Liberal Forum

During his three decades on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has enjoyed steady access to a lifestyle most Americans can only imagine. A cadre of industry titans and ultrawealthy executives have treated him to far-flung vacations aboard their yachts, ushered him into the premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to fetch him — including, on more than one occasion, an entire 737. It’s a stream of luxury that is both more extensive and from a wider circle than has been previously understood.

 Like clockwork, Thomas’ leisure activities have been underwritten by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence. Their gifts include: 

 At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.This accounting of Thomas’ travel, revealed for the first time here from an array of previously unavailable information, is the fullest to date of the generosity that has regularly afforded Thomas a lifestyle far beyond what his income could provide. And it is almost certainly an undercount.
 While some of the hospitality, such as stays in personal homes, may not have required disclosure, Thomas appears to have violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises and expensive sports tickets, according to ethics experts.

 Perhaps even more significant, the pattern exposes consistent violations of judicial norms, experts, including seven current and former federal judges appointed by both parties, told ProPublica. “In my career I don’t remember ever seeing this degree of largesse given to anybody,” said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for years on the judicial committee that reviews judges’ financial disclosures. “I think it’s unprecedented.”

——

https://youtu.be/FHDwRECFL8M

—//

I supported his nomination and to this day believe Anita Hill was a scorned and jealous lover.  

But affirmative action for Supreme Court justices should never  be done again.

The only reason Danforth championed to put him on the highest court, was his race.  Black republicans are rare, but unless qualified should never be nominated.

Thomas should retire.

 
 

Bruce » 10 Aug 2023, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 9:42 am

But affirmative action for Supreme Court justices should never  be done again.

The only reason Danforth championed to put him on the highest court, was his race.  Black republicans are rare, but unless qualified should never be nominated.


 

 
 "While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I've made no decision except one: the person I nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity - and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

Joe Biden - Jan 27, 2022
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 10 Aug 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 9:49 am

 
 "While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I've made no decision except one: the person I nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity - and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

Joe Biden - Jan 27, 2022

Bruce wants to distract from Joe's crimes.  

RedheadedStranger » 10 Aug 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 9:49 am

 
 "While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I've made no decision except one: the person I nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity - and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

Joe Biden - Jan 27, 2022

Will she be a Democratic Clarence Thomas?

The only Oliver Wendell Holmes grade justice in the last fifty years on the court was Justice Scalia.

Scalia was brilliant.  Even liberals rank him as the greatest scholar on the court in many decades.

The justices should not be a political, period 

 

Bruce » 10 Aug 2023, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 10:04 am

Will she be a Democratic Clarence Thomas?

The only Oliver Wendell Holmes grade justice in the last fifty years on the court was Justice Scalia.

Scalia was brilliant.  Even liberals rank him as the greatest scholar on the court in many decades.

The justices should not be a political, period

So... do you think Biden was correct in making an Affirmative Action appointment to the SCOTUS, or was your comment only referring to Conservatives?
 
"But affirmative action for Supreme Court justices should never  be done again."

Bruce » 10 Aug 2023, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 10:04 am

Will she be a Democratic Clarence Thomas?

The only Oliver Wendell Holmes grade justice in the last fifty years on the court was Justice Scalia.

Scalia was brilliant.  Even liberals rank him as the greatest scholar on the court in many decades.

The justices should not be a political, period

Is Clarence a jungle name? 

I'll hang up and read your reply.
 

RebelGator » 10 Aug 2023, 10:15 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 10:15 am

Is Clarence a jungle name? 

I'll hang up and read your reply.

I think @Bruce  done r-u-n-o-f-t...

 
​​​​​​
 

Having a Supreme Court that looks like America gives every American the ability to feel a kinship with the court. Back in the day when it was all white men, that wasn't the case. There are PLENTY of eminently qualified jurists of all shapes colors and sizes. I certainly would not support any president nominating a less-than-qualified SCOTUS candidate simply to claim to have used a particular CRAYON. But all other things being equal - education, constitutional scholarship, deportment, bench experience, judicial philosophy, I see no reason why the president cannot stray afield from a pool that only contains WASP males.
 
 

RedheadedStranger » 10 Aug 2023, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 10:07 am

So... do you think Biden was correct in making an Affirmative Action appointment to the SCOTUS, or was your comment only referring to Conservatives?
 
"But affirmative action for Supreme Court justices should never  be done again."

It was flat out wrong to pick a woman because she was a black woman.

But’s she’s not a dullard like Thomas

Jackson was born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Miami, Florida. She received her undergraduate and legal education at Harvard University, where served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review, and would clerkfor Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she later assumed on the Supreme Court.[3] From 2010 to 2014, Jackson was the vice chairwoman of the United States Sentencing Commission. In 2013, President Barack Obama appointed her as a district judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where she served until 2021. Since 2016, Jackson has been a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers.


 Gee, that surely checks off every thing any white man could ever dream of having as credentials 

But will she be fair to ugly, fat, pot bellied white racists who hate her guts?

Will she prostitute her  credibility to rich liberals with yachts?

Scalia joined the opinion giving all liberal Americans the right to burn the United States flag

Would Jackson  uphold our similar right, to bear arms?



We shall see
 

Bruce » 10 Aug 2023, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 11:59 am

It was flat out wrong to pick a woman because she was a black woman.

But’s she’s not a dullard like Thomas

Jackson was born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Miami, Florida. She received her undergraduate and legal education at Harvard University, where served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review, and would clerkfor Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she later assumed on the Supreme Court.[3] From 2010 to 2014, Jackson was the vice chairwoman of the United States Sentencing Commission. In 2013, President Barack Obama appointed her as a district judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where she served until 2021. Since 2016, Jackson has been a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers.

 Gee, that surely checks off every thing any white man could ever dream of having as credentials 

But will she be fair to ugly, fat, pot bellied white racists who hate her guts?

Will she prostitute her  credibility to rich liberals with yachts?

Scalia joined the opinion giving all liberal Americans the right to burn the United States flag

Would Jackson  uphold our similar right, to bear arms?

We shall see

So your statement only refers to conservatives.

You could have just said that and saved yourself a bunch of typing.

 
 

RedheadedStranger » 10 Aug 2023, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 12:01 pm

So your statement only refers to conservatives.

You could have just said that and saved yourself a bunch of typing.

No, to Jackson too.

Biden was a god damned old fool to promise a black woman.

But he picked a damned good one on paper.

Let’s never do racial quotas again on SCOTUS

It demeans Jackson’s excellent credentials 

The test of Jackson’s impartially will be voting with the conservatives.

About 90% of Supreme Court cases aren’t over gay wedding cakes or guns or abortions.

They are the umpires for the entire federal court system and police the President and Congress when they stray outside the constitution.

We just learned today a black man on the court is a whore in black robes for thirty years.

Everybody is looking at Jackson to see if she’ll be a black whore, too.
 

Z09 » 10 Aug 2023, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 12:54 pm

Well said

Justice Thomas was confirmed in  three day hearing that I was glued to.  

If you’d watched it, any conservative would have cheered to the rafters when this old grandma looking secretary of Thomas testified, that upon learning that Thomas was going to be married to Ginni,,,

That Anita Hill called Clarence to congratulate him, and had that old grandma take down her hotel room number, and said she’d be in town for the night.

She still had the notes.

It was a **** atomic bomb!

Anita Hill was a spurned ex lover.

We won that fight to get him on the court.

But he wasn’t well credentialed 

And he’ll likely go down as not only the most financially compromised but the dullest, dumbest, most worthless black Republican ornament ever in history.

He never speaks during arguments, he’s too dumb.

What few opinions he does write we now know were cribbed by ALEC.

Jackson will have to live Clarence Thomas down every day of her tenure.

No racial quotas ever again. 

 

Bruce » 10 Aug 2023, 1:14 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 1:14 pm

Justice Thomas was confirmed in  three day hearing that I was glued to.  

If you’d watched it, any conservative would have cheered to the rafters when this old grandma looking secretary of Thomas testified, that upon learning that Thomas was going to be married to Ginni,,,

That Anita Hill called Clarence to congratulate him, and had that old grandma take down her hotel room number, and said she’d be in town for the night.

She still had the notes.

It was a **** atomic bomb!

Anita Hill was a spurned ex lover.

We won that fight to get him on the court.

But he wasn’t well credentialed 

And he’ll likely go down as not only the most financially compromised but the dullest, dumbest, most worthless black Republican ornament ever in history.

He never speaks during arguments, he’s too dumb.

What few opinions he does write we now know were cribbed by ALEC.

Jackson will have to live Clarence Thomas down every day of her tenure.

No racial quotas ever again.

No, she will have to live down the fact that Joe (with libs in lockstep as usual)
basically looked only for a black woman. She is a token twice over: Black and female.

There won't be an end to racial quotas until you idiots stop making statement like:
The Supreme Court didn't look like America... blah, blah, blah...

I expect nothing from her but crap judgement. Just like that weird "wise Latina" grinning idiot.
Another token for the libs.

 
.
Black republicans are rare, but unless qualified should never be nominated.
..

.
You don't think the other members of the SC / Congress are living the same way ?
.
The only reason you are reading all about Thomas is because the satanic socialist ultraliberal agenda driven media have put a target on his back !
.
.
.  

 
 

maineman » 10 Aug 2023, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 11:54 am

Having a Supreme Court that looks like America gives every American the ability to feel a kinship with the court. Back in the day when it was all white men, that wasn't the case. There are PLENTY of eminently qualified jurists of all shapes colors and sizes. I certainly would not support any president nominating a less-than-qualified SCOTUS candidate simply to claim to have used a particular CRAYON. But all other things being equal - education, constitutional scholarship, deportment, bench experience, judicial philosophy, I see no reason why the president cannot stray afield from a poll that only contains WASP males.

I'm on board with your post as long as they can define a woman...
 

Bruce » 10 Aug 2023, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 11:59 am

It was flat out wrong to pick a woman because she was a black woman.

But’s she’s not a dullard like Thomas

Jackson was born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Miami, Florida. She received her undergraduate and legal education at Harvard University, where served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review, and would clerkfor Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she later assumed on the Supreme Court.[3] From 2010 to 2014, Jackson was the vice chairwoman of the United States Sentencing Commission. In 2013, President Barack Obama appointed her as a district judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where she served until 2021. Since 2016, Jackson has been a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers.

 Gee, that surely checks off every thing any white man could ever dream of having as credentials 

But will she be fair to ugly, fat, pot bellied white racists who hate her guts?

Will she prostitute her  credibility to rich liberals with yachts?

Scalia joined the opinion giving all liberal Americans the right to burn the United States flag

Would Jackson  uphold our similar right, to bear arms?

We shall see

if only she knew what a woman was, eh babs?
 

maineman » 10 Aug 2023, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023, 11:54 am

Having a Supreme Court that looks like America gives every American the ability to feel a kinship with the court. Back in the day when it was all white men, that wasn't the case. There are PLENTY of eminently qualified jurists of all shapes colors and sizes. I certainly would not support any president nominating a less-than-qualified SCOTUS candidate simply to claim to have used a particular CRAYON. But all other things being equal - education, constitutional scholarship, deportment, bench experience, judicial philosophy, I see no reason why the president cannot stray afield from a pool that only contains WASP males.

I don't want kinship with the highest Court in the land.

I want to beat qualified Constitutional scholars we have in this Country on the SCOTUS.

I don't care if they are blue, purple, or green.
 

RedheadedStranger » 13 Aug 2023, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 12:02 pm

I don't want kinship with the highest Court in the land.

I want to beat qualified Constitutional scholars we have in this Country on the SCOTUS.

I don't care if they are blue, purple, or green.

No, that would mean only pinheaded legal scholars who live in ivory towers.  And you’d be shocked at how liberal the greatest scholars are.  This guy is the number one legal scholar for about forty years now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe

In modern times they are elevated from lower federal appellate courts.  Not bad, because those judges see what the laws do and how they work.

By the way, I’m 100% in favor of a Senate rule that precludes any bimbos from coming up with **** at the Supreme Court conformation level they sat quiet and didn’t bring up when they were first confirmed.

Would you want every pissed off girl you plugged thirty years ago at your Supreme Court confirmation hearing?