Supreme Court Corruption (Formerly Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire) (1 Viewer)

[cuddlemonkey]

It seems that a billionaire GOP donor has spent a small fortune on vacations for Ginni and Clarence Thomas.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

 

[MT15]

 

[Snarky Sack]

Did the court ever have to make a ruling about Sheldon Whitehouse's all-white beach access club?

Sheldon Whitehouse under fire for membership at all-white Rhode Island beach club

Sheldon Whitehouse was confronted by a GoLocal Providence reporter on Friday about the senator’s membership at Newport-based Bailey’s Beach Club.

nypost.com

 

[DaveXA]

Did the court ever have to make a ruling about Sheldon Whitehouse's all-white beach access club?

Sheldon Whitehouse under fire for membership at all-white Rhode Island beach club

Sheldon Whitehouse was confronted by a GoLocal Providence reporter on Friday about the senator’s membership at Newport-based Bailey’s Beach Club.

nypost.com

What case are you referring to?

 

[Snarky Sack]

What case are you referring to?

I dont' know that there is a case. That's why I asked about it.

I'm pretty sure that it is unconstitutional to have an all white club that restricts beach access to its member - who are all white.

 

[DaveXA]

I dont' know that there is a case. That's why I asked about it.

I'm pretty sure that it is unconstitutional to have an all white club that restricts beach access to its member - who are all white.

It's actually not unconstitutional for a privately owned club to do whatever they want for the most part. They're not subject to civil rights laws unless they hold an event open to the public.

That said, all-white clubs really aren't a good look and I don't see why people want to join them.

Private Clubs Under the Americans With Disabilities Act | ADA National Network

(Printer-friendly PDF version | 306 KB) (Large Print PDF version | 307 KB) (Spanish Version) The purpose of this document is to explain when and how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to private membership clubs. A General Definition of Private Clubs Private membership clubs are...

adata.org

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's actually not unconstitutional for a privately owned club to do whatever they want for the most part. They're not subject to civil rights laws unless they hold an event open to the public.

Really? So the all-white club keeping people of color off of "their" beaches is fine?

That said, all-white clubs really aren't a good look and I don't see why people want to join them.

Private Clubs Under the Americans With Disabilities Act | ADA National Network

(Printer-friendly PDF version | 306 KB) (Large Print PDF version | 307 KB) (Spanish Version) The purpose of this document is to explain when and how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to private membership clubs. A General Definition of Private Clubs Private membership clubs are...

adata.org

Me neither.

So you would agree that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), who is a member of, and whose wife is part owner of, an all-white club, is probably not a good person to cite as an authority on the ethics of Supreme Court Justices?

 

[DaveXA]

Really? So the all-white club keeping people of color off of "their" beaches is fine?

I didn't say or imply that.

Me neither.

Cool.

So you would agree that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), who is a member of, and whose wife is part owner of, an all-white club, is probably not a good person to cite as an authority on the ethics of Supreme Court Justices?

I don't really know. I haven't really read much about him. But certainly the club thing is a bad look.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So you would agree that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), who is a member of, and whose wife is part owner of, an all-white club, is probably not a good person to cite as an authority on the ethics of Supreme Court Justices?

I wouldn't agree with that at all. Whitehouse's ethical problem is an issue of bigotry. It's not an issue of avoiding full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest while performing duties as a public servant.

Pointing out Whitehouse's membership in an all white club in no way invalidates or refutes what he said about the ethics of Supreme Court Justices.

This is a classic ad hominem attack which seeks to discredit what someone says by attacking the person to deflect from what the person actually said. It's a shoot the messenger to avoid the message tactic.

If you want to refute or invalidate anything Whitehouse said about the ethics of Supreme Court justices, you'll have to respond directly to what he actually said.

ETA: If Whitehouse said it was wrong for white's to segregate, then that would be hypocritical on his part and someone being hypocritical is legitimate grounds for questioning the credibility of anything they say on the issue they're being hypocritical about.

 

[DaveXA]

I wouldn't agree with that at all. Whitehouse's ethical problem is an issue of bigotry. It's not an issue of avoiding full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest while performing duties as a public servant.

Pointing out Whitehouse's membership in an all white club in no way invalidates or refutes what he said about the ethics of Supreme Court Justices.

This is a classic ad hominem attack which seeks to discredit what someone says by attacking the person to deflect from what the person actually said. It's a shoot the messenger to avoid the message tactic.

If you want to refute or invalidate anything Whitehouse said about the ethics of Supreme Court justices, you'll have to respond directly to what he actually said.

Well said.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[Snarky Sack]

I wouldn't agree with that at all. Whitehouse's ethical problem is an issue of bigotry. It's not an issue of avoiding full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest while performing duties as a public servant.

Pointing out Whitehouse's membership in an all white club in no way invalidates or refutes what he said about the ethics of Supreme Court Justices.

This is a classic ad hominem attack which seeks to discredit what someone says by attacking the person to deflect from what the person actually said. It's a shoot the messenger to avoid the message tactic.

Goes to credibility. Keep in mind that Whitehouse's attack itself was purely ad hominem. Nothing in this statement:

On “a court that seems to make decisions based on political or ideological grounds and then afterward backfills in the legal justification.” Rule of thumb: right wing wins.

disputes the legal reasoning in the case. The justices made a decision that Whitehouse did not like, and he attacked them personally for it.

If you want to refute or invalidate anything Whitehouse said about the ethics of Supreme Court justices, you'll have to respond directly to what he actually said.

Ok. No, the court does not seem to make decisions based on political or ideological grounds and then afterward backfill in the legal justification. Hard to say much more, since it is such a fact-free and logic-free attack.

ETA: If Whitehouse said it was wrong for white's to segregate, then that would be hypocritical on his part and someone being hypocritical is legitimate grounds for questioning the credibility of anything they say on the issue they're being hypocritical about.

I would hope that not believing in segregation is such a firmly rooted American principle that Whitehouse would not have to say it. But you may be right in that Whitehouse is a Democrat objecting to a decision that requires people not be denied admision to publicly funded universities based on race.

I well remember the racial slurs by Democrats against Thomas when he was nominated to take the place of Thurgood Marshall. I see this attack as nothing more than a continuation of those.

 

[MT15]

Goes to credibility. Keep in mind that Whitehouse's attack itself was purely ad hominem. Nothing in this statement:

On “a court that seems to make decisions based on political or ideological grounds and then afterward backfills in the legal justification.” Rule of thumb: right wing wins.

disputes the legal reasoning in the case. The justices made a decision that Whitehouse did not like, and he attacked them personally for it.

Ok. No, the court does not seem to make decisions based on political or ideological grounds and then afterward backfill in the legal justification. Hard to say much more, since it is such a fact-free and logic-free attack.

I would hope that not believing in segregation is such a firmly rooted American principle that Whitehouse would not have to say it. But you may be right in that Whitehouse is a Democrat objecting to a decision that requires people not be denied admision to publicly funded universities based on race.

I well remember the racial slurs by Democrats against Thomas when he was nominated to take the place of Thurgood Marshall. I see this attack as nothing more than a continuation of those.

your response is pure “whataboutism” so it seems.

 

[MT15]

Is the Court allowed to rule on a hypothetical or not?

After reading about Ed, it seems he has zero issues with dealing with hypothetical situations. What I’m asking is - does the Supreme Court deal in hypotheticals?

 

[MT15]

Okay, I found a good explainer on Twitter about the fake nature of the case:



it seems that the objection had to come much, much earlier in this case, at the state level. It did not. It was noted that CO had a GOP AG when this case was first filed, and that could be the reason that the state didn’t object to the hypothetical nature of the case, nor it’s sham request.

So, once both parties agree to proceed with the case, it’s basically done. Except that the SC could have kicked it, despite the previous acceptance. But they didn’t want to.

 

[MT15]

 

[SaintForLife]

Is the Court allowed to rule on a hypothetical or not?

After reading about Ed, it seems he has zero issues with dealing with hypothetical situations. What I’m asking is - does the Supreme Court deal in hypotheticals?

It's not a hypothetical, but it's funny how the left is pushing this BS narrative. It's a pre-enforcement case

 

[Snarky Sack]

The people who oppose this ruling don't care about the legal principle of standing. They just don't like the ruling. Given that the ruling happened, they would be happier if the website designer had been put through months of state of Colorado generated heck before she was finally released from their grip. Enforce first, test the constitutionality of the law later, would suit them much better.

One of those "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride," scenarios would have been a consolation prize for them.

 

[SaintForLife]

The people who oppose this ruling don't care about the legal principle of standing. They just don't like the ruling. Given that the ruling happened, they would be happier if the website designer had been put through months of state of Colorado generated heck before she was finally released from their grip. Enforce first, test the constitutionality of the law later, would suit them much better.

One of those "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride," scenarios would have been a consolation prize for them.

They don't care about any of that including the supposed request for a gay wedding website. As you said, it's all about them not liking the ruling.