIP's hands.

    Basically, it's going to get complicated.
    Frankly, IMHO, it's going to all depend on the legal cases that are against Chump.
    If they go his way, the "determination" will swing towards qualifying him, and they'll come up with some legal rationale.
    BUT, if he's losing the cases, including the one he's already punch drunk on, the NY fraud case, they'll swing against him and not qualify him.

    Personally, I think the state cases are going to do more damage than the Federal cases.
    One, the Fed has a higher bar of guilt and more conflict of interest politically
    Two, the states have shown they're more willing to be proactive and willing to swing that hammer down.

    And this current SCOTUS interpretation is indicating that they'll let the states do what they want...there will be no appeal for Chump beyond the state SC.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    Will this actually go anywhere? If the subpoenas are issued, will they hold up to legal challenges?

    Senate Judiciary to schedule vote authorizing subpoenas in SCOTUS ethics investigation | CNN Politics

    Possible paywall, already had issues with TWP.
    Senate Democrats Plan to Subpoena Wealthy Figures Who Paid for Thomas’s and Alito’s Luxury Trips

    If the SC ends up shooting down the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) subpoenas, what would that mean for SJC subpoena powers in the future?
    There have been some battles during the numerous NPD Trump investigations, but I'm not sure if any clear answers have been found or established. The current MO seems to be ignore the subpoenas and see what happens (Jim Jordan never faced charges).
     
  16. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Actually, that's a good way around the SC roadblock...they can't go for the justices, Roberts has already nixed that
    but they can go for those involved that aren't justices.
    Not that they can really do much IF they do come before Congress, it's doubtful that there's any teeth behind this bark.
    But it can keep up the pressure on the justices...including negatives on reputation ...until the SC actually votes to have an ethics policy and rules.
    Then they may be able to reign in the bad activities.

    It's rare that anyone with true power can be taken down or punished.
    Really it's just the pressure to not ruin your rep.
     
  17. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    It's rare any person or body is truly isolated from at least some kind of sanction or censure.

    It's interesting the SC is totally self-policing.
     
  18. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & be quiet. Donor

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    From what I'm reading and seeing a fair number (I hesitate to say many) of Repubs are now willing to (at least discuss) compromise on the strict time frame, & make allowances for certain conditions.

    Amazing how a kick in the ass can get some politicians to wake up.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    • Agree Agree x 1