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]

The last time old Ed made up a hypothetical situation and pushed it this hard he had to make a public apology to keep from being sued for defamation. He has his theory about this case but that doesn’t make it fact.

It is highly unusual for a case like this to make it all the way to the SC. It was a set-up, IMO, by the dark money that swirls around this corrupt court. They appears they are trying their damndest to get all their culture war boxes checked off before some more shoes drop and one or more of them end up resigning in disgrace. If they have to make up a scenario, they will.

The state of CO should have pushed back on this immediately because it is a hypothetical and no real requests had been received. Part of the reason they didn’t may or may not have to do with the Republican AG at the time. The GOP no longer holds the AG position in CO, incidentally.

 

[SaintForLife]

The last time old Ed made up a hypothetical situation and pushed it this hard he had to make a public apology to keep from being sued for defamation. He has his theory about this case but that doesn’t make it fact.

It is highly unusual for a case like this to make it all the way to the SC. It was a set-up, IMO, by the dark money that swirls around this corrupt court. They appears they are trying their damndest to get all their culture war boxes checked off before some more shoes drop and one or more of them end up resigning in disgrace. If they have to make up a scenario, they will.

The state of CO should have pushed back on this immediately because it is a hypothetical and no real requests had been received. Part of the reason they didn’t may or may not have to do with the Republican AG at the time. The GOP no longer holds the AG position in CO, incidentally.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings didn't hinge on what now appears to have been a request from a fake customer, legal experts said Monday.

In a case that wound up dealing a setback to LGBTQ rights, the focus on the potential customer first arose after web designer Lorie Smith said in a previous court filing that someone named Stewart had reached out to her in 2016 about putting together a website for his marriage to a person named Mike.

That narrative was thrown into question last week after The New Republic published an article on Stewart, who denied ever having reached out to Smith. It quoted him saying he was a web designer who has been married to a woman for years.

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” the man identified only as Stewart told the magazine. “I’m married, I have a child — I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

The revelation has led to complaints on social media that the case should never have made it as far as the Supreme Court, with many arguing that Smith didn't have legal standing to bring the case if there weren't any customers seeking her services.

Legal experts reached by NBC News disagreed.

"Though I think the [Supreme Court] opinion is misguided in many ways, I do think she has standing," said Carolyn Shapiro, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. She noted that Smith had sought what's known as a pre-enforcement challenge, in which she argued that her right to free speech was being chilled by a Colorado state law.

"She’s saying I want to do something that's definitely against the law in Colorado. I think that’s probably enough for a pre-enforcement challenge," Shapiro said.

 

[MT15]

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings didn't hinge on what now appears to have been a request from a fake customer, legal experts said Monday.

In a case that wound up dealing a setback to LGBTQ rights, the focus on the potential customer first arose after web designer Lorie Smith said in a previous court filing that someone named Stewart had reached out to her in 2016 about putting together a website for his marriage to a person named Mike.

That narrative was thrown into question last week after The New Republic published an article on Stewart, who denied ever having reached out to Smith. It quoted him saying he was a web designer who has been married to a woman for years.

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” the man identified only as Stewart told the magazine. “I’m married, I have a child — I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

The revelation has led to complaints on social media that the case should never have made it as far as the Supreme Court, with many arguing that Smith didn't have legal standing to bring the case if there weren't any customers seeking her services.

Legal experts reached by NBC News disagreed.

"Though I think the [Supreme Court] opinion is misguided in many ways, I do think she has standing," said Carolyn Shapiro, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. She noted that Smith had sought what's known as a pre-enforcement challenge, in which she argued that her right to free speech was being chilled by a Colorado state law.

"She’s saying I want to do something that's definitely against the law in Colorado. I think that’s probably enough for a pre-enforcement challenge," Shapiro said.

Why do you think they made up a fake request then? What was the purpose of it? They should have never included it in the case if they didn’t want to catch flack over it. It’s dishonest.

Do you doubt that the dark money that the court is awash in is actively looking for cases it can set up to claw back rights that have been allowed for 50 years?

 

[SaintForLife]

Why do you think they made up a fake request then? What was the purpose of it? They should have never included it in the case if they didn’t want to catch flack over it. It’s dishonest.

Do you doubt that the dark money that the court is awash in is actively looking for cases it can set up to claw back rights that have been allowed for 50 years?

 

[CoolBrees]

Can we keep this thread on the topic?

Which is of course that at least two members of the SCOTUS have been on the take for over 15 years.

I cant believe our conservative buddies are ok with this. Actually I can.

Just as to be expected - crickets.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Can we keep this thread on the topic?

Which is of course that at least two members of the SCOTUS have been on the take for over 15 years.

I cant believe our conservative buddies are ok with this. Actually I can.

Just as to be expected - crickets.

"it's okay when we do it"

Motto for everything

 

[zztop]

Can we keep this thread on the topic?

Which is of course that at least two members of the SCOTUS have been on the take for over 15 years.

I cant believe our conservative buddies are ok with this. Actually I can.

Just as to be expected - crickets.

republicans: it's okay when our side does it

edit: OP beat me to it ^

 

[CoolBrees]

And that is the stupidest part. They don't get to do it. They unwaveringly vote for those that do. While screwing them over in the meantime.

Because they are marks being taken by a con man.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Can we keep this thread on the topic?

Which is of course that at least two members of the SCOTUS have been on the take for over 15 years.

I cant believe our conservative buddies are ok with this. Actually I can.

Just as to be expected - crickets.

If it came out that Justice Brown Jackson and George Soros were at the same restaurant at the same time and he paid for her meal the right would howl that it's the pinnacle of corruption and she must resign immediately

 

[DaveXA]

If it came out that Justice Brown Jackson and George Soros were at the same restaurant at the same time and he paid for her meal the right would howl that it's the pinnacle of corruption and she must resign immediately

They pretty much already do that. Lol.

 

[Optimus Prime]

They pretty much already do that. Lol.

true enough

 

[SaintForLife]

Can we keep this thread on the topic?

Which is of course that at least two members of the SCOTUS have been on the take for over 15 years.

I cant believe our conservative buddies are ok with this. Actually I can.

Just as to be expected - crickets.

MT15 was the one who first posted about the Colorado case in this thread. I've been responding to that subject and it is about the Supreme Court.

You can't believe I'm not concerned about the Supreme Court after the left and the media have been on a concerted and obvious campaign to discredit the Supreme Court since Trump appointed his SCOTUS? You guys lost control of the Supreme Court so now yall want to discredit, expand, & pack the courts.

It's a very similar to the campaign to discredit Musk & Twiter since he acquired it. The left lost their censorship apparatus in Twitter so they have been throwing a hissy fit every since.

I can't believe most of the people here on the left have zero concern about the Biden social media censorship regime or that Durham revealed that Hillary created the entire Trump Russia collusion narrative. Why are most of yall quiet or still lying about those two things?

 

[bird]

MT15 was the one who first posted about the Colorado case in this thread. I've been responding to that subject and it is about the Supreme Court.

You can't believe I'm not concerned about the Supreme Court after the left and the media have been on a concerted and obvious campaign to discredit the Supreme Court since Trump appointed his SCOTUS? You guys lost control of the Supreme Court so now yall want to discredit, expand, & pack the courts.

It's a very similar to the campaign to discredit Musk & Twiter since he acquired it. The left lost their censorship apparatus in Twitter so they have been throwing a hissy fit every since.

I can't believe most of the people here on the left have zero concern about the Biden social media censorship regime or that Durham revealed that Hillary created the entire Trump Russia collusion narrative. Why are most of yall quiet or still lying about those two things?

Durham‘s investigation revealed no such thing.

 

[Incumbent]

You can't believe I'm not concerned about the Supreme Court after the left and the media have been on a concerted and obvious campaign to discredit the Supreme Court since Trump appointed his SCOTUS? You guys lost control of the Supreme Court so now yall want to discredit, expand, & pack the courts.

So I don’t suppose you think McConnell’s refusal to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland, and then rushing to confirm Coney-Barrett, did anything to discredit the validity of this court, huh?

 

[bird]

So I don’t suppose you think McConnell’s refusal to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland, and then rushing to confirm Coney-Barrett, did anything to discredit the validity of this court, huh?

IOKIYAR. It’s OK if you are Republican.

 

[SaintForLife]

So I don’t suppose you think McConnell’s refusal to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland, and then rushing to confirm Coney-Barrett, did anything to discredit the validity of this court, huh?

I don't think that was the right thing to do, but it's politics and the Democrats would have 100% done the same thing had they been in a similar situation.

The Democrats have accused two conservative SCOTUS nominees of being rapists to try to keep them from being confirmed. I don't think the Democrats have any room to talk about dirty tactics in regards to the Supreme Court.

 

[Incumbent]

I don't think that was the right thing to do, but it's politics and the Democrats would have 100% done the same thing had they been in a similar situation.

The Democrats have accused two conservative SCOTUS nominees of being rapists to try to keep them from being confirmed. I don't think the Democrats have any room to talk about dirty tactics in regards to the Supreme Court.

Not much of a defense of his actions when you have to rely on a hypothetical.

Kavanaugh legitimately seems like a piece of entitled ****. I found the allegations against him to be believable enough to be investigated. The “investigation” was, by design, a complete sham.

 

[SaintForLife]

Not much of a defense of his actions when you have to rely on a hypothetical.

Kavanaugh legitimately seems like a piece of entitled ****. I found the allegations against him to be believable enough to be investigated. The “investigation” was, by design, a complete sham.

I literally said I didn't think it was right to deny Obama the appointment, but hypothetically if the that situation was reversed do you think Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing?

You found the woman who couldn't remember the year, the place of when the supposed rape happened to be credible? Do you find it coincidental at all that the Democrats accused two different conservative SCOTUS nominees of being rapists?