still waiting for a reply

No, I did not state such a thing. And you can't invert the burden. The old adage is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', not 'denying extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence'
I'm inclined to poop on any dumb conspiracy theory or accusation of malicious conduct unless someone produces compelling evidence, not just dredge up a cloud of dirt over failing to dot i's and cross t's and then turn around and spin some yarn out of it
Denying Russell's teapot doesn't require me to map out every cubic inch of vacuum around the sun



I even stated in the Soto example that no evidence of acting out of character or acting maliciously existed. The elements of the quid pro quo can exist without such intent, namely that we have {she actually enriched herself} and {random house actually benefitted}. Those are two elements absent from the uncle tom story, hence why this would be even more damning by the liberal standard. And again, as I said, that doesn't mean Soto did anything corrupt. When we start spinning accusations out of every spurious relationship and association, that's how we get mccarthyist witchhunting.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 4 2023 01:33pm

ahem.

Where is the accusation of anyone trying to influence Thomas's opinions? I've hammered that enough times its feeling dead horse

you misunderstand, your assertion is that Thomas can not be influenced, and that this is relevant to an issue with disclosure. financial disclosure rules don't take into account how much influence the individual is susceptible to, nor should they.

the simple fact that Thomas' billionaire friend wouldn't even dain to offer a quid pro quo is irrelevant, because the rule was written to apply to all potential justices.

but mr letter of the law just magically forgot to disclose massive gifts? that's the story here, that a meticulous man such as Clarence oopsed this.

the left's assertion based on scary buzzwords like "GOP SUPERDONOR" that Thomas is bought is silly. the overarching idea that this type of behavior should be punished so that it sets solid precedent for future more susceptible justices is however sound. what we need to do to make justices at the highest bench more isolated from temptation is a matter of discussion. 1$mil/year? can we let people in a crazy important office live very comfortably, then get rid of the book deals and lavish gifts? that's the best outcome.

Saying Justice Thomas is going to vote with a conservative originalist jurisprudence on every decision is like saying water is wet. I can know exactly how he'll rule on every case, and so if you're going to try to carve out some theory about a quid pro quo for influence, you're going to need to find an instance in which he isn't already voting in the way he's obviously going to vote 101% of the time. Otherwise, it begs the obvious question of why anyone would waste money trying to bribe Oliver Cromwell to vote against Charles I.
What's being raised here is an accusation. Absent perfidy, sans malintent, we wind up with total nonsense like the story about Thomas writing down Ginger Holdings LLC instead of Ginger Holdings Ltd.
Mens rea is a pretty simple concept in law. Without it, you don't get much of an accusation.



He didn't disclose his real estate sales because he sold at a significant loss, and most federal reporting forms ie taxable income doesn't ask you to disclose losses, only capital gains. Pretty easy to see how that mistake was made. He wrote LLC instead of Ltd because its an obvious typo. He didn't disclose his grandnephew's educational funds because he's not required or expected to, no such rule exists. How many prostate exams does a 74 year old need to have in one year? The DailyWire stuck their fingers up inside Soto just once and found a better story.




That's a particularly corrosive and dangerous idea actually. Once you set the precedent that you're going to crucify anyone for minor perceived transgressions absent actual malicious conduct, that's how you arrive at the worst forms of cancel culture and mccarthyism. That's precisely what we need to push back against. And lord knows that Republicans will weaponize the hysteria far more effectively than democrats do, when the tables are turned. Locking up unruly protesters and charging them with sedition and insurrection? Lefties couldn't help themselves but storm half the state capitols this year over tranny issues. For all their MeToo push, Kavanaugh survived but Al Franken did not.

Civility and respect in politics demands that we not try to get up each other's asses over every overblown accusation about mundane conduct. Whether its Trump Jr shooing away some Magnitsky Act lobbyists or Sotomayor making money off book sales, we can't make every politician and judge and all their families and relations be as beyond suspicion as caesar's wife. If some random chucklefuck claims that Justice Kagan molested him as a child and can't produce a single piece of evidence he ever met her, or even give any falsifiable details about the encounter, should she be impeached and removed from the court to make an example of her and set a precedent for the future? In a sane world, accusations without evidence- and especially accusations without an accusation, should be immediately disregarded.

it's not dangerous or corrosive. the scotus is the highest court and has the least checks and balances and in many ways the most power of any branch of govt. even in an era where the legislature has ceded all attempts to do it's job and forced the executive branch to rule through temporary EOs the scotus has arguably more power over the direction of this nation. we've let them be FAR too unregulated for far too long. we need a hard set of rules that dont take into account what the judge thinks or does personally, but applies to all. disclose everything, enrich yourself not at all, and avoid any situation where you're subject to influence or a quid pro quo, whether you're sympathetic to influence or not.

this is mostly because of the general impossibility to prove in real time how a quid pro quo would even work with a justice. with legislators it's not only more easy to see, but also legal through lobbying. judges have a binary choice in most cases (with some small allowances for diverted choices through recusal etc) but without a transcripts of "decide this way" there's no real way to tell. lock down their lives, pay them well, and maybe more will leave the position before becoming walking zombies voluntarily. no speeches, no book deals, nothing. they're too important. hold them to the highest standard that we can. and i dont even want to hear about how we'd sense a quid pro quo through their written opinion, they're all smart enough to fake any opinion they'd want to if push came to shove.

posted this earlier in the thread and as per usual, the regular shills conveniently ignored it

That photo is outdated and overshared.

Kavanaugh indicated in 2016 he had between 64k-200k credit debt, presumably that's the window he was in when he reported his finances. so like 0-64k, 64k-200k, and 200k+ were options. otherwise why such a wide window? so no indication he had 200k debt. this debt was gone by the time he reported his finances after Trump nominated him, and he stated his family paid off his debt, they're rich AF, he came from a lot of money.

the 92k country club one is the most questionable, but again likely just his family paid it off, or the country club could even have waved it. having a SCOTUS judge is a big deal for any club.

the 1.2m$ also seems false, as his mortgage isn't as ive seen reported paid off. the more accurate question is where did he get 200k+$ for a down payment, assuming he put 20% down. but that also could have come from mommy and daddy or could be from selling his existing home.