All Forums | Politics

Justice Thomas

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 455
Posts: 29
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2002
Posts: 16558
Posted: #1
Developing. Democratic Senators going after Clarence Thomas. The reason. Not reporting the source of his wife's income for the last 15 years or so. The Dems will stoop this low to try to get the tie breaker on Obamacare. Madness in the Beltway!
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 35430
Posted: #2
He probably screwed up on this one,  it seems. Would not at all be surprised though if I wasn't him personally who did this but rather an accountant or CPA that he hired.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 24201
Posted: #3
Impartial jurist with partiality to the Heritage Foundation and the billionaire Koch Brothers.  Makes perfect sense.  Thomas voted corporations are people with unlimited influence in all elections in the USA.

Well done. 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 35430
Posted: #4
Let's not kid ourselves here starwink and act like Thomas isn't independently conservative aside from any closeness he has to those individuals. Thomas had a long, long track record of conservative jurisprudence prior to any of the allegations here.
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2003
Posts: 57629
Posted: #5
Looks like a termite treatment is needed at the SCOTUS
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 24201
Posted: #6
Now, the same Supreme Court that ruled in favor of corporation's unlimited influence in elections, is going to rule on the legality of a national health care program. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 24201
Posted: #7
Did you see Scalia yesterday?  He said the gridlock in Washington was exactly what the founding fathers wanted when they created our government.  A do-nothing Congress!!! 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 35430
Posted: #8
Starwink -- I'm still not really sure how this failure to disclose would make a difference in the Citizens United ruling or even the "Obamacare" expected ruling?

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 24201
Posted: #9
It won't have any effect on the rulings.  Only if Thomas is removed from the bench.  He definitely isn't impartial, though.  The public deserves at the very least, background on who helps to pay the Thomas family bills.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 35430
Posted: #10
Quote Originally Posted by starwink:

It won't have any effect on the rulings.  Only if Thomas is removed from the bench.  He definitely isn't impartial, though.  The public deserves at the very least, background on who helps to pay the Thomas family bills.


Hard for me to imagine that this could lead to his removal from the bench. He'll likely blame the oversight on a hired professional, which (if true) is a legitimate defense.


 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 35430
Posted: #11
Quote Originally Posted by starwink:

Did you see Scalia yesterday?  He said the gridlock in Washington was exactly what the founding fathers wanted when they created our government.  A do-nothing Congress!!! 



He's right, Star.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #12
The obama appointees are impartial?

Totally bought and paid for.

Kagan should recuse herself from any matter that is remotely tangent to Zer0.
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 35430
Posted: #13
There's actually real, legitimate grounds IMO for Kagan to recuse herself on the "Obamacare" case that hits the SCOTUS.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 6898
Posted: #14
all of this is being done specifically because of kagan needing to recuse herself from the obamacare hearing

there is no other reason

act 4 of the 5 act play is the scotus ruling on obamacare.

the admin will stop at nothing to alter this hearing....you aint seen nothin yet....although most of the threats intimidation and potential assassinations will never be divulged
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 6898
Posted: #15
kagan crafted the entire legal reasoning for obamacare while as solicitor general

seems like a conflict to me
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2005
Posts: 66698
Posted: #16
Quote Originally Posted by starwink:

It won't have any effect on the rulings.  Only if Thomas is removed from the bench.  He definitely isn't impartial, though.  The public deserves at the very least, background on who helps to pay the Thomas family bills.


ill trade you thomas for kagan

seems fair right? obama paid kagan's rent for 09 and 2010
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2006
Posts: 6898
Posted: #17
its all because hes not an uncle tom.....oh yeah.....race card baby
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10911
Posted: #18

Quote Originally Posted by starwink:

Did you see Scalia yesterday?  He said the gridlock in Washington was exactly what the founding fathers wanted when they created our government.  A do-nothing Congress!!! 

why in the world do you want any elected officials to do anything given their track record up to this point

you think suddenly they will pass some legislation that will be the panacea to your troubles

big business has had a hold on our legislators ever since the west was won

no legislation from these corrupt bastards is a good thing in my opinion

 

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #19
How is that stooping low?  Don't you believe in the rule of law?  Thomas clearly violated the law, for decades. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 3158
Posted: #20
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:



Hard for me to imagine that this could lead to his removal from the bench. He'll likely blame the oversight on a hired professional, which (if true) is a legitimate defense.




I beg to differ with you... His taxes are his responsibility. I do not believe he can delegate the responsibility to a third party. If he did not review his taxes he is incompatant and is not fit to hold a position of authority.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2002
Posts: 16558
Posted: #21

The Dems had their feeling hurt because the income of the wife of Thomas is not on some form. Hogwash with the rule of law in this specific case.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 3158
Posted: #22
Quote Originally Posted by sundance:

The Dems had their feeling hurt because the income of the wife of Thomas is not on some form. Hogwash with the rule of law in this specific case.



I agree we should be able to file tax forms with whatever errors we wish and it be accepted without question, in my specific case, in my neighbors specific case, and in the specific cases of my kin folk...
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2007
Posts: 10911
Posted: #23

Quote Originally Posted by Randisist:



I agree we should be able to file tax forms with whatever errors we wish and it be accepted without question, in my specific case, in my neighbors specific case, and in the specific cases of my kin folk...

dont forget the secretary of the treasury

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2002
Posts: 67006
Posted: #24
Quote Originally Posted by sundance:

The Dems had their feeling hurt because the income of the wife of Thomas is not on some form. Hogwash with the rule of law in this specific case.



So the rule of law only applies when it's convenient to you politically?  Isn't the whole point of 'rule of law' is that it is absolute and not only when convenient?
 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2002
Posts: 16558
Posted: #25
I have not seen the rule of law applied to Charlie Rangel. A perfect example of political convenience. The perpetual double standard always appllies to the Left.
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2025 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.