This should concern you regardless of party

[wdefromtx 3,159]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No. To the contrary, I am letting you demonstrate how full of s*** you, and your counterparts on here, are. You all deeply care about judicial “ethics” - bologna. None of you will proclaim Sotomayer unethical or her actions outrageous; hell, you, in particular, didn’t even know about her reports until I just showed you (setting aside the other three Justices I previously named).

“Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law. It would be so if this were Kagan or Sotomayer. In this case it’s Thomas. It’s outrageous and warrants action.” 😂😂😂

🤣🤣🤣

This did not age well for him! 
 

Of course they will go with the typical liberal playbook and say “But, but it’s different.” 
 

[TexasTiger 13,227]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No. To the contrary, I am letting you demonstrate how full of s*** you, and your counterparts on here, are. You all deeply care about judicial “ethics” - bologna. None of you will proclaim Sotomayer unethical or her actions outrageous; hell, you, in particular, didn’t even know about her reports until I just showed you (setting aside the other three Justices I previously named).

“Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law. It would be so if this were Kagan or Sotomayer. In this case it’s Thomas. It’s outrageous and warrants action.” 😂😂😂

Technical violation. Comparatively de minimis. If you can’t understand the difference in paying for a trip to speak at a college and having your spouse get almost $700K from a hyper partisan group, you’re an ethics disaster waiting to happen.

[TexasTiger 13,227]

10 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

🤣🤣🤣

This did not age well for him! 
 

Of course they will go with the typical liberal playbook and say “But, but it’s different.” 
 

Are situations never different? Are there no distinctions? Are you that partisan? Is taking a paper clip from work the same as embezzling hundreds of thousands?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Is different never different? Are there no distinctions? Are you that partisan? 

I believe you said $$ over a minimal amount is unethical and outrageous. He showed where this happened and now you downplay it. 
 

If anyone is being partisan it’s you, not me. 

[TexasTiger 13,227]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I believe you said $$ over a minimal amount is unethical and outrageous. He showed where this happened and now you downplay it. 
 

If anyone is being partisan it’s you, not me. 

If you want me to speak at your college and pay for my flight and put me up over night, that’s a minimal amount. You’re  just making it possible for me to do a public good. I’m breaking even except for donating my time.  If you fly me to a resort with my spouse for a week to have a personal audience with you, that’s obviously different to most remotely objective folks.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

If you want me to speak at your college and pay for my flight and put me up over night, that’s a minimal amount. If you fly me to a resort with my spouse for a week to have a personal audience with you, that’s obviously different to most remotely objective folks.

Keep trying to weasel out of what you originally said. 

[TexasTiger 13,227]

17 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Keep trying to weasel out of what you originally said. 

I’m not changing a thing. Reasonable people will understand what I’m saying. If you’re so ethically challenged you can’t grasp it, Lord knows I can’t explain it to you.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m not changing a thing. Reasonable people will understand what I’m saying. If you’re so ethically challenged you can’t grasp it, Lord knows I can’t explain it to you.

I know what you said. It was outrageous for one to leave off reporting something over a certain amount. It was outrageous to you then….until someone pointed out Sotomayor did the very thing you say is outrageous. 
 

“Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law. It would be so if this were Kagan or Sotomayer. In this case it’s Thomas. It’s outrageous and warrants action.”
 

[TexasTiger 13,227]

6 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I know what you said. It was outrageous for one to leave off reporting something over a certain amount. It was outrageous to you then….until someone pointed out Sotomayor did the very thing you say is outrageous. 
 

“Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law. It would be so if this were Kagan or Sotomayer. In this case it’s Thomas. It’s outrageous and warrants action.”
 

Anyone who thinks I would have posted this over Thomas leaving off flights to colleges to publicly speak and reasonable overnight accommodations while doing so is an absolute moron. I’ll let y’all self select. I keep over estimating some of y’all, but will eventually learn.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Technical violation. Comparatively de minimis. If you can’t understand the difference in paying for a trip to speak at a college and having your spouse get almost $700K from a hyper partisan group, you’re an ethics disaster waiting to happen.

Are you sure this is the hill you want to die on? Here is a hint—go do some research on Justice Brown. You’re welcome.

[TexasTiger 13,227]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Are you sure this is the hill you want to die on? Here is a hint—go do some research on Justice Brown. You’re welcome.

Got an issue with her, post it. You’re being ridiculous.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

I know what you said. It was outrageous for one to leave off reporting something over a certain amount. It was outrageous to you then….until someone pointed out Sotomayor did the very thing you say is outrageous. 
 

“Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law. It would be so if this were Kagan or Sotomayer. In this case it’s Thomas. It’s outrageous and warrants action.”
 

. . . And Sotomayer is just one example.

I am thoroughly entertained. Lol.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I know what you said. It was outrageous for one to leave off reporting something over a certain amount. It was outrageous to you then….until someone pointed out Sotomayor did the very thing you say is outrageous. 
 

“Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law. It would be so if this were Kagan or Sotomayer. In this case it’s Thomas. It’s outrageous and warrants action.”
 

Well, now his only option is to build a house of cards on words he never used and “inferences” from thin air. 

[TexasTiger 13,227]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well, now his only option is to build a house of cards on words he never used and “inferences” from thin air. 

Since your brand of ethics is fine with lying that’s your only option. Here’s the exact words I used:

“Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law.” 
 

I specifically included trips with the qualifier over a minimal amount. The code of judicial ethics for all other federal judges cites her type of travel as an exception even when it’s provided by someone with business before the court:

620.35 Acceptance of Gifts by a Judicial Officer or Employee; Exceptions
(a) A judicial officer or employee is not permitted to accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court or other entity served by the judicial officer or employee, or from any other person whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the judicial officer’s or employee’s official duties.
(b) Notwithstanding this general rule, a judicial officer or employee may accept a gift from a donor identified above in the following circumstances:
(1) the gift is made incident to a public testimonial and is fairly commensurate with the occasion;

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2C, Ch. 6 Page 4
(2) the gift consists of books, calendars, or other resource materials related to the official duties of the judicial officer or employee that are supplied on a complimentary basis, so long as acceptance of the gift does not create an appearance of impropriety;
(3) the gift consists of an invitation and travel expenses, including the cost of transportation, lodging, and meals for the officer or employee and a family member (or other person with whom the officer or employee maintains both a household and an intimate relationship) to attend a bar-related function, an educational activity, or an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;…

 

[icanthearyou 4,465]

15 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

you’re an ethics disaster waiting to happen

He has already told us that he has no ethics.  He is only limited by the law.  If he can get away with something over any legal technicality, he will.

This is a fundamental problem with viewing the law a sacred and,,, viewing justice as irrelevant.  It is actually one of the benchmarks for the decline of a society.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

On 4/25/2023 at 9:56 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Sotomayor Original 2016FY

Sotomayor 2021Amended 2016FY

Please explain the conflict of interests that you believe this exhibits.  Thank you.

[homersapien 11,549]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I know what you said. It was outrageous for one to leave off reporting something over a certain amount. It was outrageous to you then….until someone pointed out Sotomayor did the very thing you say is outrageous. 
 

Actually, from my understanding of what NOLA referenced, Sotomayor did file an amended disclosure.

But if you want to die on the hill that says there's literally no difference, between what she did and what Thomas did, have at it. 

A few hundred dollars for travel compensation and meals vs. more than a million dollars worth of gifts or "salary"? 

Yeah, "no difference".  What an absurd argument.    

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,549]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Keep trying to weasel out of what you originally said. 

Stop lying.  What Sotomayor received was minimal.  Transportation, lodging and meals for her time, attendance and participation.

No doubt the other justices - including Thomas -  participated in similar activities with similar compensation.

What's different is the sheer magnitude and purpose of what Thomas - and his wife - accepted from political donors and did not report.  These were not travel reimbursements.

Edited April 27, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,549]

24 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

He has already told us that he has no ethics.  He is only limited by the law.  If he can get away with something over any legal technicality, he will.

This is a fundamental problem with viewing the law a sacred and,,, viewing justice as irrelevant.  It is actually one of the benchmarks for the decline of a society.

It's not viewing the law as "sacred", it's viewing the law merely as a limit that may (arguably) get you in trouble by exceeding it.  

 

[icanthearyou 4,465]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Actually, from my understanding of what NOLA referenced, Sotomayor did file an amended disclosure.

But if you want to die on the hill that says there's literally no difference, between what she did and what Thomas did, have at it. 

A few hundred dollars vs. more than a half million?  Yeah, "no difference".  

 

You are forgetting that the bribe, donation, gift was made by someone who actually stood to benefit from the favor of Thomas.

For now, we'll just forget about Thomas lying about much of this.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's not viewing the law as "sacred", it's viewing the law merely as a limit that may (arguably) get you in trouble by exceeding it.  

 

True but, it is reinforced with such trite sayings as, "rule of law", "nation of laws".  It is a subtle undermining of the concept of justice.  It reinforces our compliance with unjust laws.

[homersapien 11,549]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well, now his only option is to build a house of cards on words he never used and “inferences” from thin air. 

So, are you arguing equivalence?

You really think what Sotomayor received for attending conferences/meetings is morally and legally equivalent to what Thomas did?

Yes or no?  

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 4/27/2023 at 11:54 AM, homersapien said:

So, are you arguing equivalence?

You really think what Sotomayor received for attending conferences/meetings is morally and legally equivalent to what Thomas did?

Yes or no?  

 

No. I am arguing that Tex's (and yours) proclaimed neutrality and concern over "ethics" and "the law" is all poppycock. The left despises Justice Thomas because he is an originalist. More notably, just another "Uncle Tom."

"This should concern you regardless of party." <--- Ha! Hogwash.

We know damn well you never batted an eye when Justice Ginsburg failed to disclose her sale of ETF shares or receiving the opera dress "gift" worth thousands; or when Justice Breyer failed to disclose his wife's stock sales twelve years apart; or when Justice Brown failed to disclose her speaking trips, seminar salary, board memberships, or, of course, her husband's consulting income over a ten-year period. 

I assume you - an unbiased person who cares so deeply about judicial ethics across the board - already knew about the above examples before reading this comment, right?

Go ahead and "distinguish" these examples away, as you must. 

[icanthearyou 4,465]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The left despises Justice Thomas because he is an originalist. More notably, just another "Uncle Tom."

NO.  Thomas is NOT a victim.  He is just another member of the Federalist Society who wishes to make the court system political and profitable. 

Your "argument" is poor,,, at best.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

NO.  Thomas is NOT a victim.  He is just another member of the Federalist Society who wishes to make the court system political and profitable. 

Your "argument" is poor,,, at best.

See, now we are getting somewhere! I applaud you for not outright disguising your disdain with some feigned concern about ethics and the law "regardless of party." Good job ITCHY.  This is a solid first step.