America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 weeks ago by ZRX1200. 72 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Clarence Thomas needs to resign...
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
I don't care if Biden nominates an arch-conservative. Thomas should have recused himself. And, yes she has a First Amendment right to advocate her views, but the mere appearance of potential bias and/or undue influence due to her level of involvement is enough in and of itself. Any reasonable judge or justice would have recused and if not, faced removal.
ZRX1200 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
Yeah because nobody in the court has ever shown bias.
Stogie1020 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 3,314
Yeah.... Right after pudding joe resigns due to Hunter-related conflics of interest.
MACS Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
rfenst is racist?!

WHO KNEW!???

(in case you missed it... I was being ironical... the lefties call everyone who disagrees with black democrats racist)
Speyside2 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
Good point stogie, that needs done right after Trump is convicted of fraud and the Rico Act, I don't think treason is applicable, but who knows, the January 6th commission has revealed many damning facts recently.
RayR Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
What his republic needs is more show trials for those having the wrong regime-approved bias.

I was shaking my head in disbelief that Robert thinks that any robed diety of the court could be somehow unbiased.
Speyside2 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
So who do you hope dies this time MACS?
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
Although it has absolutely nothing to do with Thomas (deflection/what about?), I 100% believe: Hunter needs to be investigated and likely prosecuted big-time. Jail time may be in order. If Joe took money, then he should be chitting his pants right now as investigation should and prosecution might be in order.

Now, let's get back on track....

Thomas' own impropriety are already is proven. This is a professional character issue, not a personal bias/political issue. It is the most basic elemental issue every lawyer, judge and justice is taught from day one and over-and-over again and again.

Anyhow, here are the rules: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
MACS wrote:
rfenst is racist?!

WHO KNEW!???

(in case you missed it... I was being ironical... the lefties call everyone who disagrees with black democrats racist)

Sean, why do you think I deserve to be tagged as a "Leftie"? What are my leftist views or issues?
Speyside2 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
I am pretty sure black Democrats want Thomas removed.
MACS Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
rfenst wrote:
Sean, why do you think I deserve to be tagged as a "Leftie"? What are my leftist views or issues?


(Shawn)

I didn't tag you as a leftie. I did what lefties do in calling you racist because you disagree with a black person.

However... you do frequently post articles from leftist journalists and agree with them, no?
MACS Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
Speyside2 wrote:
So who do you hope dies this time MACS?


I dunno... Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Newsom, Schiff... that'd be a great start.
HockeyDad Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,503
I’m gonna go ahead and bet that Clarence Thomas does not resign. I think the possibility that Democrats assassinate him is a valid concern.
ZRX1200 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
It’s not very Christian to use your white privilege and assume what African Americans think….what an old WASP male patriarchal thing to do.

SHAME
SHAME
SHAME
RMAN4443 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
rfenst wrote:
Although it has absolutely nothing to do with Thomas (deflection/what about?), I 100% believe: Hunter needs to be investigated and likely prosecuted big-time. Jail time may be in order. If Joe took money, then he should be chitting his pants right now as investigation should and prosecution might be in order.


I've heard he does from time to time...Full of crap
Whistlebritches Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 21,713
If Clarence Thomas were white he'd face less scrutiny due to the fact that he would fit the democrats image of a conservative.Being black he faces 10x the scrutiny from the left.


The democrat way..........attack anyone who disagrees with you.


Clarence is not resigning over this and he shouldn't.......... However who ever said an assassination attempt would not be surprising I wholeheartedly agree.If the left could all black conservatives would be hung or incarcerated, dems are not happy when black folks escape the plantation
RayR Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
rfenst wrote:
Anyhow, here are the rules: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges


A lot of "A Judge Should" in there, but no "A Judge Must".
So it reads more like a list of suggestions using weaselly lawyer talk.


Sunoverbeach Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Mr. Jones Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 16,884
His wife is a real piece of work....

She looks like a WOMAN NAZI PRISON GUARD OR THE HEAD DyyyyyKKKKEEEE IN A WOMANS ARIAN NATION PRISON GANG... alleDgeDleY

She has no business doing what she does...
Her husband is a SCJ FOR GODS SAKE...

IF YOU LOOK UP "FEMALE ABUSING MALES IN RELATIONSHIPS on Google"..

HER MUG APPEARS ...
alleDgeDleY...
Sunoverbeach Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
Alcohol is a perfect solvent: It dissolves marriages, families and careers.
frankj1 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 41,993
Sunoverbeach wrote:
Alcohol is a perfect solvent: It dissolves marriages, families and careers.

what's the down side?
Sunoverbeach Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
^Sez the upcoming father in law
Abrignac Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 16,176
rfenst wrote:
I don't care if Biden nominates an arch-conservative. Thomas should have recused himself. And, yes she has a First Amendment right to advocate her views, but the mere appearance of potential bias and/or undue influence due to her level of involvement is enough in and of itself. Any reasonable judge or justice would have recused and if not, faced removal.


I’d take anything said by Adam Schiff with a 50# bag of salt.
RayR Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
It sounds to me like the lefties are getting desperate to hold onto power in any way they can. Hyperbolic BS is one of their favorite routines.

Dem Rep. Bill Pascrell said,

Quote:
“Public confidence in our nation’s highest court is at its lowest levels in generations. The American people rightly question whether rightwing jurists in our federal courts can adjudicate the law impartially. Over the last few years, we have become numb to bad acts by powerful actors, but Clarence and Ginni Thomas have participated in one of the worst breaches of trust ever seen in our court system. Clarence Thomas cannot possibly be seen as a neutral actor but instead as a corrupt jurist who has poisoned the High Court. Clarence Thomas should have dignity and final respect for our democracy and resign.”


I think he's saying we need to replace all corrupt rightwing jurists with honest dignified leftwing jurists who always abide by leftwing regime approved policies.
Speyside2 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
I would like Thomas gone, but a sense of the possibility of impropriety is not a valid reason to do that. Remember the Steele dossier? The federal government recently had convictions overturned any are not even allowed to retry those cases because the dirty deeds were so heinous. And the list goes on.
ZRX1200 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
Who got fired after 911?

Who got fired or jailed after the Russia hoax?

Outrage only counts if you’re on the wrong team.

Better question is why so many people here hate a black guy.
RayR Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
You would like Thomas gone Spey? That's Commie Racist talk!
ZRX1200 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
I think it’s because he married a white gal.
Speyside2 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
She identifies as black so all is good.
Nessundorma68 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 05-21-2022
Posts: 1
So what did naughty old Clarence do? I was busy with a Monte White and enjoying the day completely when I stumbled into this protracted discussion on naughty. Is it worse than Justice Dept not enforcing the US Code prohibition on harrasing Federal judges outside their homes? A felony by the way. Or sleepy joe and his Justice Dept cronies not enforcing the Federal Law against entering this country illegally when they placed their right hands on the Bible and swore to “ defend and preserve the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help them God”? Illegal entry into the US is also a Federal felony.. Dimicrats seem to enforce the laws they deem convenient to them and conveniently ignore the others. I always thought it was a plank on their party platform. And how in God’s name can all the members of the Clinton and biden crime families still not be in jail after decades of illegality on the highest levels when there are 800 plus human beings now under charge and locked up for being within 10 miles of the Capital and wearing the wrong color hat on January 6th? Enquiring minds want to know. Now, back to one of the true exquisite pleasures of life, making wonderful clouds of aromatic smoke.
ZRX1200 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
Rfenster wants to lunch him and Speyside called him an Uncle Tom.

Just kidding. But they they don’t like him or his wife
Stogie1020 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 3,314
Nessundorma68 wrote:
So what did naughty old Clarence do? I was busy with a Monte White and enjoying the day completely when I stumbled into this protracted discussion on naughty. Is it worse than Justice Dept not enforcing the US Code prohibition on harrasing Federal judges outside their homes? A felony by the way. Or sleepy joe and his Justice Dept cronies not enforcing the Federal Law against entering this country illegally when they placed their right hands on the Bible and swore to “ defend and preserve the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help them God”? Illegal entry into the US is also a Federal felony.. Dimicrats seem to enforce the laws they deem convenient to them and conveniently ignore the others. I always thought it was a plank on their party platform. And how in God’s name can all the members of the Clinton and biden crime families still not be in jail after decades of illegality on the highest levels when there are 800 plus human beings now under charge and locked up for being within 10 miles of the Capital and wearing the wrong color hat on January 6th? Enquiring minds want to know. Now, back to one of the true exquisite pleasures of life, making wonderful clouds of aromatic smoke.


Opera guy, there is a key on your keyboard (usually on the right) with the word "Enter" or "Return" on it. Give it a press once in a while. Even phone keyboards have it! Thanks.
RayR Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
ZRX1200 wrote:
Rfenster wants to lunch him and Speyside called him an Uncle Tom.

Just kidding. But they they don’t like him or his wife


I think what they don't like about him is his style of originalist jurisprudence because they are more of "Living Constitution" type guys.

RayR Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929

So Nessundorma68 asks, "So what did naughty old Clarence do?"

Well...besides being married to a white woman, who has a brain of her own, which allows her to form her own opinions and even write letters griping about the crooked regime, instead of shushing her mouth and just cooking and cleaning the house like every non-leftist woman should do...Justice Thomas didn't do anything.
Abrignac Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 16,176
RayR wrote:
A lot of "A Judge Should" in there, but no "A Judge Must".
So it reads more like a list of suggestions using weaselly lawyer talk.




Perhaps you should read the definition of “should” because the truth “shall” set you free.
Abrignac Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 16,176
Speyside2 wrote:
I would like Thomas gone, but a sense of the possibility of impropriety is not a valid reason to do that. Remember the Steele dossier? The federal government recently had convictions overturned any are not even allowed to retry those cases because the dirty deeds were so heinous. And the list goes on.


Not that there is a right or wrong answer, but I’m interested in knowing why you want him off of the Court.
RayR Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
Abrignac wrote:
Perhaps you should read the definition of “should” because the truth “shall” set you free.


"Should" is too suggestive of a term. It has no teeth, it can be interpreted as telling someone to ponder about doing this or that, to think about it and decide what you will do from there. It's a weasel word.

"Shall or "Shall Not" is much more forceful, like "must" or "must not"

For instance. the constitution leaves no room for question when it says “Congress Shall Make No Law….”

Not that words even matter to the criminals in power who don't care what the Constitution says. They intend to rule and do what they want and let nothing interfere with their agenda.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
I'm glad I know sign language, it's pretty handy.
Speyside2 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
Anthony, his wife's actions have put a cloud over SCOTUS. I think he needs to resign to rectify this. It is unique situation. I cannot think of anything like it during the history of SCOTUS.
Speyside2 Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
Z, rather I dislike their actions. As I have never interacted with either one of them I have no feelings toward them one way or another.
rfenst Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
RayR wrote:
A lot of "A Judge Should" in there, but no "A Judge Must".
So it reads more like a list of suggestions using weaselly lawyer talk.


I am not sure if it is ironic, hypocritical or both, that an anarchist like you doesn't believe a set of rules (laws?) is strict enough for controlling others' behavior.
So much for being an anarchist...
rfenst Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
Abrignac wrote:
I’d take anything said by Adam Schiff with a 50# bag of salt.

I have no idea what Schiff has to say on this one. I completely formed my own opinion on this based solely on personal and professional experience, and such.
rfenst Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
RayR wrote:
I think what they don't like about him is his style of originalist jurisprudence because they are more of "Living Constitution" type guys.

Re-read what I wrote above in #!. I feel the same way about this no matter what the political predilection of whoever would be appointed. Hell, I'd even give the pick to Trump on this one. Dead serious how wrong what he did was.
rfenst Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
Speyside2 wrote:
I would like Thomas gone, but a sense of the possibility of impropriety is not a valid reason to do that. Remember the Steele dossier? The federal government recently had convictions overturned any are not even allowed to retry those cases because the dirty deeds were so heinous. And the list goes on.

We disagree. I believe the mere appearance of impropriety is enough for any judge or justice to recuse.
RayR Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
rfenst wrote:
I am not sure if it is ironic, hypocritical or both, that an anarchist like you doesn't believe a set of rules (laws?) is strict enough for controlling others' behavior.
So much for being an anarchist...



Weaseling again counselor?
Read #37

Don't you know rules only apply to the proles?

You don't speak for an Anarcho-capitalist like me.
rfenst Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
RayR wrote:
"Should" is too suggestive of a term. It has no teeth, it can be interpreted as telling someone to ponder about doing this or that, to think about it and decide what you will do from there. It's a weasel word.

"Shall or "Shall Not" is much more forceful, like "must" or "must not"

For instance. the constitution leaves no room for question when it says “Congress Shall Make No Law….”

Not that words even matter to the criminals in power who don't care what the Constitution says. They intend to rule and do what they want and let nothing interfere with their agenda.

You are clueless what those Cannons say and because I know you didn't read how to interpret and apply them. The reasons "shall" and "must" would be inappropriate in most circumstances is to maintain an independent judiciary. Besides the same action in one set of circumstance could be harmless but disastrous in another.
rfenst Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
Speyside2 wrote:
Anthony, his wife's actions have put a cloud over SCOTUS. I think he needs to resign to rectify this. It is unique situation. I cannot think of anything like it during the history of SCOTUS.



28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c)A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d)For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2)the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3)“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4)“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i)Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii)An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii)The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv)Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e)No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f)Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
Stogie1020 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 3,314
rfenst wrote:
We disagree. I believe the mere appearance of impropriety is enough for any judge or justice to recuse.


I am curious why the ethical obligaiton of a judge should be more onerous than that of a member of another branch of government? Should members of Congress or Presidents have to resign at the mere appearance of impropriety? I mean, based on that standard, Cavanaugh wouldn't have been confirmed, and I think we all know that was complete theater.

Don't get me wrong, if ACTUAL impropriety is found, my oppinion will be different, but in our "let's create a hoax to smear someone" culture, I lean toward giving Thomas the benefit of the doubt.

Robert, I just reread your response and you suggested recusal, not resignation. Recusal from what in this instance?
Speyside2 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
Robert, I agree with 47. I believe the standard is innocent until proven guilty. What am I missing in your POV? Does his disregard of disqualification rise to any level of judicial misconduct? Are there any punishments that could be linked to 47?
rfenst Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
Stogie1020 wrote:
I am curious why the ethical obligaiton of a judge should be more onerous than that of a member of another branch of government? Should members of Congress or Presidents have to resign at the mere appearance of impropriety? I mean, based on that standard, Cavanaugh wouldn't have been confirmed, and I think we all know that was complete theater.

Don't get me wrong, if ACTUAL impropriety is found, my oppinion will be different, but in our "let's create a hoax to smear someone" culture, I lean toward giving Thomas the benefit of the doubt.

Robert, I just reread your response and you suggested recusal, not resignation. Recusal from what in this instance?

Recusal from any post election issue/case in which his wife was politically active.

He crossed a bright red-line for the job he has. I would be shocked if his co-Justices didn't advise him otherwise if they knew what was going on. This is not a political issue to me.

As to the other branches of government, they should have to recuse too when under similar circumstances.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>