Problems with the Supreme Court

[dneal]

But let's worry about $133k from a guy with more money than he knows what to do with, who wants to turn Thomas' birthplace into a future museum. Wouldn't that be honoring black achievement - ahem - if he weren't conservative, of course. Damned racists.

Nothing like a museum with a car port...LOL!!

Why the other two lots?

Otherwise, your point is well taken, @dneal. Thing is, for whatever reason, the judge didn't act with prudence and surely you agree?

My understanding is that the transaction involved his mother and at least one sibling. The mother got to live there till she passed, and the house was renovated. The other two lots? I dunno, maybe future museum and/or parking. There are lots of "birthplace" museums for lots of historic figures. Thomas will be a historic figure.

If the guy has a case before the court, it becomes an issue and Thomas should recuse himself. The insinuation of bribery is silly. It would be more effective to do that with Congress. They could call it "lobbying" or something.

[Chuck Naill]

But let's worry about $133k from a guy with more money than he knows what to do with, who wants to turn Thomas' birthplace into a future museum. Wouldn't that be honoring black achievement - ahem - if he weren't conservative, of course. Damned racists.

Nothing like a museum with a car port...LOL!!

Why the other two lots?

Otherwise, your point is well taken, @dneal. Thing is, for whatever reason, the judge didn't act with prudence and surely you agree?

My understanding is that the transaction involved his mother and at least one sibling. The mother got to live there till she passed, and the house was renovated. The other two lots? I dunno, maybe future museum and/or parking. There are lots of "birthplace" museums for lots of historic figures. Thomas will be a historic figure.

If the guy has a case before the court, it becomes an issue and Thomas should recuse himself. The insinuation of bribery is silly. It would be more effective to do that with Congress. They could call it "lobbying" or something.

Valid points, @dneal.

[Chip]

If I pulled that sleazy crap, I'd get busted by the IRS and whoever else has jurisdiction.

If the Corporate-Whore-in-Chief Roberts keep sitting on his arse and zipping his lips, he'll suffer a loss of credibility, too.

[Chuck Naill]

These things come to life during an IRS audit. People get by for decades. Just recently the Trump audit revealed the shenanigans that took place.

After a house fire with ensuing deductions, I was audited. I had placed too much value on a vehicle that was destroyed. I can’t remember, but I just paid the penalty and refunded what was owed.

[Chip]

[Chip]

Before his appointment, Thomas displayed poor ethics when he got cheap thrills by talking dirty to female colleagues.

Then he lied to Congress after taking an oath and defamed Anita Hill, to weasel into the post.

Since then he's issued horribly biased and distorted opinions on a range of subjects, while accepting gifts and freebies from his rightwing oligarch sponsors.

What the hell else does he have to do to merit a boot in the arse?

[TSherbs]

Thomas wrecked his legacy with pubic hair on a Coke can. And then lying through his teeth, unapologetically, with a force of entitlement seen also on the face of Brett Kavanaugh, another man full of the power of entitlement.

Since then, not much has improved, with these latest revelations about his wife's texts and his benefits from the "friendship" of that mega donor.

I'm sure that some library or whatever will be built in his name. Shrug.

[TSherbs]

And now Alito's caustic, personal, and unrestrained dissent in the mifepristone case is garnering criticism from Supreme Court pundits. Roberts seems to have lost control over the demeanor and behavior of these persons.

[dneal]

You seem to know a lot about the inner thoughts and motives of people I wager you have never met.

[Chuck Naill]

You seem to know a lot about the inner thoughts and motives of people I wager you have never met.

I agree. Once I said I was a Christian, he stopped interacting. If you think what someone believes is based on ignorance or worse, you miss an opportunity to have your own mind expanded. We all do it. I am as guilty as the next but thank you for the reminder.

[TSherbs]

...Once I said I was a Christian, he stopped interacting.

That's one of the falsest things you have written. How bizarre!

[Chuck Naill]

...Once I said I was a Christian, he stopped interacting.

That's one of the falsest things you have written. How bizarre!

You did it twice. Once with on the Abortion thread. It was obvious that as a Christian, my opinion was based solely on something other than something for which you could agree.

[TSherbs]

...Once I said I was a Christian, he stopped interacting.

That's one of the falsest things you have written. How bizarre!

You did it twice. Once with on the Abortion thread. It was obvious that as a Christian, my opinion was based solely on something other than something for which you could agree.

Why you confuse diagreement with failure to "interact" is beyond me. Why you confuse my not responding to every post of yours as failure to "interact" is also beyond me. I also repeatedly state that I find some of your posts very difficult to comprehend, let alone agree or disagree with. You even asked me for my phone number, which I declined.

So this "once I declared I was a Christian he stopped interracting with me" is just bullshit. You actually took offense when I "interacted" with you frankly about my thoughts on Christianity, religion in general, and proselytizing.

The topic here is the Supreme Court. You have a choice: you can high five dneal each time he follows me around and trolls me, or you can "interact" on the topic. I guess you can also do both, if that floats your boat.

In the meantime, the last thing I posted on the topic was that several writers have been declaring (and not just recently) that John Roberts does not seem to have a handle on the ethics and QC of the present SC. I recently saw another editorial (can't remember where, now) calling for an ethics overhaul of the SC and stricter, clearer, more comprehensive ethical guidelines for the job. The SC used to be able to assume that there behavior was restrained and beyond public reproach. That era is over, seems fairly clear.

[Chuck Naill]

What @dneal said is valid. He and I are not buddies. He asks good questions and makes good observations occasionally.

Your incessant proclivity to try and control all narratives is laughable and not profitable for discussion. Your bias against any intellectual aspect of Christianity is apparent. Your frequent quip about other people's ignorance is noticeable but lacking in anything to take seriously.

That you are confused, is legendary.

[TSherbs]

What @dneal said is valid. He and I are not buddies. He asks good questions and makes good observations occasionally.

Your incessant proclivity to try and control all narratives is laughable and not profitable for discussion. Your bias against any intellectual aspect of Christianity is apparent. Your frequent quip about other people's ignorance is noticeable but lacking in anything to take seriously.

That you are confused, is legendary.

Well, there ya go. Not a word on the topic. Have it your way.

[Chuck Naill]

As @dneal said, you pretend to be the mind reader. We didn’t change the topic, you did!!!!

[TSherbs]

No, dneal did. Why can't you see that? See the post where he turned the topic from the Supreme Court to *me*? (Then you jumped in, in agreement). That is where he changed the topic.

I'll repeat, just so you can see the last comment on topic again: Many writers covering the Supreme Court have been commenting that John Roberts doesn't have effective control over the quality of behavior of the court, especially not over Thomas and Alito. I tend to agree, and I agree that stricter guidelines ought to be enacted.

[724Seney]

No, dneal did. Why can't you see that? See the post where he turned the topic from the Supreme Court to *me*? (Then you jumped in, in agreement). That is where he changed the topic.

I'll repeat, just so you can see the last comment on topic again: Many writers covering the Supreme Court have been commenting that John Roberts doesn't have effective control over the quality of behavior of the court, especially not over Thomas and Alito. I tend to agree, and I agree that stricter guidelines ought to be enacted.

The humor and hypocrisy just keep on coming folks!

When it fits his narrative or provides a convenient means of ducking an issue, @TSherbs screams about one's varying from the topic.
Yet, when it creates an inconvenient or uncomfortable truth, there is no one who turns a blinder eye or stays further away from the topic than @TSherbs.

You can't make this kind of "flippity flop" behavior up! What a buffoon!

[TSherbs]

Some people are calling for term and age limits. I have mixed feelings about that. We have no upper age limits on anything. So maybe terms is a better approach. But this would require an amendment (I think. I am not currently looking at a copy of the Constitution).

[TSherbs]

I'll repeat, just so you can see the last comment on topic again: Many writers covering the Supreme Court have been commenting that John Roberts doesn't have effective control over the quality of behavior of the court, especially not over Thomas and Alito. I tend to agree, and I agree that stricter guidelines ought to be enacted.

Ibid