Justice Thomas CAUGHT in MILLION DOLLAR Criminal Fraud

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Somewhere John Roberts Is Screaming Into an Expensive Pillow
APRIL 14, 20233:49 PM


The link contains transcripts and a link to an audio cast of a podcast. 50 minutes. I put it on while doing chores, it's a good listen.

slate.com

Transcript - Somewhere John Roberts Is Screaming Into an Expensive Pillow

Transcript of Somewhere John Roberts Is Screaming Into an Expensive Pillow
slate.com slate.com

Excerpt taken near the beginning:

today we’re going to bring two of the smartest court watchers that I know, both friends of this show and dear friends of mine to try to unpack what is going on and how this can possibly resolve not just at the end of this term, but going forward into the future.

Dahlia Lithwick: Joan Biskupic is a full time CNN legal analyst and author of several important biographies of Supreme Court justices, including, most recently, a biography of Chief Justice John Roberts titled The Chief The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts, which was published in 2019. And Richard Hasen is Chancellor Professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. He will be moving in the next few weeks to UCLA, to their law school. Hasen is a nationally recognized expert in election law and campaign finance regulation. His most recent book, we had him on the show to talk about it this past spring is cheap speech How Disinformation Poisons Our Politics and How to Cure It.

They had a good discussion about the hard right turn the court has made, the fact that the hard right majority on the court doesn't care about maintaining an image of integrity or impartiality and the liberal minority has begun to call them out for it. And in the middle of it all is Roberts who is conservative, not hard right and wants to maintain a phony image of a fair SCOTUS. From there the discussion goes to what it all means and ends with these ominous lines:

Speaker 5: And, you know, it certainly doesn’t help that a majority of the country apparently strongly opposes what the court is about to do. And I suspect a large number of Americans will view it as a fundamentally political act. But it’s not my job to protect the court’s reputation. It’s their job. And they’re doing terrible work of it. And frankly, that doesn’t bother me that much anymore. I know that it used to, and you and I used to tear out our hair and think it really is important to have a functioning and respected court. Maybe it’s just late June. Feeble. For me.

Speaker 5: But more and more, I’m thinking, let Americans see what this institution really is and what it’s doing. Let Americans see how corrupted it has become by politics and let them decide if this is the system we really want to live under, where five or six unelected judges with no constituents and no elections get to determine the fate of every American and the meaning of every nook and cranny of our law. I don’t think that re-evaluating that is a bad thing, and if the courts collapse in the public eye is what’s going to precipitate it. I think that’s okay with me.

Dahlia Lithwick: Okay. I got nothing. I got nothing. No, no. What do you.

Speaker 5: Think?

Dahlia Lithwick: Listen, I have bald patches for how much hair? I have torn out over this, and I’m still completely terrified that a country without a court is a country without the rule of law. And I am aware that I keep saying when the court decides the 2024 election, it will be really bad if the country decides to battle it out in the streets instead. But I also know exactly how this court is going to decide the 2024 election. So I don’t know. I mean, I’m just really feeling like, you know, if I have to choose, you know, death by stoning or death by fire, it feels super, super depressing to me. But I don’t disagree on this one point, which is I think that the Supreme Court press corps and I think Steve Vladeck and I wrote about this in the fall sometimes does way, way, way too much to take it upon itself to preserve the legitimacy of the court at all costs.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
C

CCGNZ

Well-Known Member
GoatSoup said:
How many other Supremes just haven't been caught yet? There are some pretty slezy characters on the court.
Click to expand...
All I can say is that if justice Rose Bader Ginsburg would have stepped down(and she was heavily persuaded to do so),the court would be more balanced and Rowe/Wade wouldn't have been ramrodded into the dustbin of history,I know that Obama adm. expected the dems, to control the WHouse but history has now shown how naive it was to take that chance. The result, a total unknowledgable clown puts 3 hard right judges on the bench,a pres. w/ the mentality and visual stimulation of a 7 yo,a dream come true for the evangelical right who gleefully flushed any sense of pragmatism on the highest court down the toilet. This in your face stacking of the court has impacted highly consequental rulings to the degree that enlarging the number of justices has to be a real consideration at this point, after witnessing 3 Trump appointed justices blatantly lie their way to confirmation. I don't want a court stacked for either end of the spectrum,I want a pragmatic court staffed by sensible judges who recognize the impact of their decisions and strive for a balance of loyalty to historical precedents and previous rulings while also acknowledging that the passage of time and progression of society may also require thoughtful change to the law.
 
D

doughper

Well-Known Member
PopAndSonGrows said:
Yeah but I mean cmon. . ... a Supreme Court judge, buddy-buddying with a guy who collects Nazi shit. Common sense, anyone? --you'd think a judge of any sort would have some.
Click to expand...
I sent my radical right wing buddy a 1940s era nazi 5 or 20 pfennig coin, complete with swastika, that i'd won on an auction site. He has a German surname, and as I've said earlier, thought it'd have been way better if Hitler had won WW2, and that Hitler had nothing to do with the holocaust, that there was NO holocaust. Later I won another one of those coins for myself. I'd be totally antifa, anti-nazi, for clarification. Other than that I don't know the relevance of Lemmy's quote.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Let me see, can Garland, or yet another special prosecutor for another corrupted branch of government, investigate the SCOTUS with a grand jury? Start hauling in staff and witnesses for sworn testimony, have the FBI interview people in the building? Imagine the position the federal DC court judge overseeing grand juries would be in! If laws were broken and Clarance was bought, he needs to act, or congress will and be ahead of the DOJ yet again. It does not look too difficult to prove and of course the right will claim vengeance for being denied a seat on the court, which is a confession by them. He would make a bigger mark on history as the AG who took down Trump and a corrupt SCOTUS justice, he would make history big time and they will name buildings after him.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Glenn has got the big hammer of justice out! :lol: The DOJ alumni are on the case and on TV with the muzzle off.


Justice Clarence Thomas violates federal financial disclosure laws; DOJ MUST investigate!

18,769 views Apr 15, 2023 #TeamJustice
In a very realsand direct sense, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas robbed the American people of their right to a conflict-free Supreme Court. ProPublican reporting revealed that, " Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Justice Thomas. The Justice Didn't Disclose the Deal." This is not only an ethical transgression by Thomas (and not his first), but it violates federal financial disclosure laws.

The Supreme Court is deeply compromised. The Department of Justice must investigate and, it the evidence warrants it, hold accountable Clarence Thomas. The very legitimacy of the Department of Justice depends on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top