Supreme Court Justice Paid Off

[Jim Craik]

Gary,

We finally got Al to answer questions, now it is you turn.

Please tell us who the Liberal "elite" are and how they differ from regular Liberals?

Additionally, do you think that most Blacks hate Mr Thomas because he is Black?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Finally, if as you say, Liberals feel truely threatened by a black man in charge of his own thoughts, why where Dr King and Justice Marshall so reverd?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Garry]

Oh Please! The indignation is another attempt to misdirect the intent of what we are getting across. For some liberals, elitists, racists, etc., the idea that a smart man who happens to be black and is not a fan of reformist social programs that they voted for to "correct" the injustices of the past is an anathma. If those of you reading this post do not fall into that category then there should be no hurt feelings.
What was stated is that there is a conservative group of ethnic minorities that believes (and rightly so ) they are perfectly capable of advancing themselves without the federal mandated programs created by Democrats. What Justice Thomas and other black conservatives have both spoken about and written about is the great failure that most of these programs have had in correcting the "perceived" problems they were created for. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" a wise man has said and it has proven to be true.
I do not condem all Democrat solutions however as the voting rights act(and subsequent revisions) did more to level the playing field than all of the other socialist programs combined. It was a heck of a lot cheaper as well. Ask yourself this...is education, poverty, and justice better today than it was in 1964? After over $1 Trillion spent? I don't think so.
I won't try to debate these issues on this forum but I recommend that there is great reading about this subject from Clarence Page, Bill Cosby, and others who came from the ghettos.
Now back to the origional thread, as i stated, if there is a provable intent to defraud the American people by any justice, congressman, president, or any appointed/elected individual let's throw the book at them. Let's creat a bi-partisan panel of jurors to look at the evidence and perform a verdict. Up to now, it seems that this is a political attack and not a true indictment. Until that happens, I will remain skeptical of the intent by the accusers.

Garry

 

[Jeff Young]

Actually Gary, yes, we are much better educated society, with far less racial injustice and a higher standard of living than in 1964.

Putting that aside, let's try to get to the bottom of this cluster:

1. To the guys on the "left." Yes, this was, at best, a huge mistake by Justice Thomas. But let's look at it critically. Everyone knew his wife worked for Heritage and is a Tea Party nutjob. Justice Thomas can't be held accountable for a crazy wife right? That would put a lot of us in hot water.

So I doubt there was any real intent by Justice Thomas to hide anything here. Probably just a stupid, stupid error.

On top of that, seriously, how much more "conservative" could he be? If you were paying him to vote any more conservatively than he already does, you were wasting your money.

Stupid mistake? Yes.
Perhaps criminal? Yes.
Paid off to vote a certain way? I highly, highly doubt it.

Also, lay off the not asking questions in oral argument. At the Supreme Court, it's just a show that guys like Scalia and Brennan (on the left) get off on. The decision is made by the time of oral argument for the most part. It's a hold over from the olden days and I'd probably sit there wishing it would end so I could do some real work too.

2. To the guys on the right. It doesn't matter how times you trot out similar failings by Democrats. We get it. Both sides do this. Saying "well, X was JUST AS BIG a crook" is frankly stupid.

And stop with the idolization of Justice Thomas. By most reasonably objective accounts, what Anita Hill testified to was true, and he was a sexist pig. Like a lot of our Presidents and politicians on both sides of the aisle.

But the Democrats might have blown it by focusing on that during the hearings. The real issue with Thomas was qualification. He wasn't. And some of his early opinions are frigthteningly bad. He's gotten better, but he's not a rocket scientist and probably only marginally qualified to be on the bench (his legal career prior to appointment was mediocre at best, as he was more of a bureaucrat than a real attorney or judge).

In my view? He should get a slap on the wrist for being stupid and we all go back to our business.

 

[Jim Craik]

Gee Gary,

I do not see any answers, these are all reasonable questions.

You make brash statements, try and turn this into a racial thing by saying things like Liberals feel truely threatened by a black man in charge of his own thoughts and use lines like "Liberal elite".

We are having a discussion here, I really want to debate with you, that said in a debate questions are asked and answered.

After you answer these questions, well free to ask me anything you want.

 

[Jim Craik]

Veek, Gary and RonR

Here is another question, I hope you can help me understand:

Why after accepting Student loans and Affirmative action benifits (which obviously helped them both tremendusly) do people like RonR and Justice Thomas then turn against this type of program?

 

[Jeff Young]

It's like your friend Wolhstrom. It's ok for him to accept unemployment, but not anyone else since that would be taking money from him.

Veek, Gary and RonR

Here is another question, I hope you can help me understand:

Why after accepting Student loans and Affirmative action benifits (which obviously helped them both tremendusly) do people like RonR and Justice Thomas then turn against this type of program?

 

[Garry]

Jeff,
You sound like a lawyer. So if you are a lawyer then your opinion is the right opinion of Justice Thomas. I get where you are comming from. One wonders why you are not a Justice or Federal Judge. I am not a lawyer so I cannot argue one way or the other. I know that alot of people do not like Thomas and history will be the judge of him as it will of us all.
However, defending ill conceived programs such as the Great Society, which has been a complete failure in eliminating the very things it was created to fix is a zero sum game. Perhaps the failures was in the execution or the failure to make the right changes, but like all government fiefdoms, they become ineffective once created and allowed to grow as the intity learns to navigate the powers in congress and on the Hill. There is no "sunset review" of government programs that has proven to be effective and the Secretaries that our presidents have appointed find the rank and file employees dug-in and resistant to change.
As for student loans, Jim, unless you are referring to other financial programs, the loans must be repaid. If you know a way to not pay them send me an email, because my daughter could use the information.
As for Affimative action, there is no proof, only a predisposed conjecture that people without means cannot make it without the help. Tell that to the Vietnamese refugees that I know. They came with nothing, not even the english language, and now there are whole thriving communities of Viets living and prospering in cities across the country. They did it by hard work and the desire to succeed. They took what this country offers and made something of themselves for their children and grandchildren. Ask them what America has made available and the kinds of opportunities that this country offers thru the rule of law and private property. That is the "real" affirmative action created by our founding fathers and the bill of rights.
Garry

 

[Jeff Young]

I'll say it one more time just so it is clear.

It's an undisputed fact that our standard of living is higher than in 1964. Our level of education is higher than in 1964 (primarily because more of the poor and minorities have educational opportunities they did not have in 1964). Our level of racial injustice is lower than in 1964.

Of course not all of the Great Society and later programs worked, but the facts are the facts.....

 

[Jim Craik]

Garry,

It's apparent that you are not going to answer questions about what you post.

Such a shame, I would think that anyone here on our form who felt strongly enough about something to post would stay, defend their opinions and answer questions.

I promise I will.

 

[Jim Craik]

Garry,

It's interesting you should bring up successful Vietnamese immigrants. What you forget is this is the exact reason America is so great.

America has been skimming off the best and brightest folks from around the world since Columbus.

For the most part, the lazy ones, the not so sharp ones, the ones without vision are still in Mexico, Scotland, Viet Nam, Ireland, Italy......you get the point.

No matter what the immigrant haters tell you, this is why America is great!!!

Now if you try and compare the best and brightest from around the world to just plain folk, you will be disappointed.

A very interesting book came out a few years ago, "The Greatest Generation". This book talked of the generation who fought WWII.

When these guys returned from war, they were given the GI bill, among other things they were given the opportunity to go to College.

Thousands and thousands of them took us up on that offer and look what happened. These folks were no smarter or worked harder than people today it's just the were given an opportunity that most could not have done on their own.

Just plain folk like Mr Thomas, RonR, Al and the rest sometimes need some help. That help these folks got and look what they have done with that help.

You might keep that in mind when you whine on and on about social programs!

 

[Pat]

There are other white conservatives on the court that are not getting these types of attacks. Justice Thomas' race is very much a part of this. A good man is being unfairly smeared because of his color and his beliefs. I think it's wrong and I'm choosing not to ignore it. Jim and others with malicious insinuation of his being "paid off" are launching nothing more than racist smears directed to someone they think doesn't know his "proper place" in subjugating himself to the benevolent masters on the left. Read these posts fellas, this is the face of subtle institutional racism.
To even suggest, without a shred of proof that Justice Thomas is taking a payoff is nothing more than an immoral lie and today is the day I decided to say enough is enough.

If what I'm writing makes you feel unforcomfortable, so be it, block my posts and immunize yourself from the unpleasantess but it doesn't change that fact that this smear stream is hate driven and wrong at it's core.
Apologies are in order to Justice and Ms Thomas...

Doug, have a look at the attached, to save time scroll forward the time to 1.02
You don't think there is left wing hate???
YouTube - Progressive Rally

 

[Jim Craik]

Veek,

You are a lier!!!
Without a shred of proof, think about what you say.

If I am a racist, why do I support President Obama? I have one full time employee, for over 10 years now, she is a single black mother, be careful or I might tell her about you!

You do not want that, believe me!

No one said anything about race untill you brought it up, so sad!

I was just starting to like you, so very sad!

 

[Jim Craik]

Someone tell this moron, if others took money and lied about it we would be on them as well.

 

[Jim Craik]

Veek,

Let me see if I understand what you are saying.

It you take exception with a Supreme Court Justice for accepting big bucks and trying to hide it, that's racism.

But, if you call our President a liar on the floor of the house, that's patriotism. If you say he is a Muslem, Communist, Fashist and illegal alian, that patriotism.

What a strange world you live in.

 

[Chris P.]

... if you call our President a liar on the floor of the house, that's patriotism. If you say he is a Muslem, Communist, Fashist and illegal alian, that patriotism.

Ha - yeah, UNLESS the president is republican, then it's all of a sudden not patriotic again. Are we confused yet???

 

[Jack]

I say call a liar a liar and be done with it! The politicial affiliation should not have any bearing on it..

 

[Doug S.]

I say call a liar a liar and be done with it! The politicial affiliation should not have any bearing on it..

Just curious, Jack.....would you call SCJ Thomas a liar for not having disclosed the fact that his wife had non-interest income (keep in mind there is no requirement that she divulge the source or the amount)?

I do.....and one of the legal tenants to which judges adhere is that once it proven that you have lied to them once, everything else they say cannot be believed. How can he believe we Americans will have any trust for his contributions to the court again, once he has lied to us in such a manner?

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Pat]

Doug, let me try again.

For all who like to criticize and name call without the facts here are the instructions for SF 278 (Rev. 03/2000) 5 C.F.R. Part 2634 U.S. Office of Government Ethics, SCHEDULE A, Assets and Income.
Note the wording in the last paragraph “For your spouse, report the source but not the amount of earned income of more than $1,000”. Now ask yourself what would you have reported? The source but not the amount as instructed? Or would you put "None" when you should have written "Not Applicable". That's what this is all about.
Look at SCHEDULE A, Assets and Income.
For you, your spouse, and dependent children, report each asset held for investment or the
production of income which had a fair market value exceeding $1,000 at the close of the reporting period, or which generated more than $200 in income during the reporting period, together with such income.
For yourself, also report the source and actual amount of earned income exceeding $200 (other than from the U.S. Government) For your spouse, report the source but not the amount of earned income of more than $1,000 (except report the actual amount of any honoraria over $200 of your spouse).
Pretty clear eh?

If any of you have ever amended a tax return you may be deemed as guilty as Justice Thomas.

 

[Jeff Young]

Why are you defending this? It was wrong, right, left, center, whatever. It may have been inadvertent, but still wrong. If it was intentional, then it was just plain stupid (which confirms some of the other points I was making). Everyone knows where his wife has worked for the last few years.

This wasn't a payoff for votes. Like I said before, this guy couldn't have gotten any more "conservative."

Which makes his failure to report all the more stupid and silly

 

[Jack]

Just curious, Jack.....would you call SCJ Thomas a liar for not having disclosed the fact that his wife had non-interest income (keep in mind there is no requirement that she divulge the source or the amount)?

I do.....and one of the legal tenants to which judges adhere is that once it proven that you have lied to them once, everything else they say cannot be believed. How can he believe we Americans will have any trust for his contributions to the court again, once he has lied to us in such a manner?

Cheers from Doug!!

Simple answer is YES!