Justice Thomas owes some answers on ethical questions
Last month, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took some heat when it was discovered that he had not disclosed — as required by federal law — income-producing jobs held by his wife Virginia dating back 20 years. From 1998-2003, for example, Mrs. Thomas had worked at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which paid her a total of $686,589. But the job was never disclosed on federal documents.
It wasn’t merely a passive oversight. Each year, when filling out the form asking for disclosure of “spousal noninvestment income,” Thomas had checked a box labeled “none.” He had also failed to disclose paid work done by his wife back in the ’90s for then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now a Tea Party leader.
Since then, new questions have popped up regarding Thomas’ attendance three years ago at a seminar of conservative leaders sponsored by David and Charles Koch. In one invitation to such retreats, which typically run four days, Charles Koch wrote that “twice a year our network meets to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it.”
When questions were raised last month about Thomas’ attendance at the January 2008 retreat, a Supreme Court spokesman said “it was a brief drop-by. He was not a participant.”
“In his financial disclosure report for that year, however, Justice Thomas reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him an undisclosed amount for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat….
Arn Pearson, a vice president at the advocacy group Common Cause, said the two statements appeared at odds. His group sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “further clarification” as to whether the justice spent four days at the retreat for the entire event or was there only briefly.
“I don’t think the explanation they’ve given is credible,” Mr. Pearson said in an interview. He said that if Justice Thomas’s visit was a “four-day, all-expenses paid trip in sunny Palm Springs,” it should have been reported as a gift under federal law.”
Hmmm. “A brief (four-day) drop-by”? On whose dime?
Imagine, if you will, the reaction of conservatives if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had failed to disclose her late husband’s employment at MoveOn.org, had attended and spoken at private affairs sponsored by George Soros, and had apparently been less than honest with the American people about what had taken place. The impeachment hearings in the House would be starting any day now.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
350 comments Add your comment
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:07 pm
Headline: “Michelle Obama to Promote Breastfeeding ……….. ”
Hummmm …………….. I wonder if breastfeeding turns a baby into a future Democrat?
I’ll have to investigate this conspiracy !
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:07 pm
ODDOWL
You post was offensive and over the top.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:07 pm
“You post was offensive and over the top”
You actually read it? I’m impressed!
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:08 pm
You should also have to be self-sufficient in order to vote. No fair parasites voting themselves benefits.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:08 pm
The conservatives on here cannot even acknowledge the fact that Thomas is ethically challenged at the very least. That says a lot for their character as well as Thomas’s. Not that any additional proof was needed.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:08 pm
Ethically challenged? When did you start caring? AFTER Geithner?
Adam
February 15th, 2011
3:09 pm
Dave R: Yeah, ’cause we sure don’t want our elected officials learning about the Constitution from a real, live expert on that document, now do we?
You mean the guy who said women don’t have any constitutional rights? That expert?
jm: Obama also said technology has given demonstrators the upper hand over rulers in a variety of authoritarian countries—countries he said need to heed the trend towards change.
…
Wish he would heed his own rhetoric and cut spending on entitlements… Maybe he hasn’t heard of the tea party yet.
Way to draw a straight line between two totally unrelated things!
Dave R: Another ‘presser, another string of lies from the least qualified person in any room to be President.
Are we doing the whole “he wasn’t born here” thing again? Because the only “qualifications” for president are age and natural born citizenry.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:10 pm
“No fair parasites voting themselves benefits.”
that’s right, only RICH parasites should be allowed to do that
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:10 pm
Night Train 3:05 – fine by me.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:10 pm
Headline: “‘Sheriff Joe’ Arpaio Leads in Arizona Poll for Senate Race”
Oh please, please, please let it happen …………………….. that would make watching the Senate everyday on C-Span a hoot !
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:10 pm
I’ll have to investigate this conspiracy !
Scout,
You’ve lived off the taxpayer your entire life so there’s your first data point.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:10 pm
DoggoneGA
about as far as you did….then ick.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:11 pm
There’s more to being qualified than being of a certain age and being a citizen.
The Idiot Messiah ain’t.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:11 pm
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:05 pm
Cryos
express advocacy is about campaign material, so no I don’t think I’m making incorrect assumptions.
both terms issue advocacy and express advocacy were coined by the Supreme Court – one was subject to regulation and one was not.
No book burning…..
=====
The democrat lawyers in the first hearing argued if a 500 page book contained one sentence endorsing or disparaging a specific candidate the law allowed them to ban the book. They also noted publishing houses are almost all corporations.
Fortunately our SCOTUS doesn’t believe in banning political speech.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:11 pm
“Ethically challenged? When did you start caring? AFTER Geithner?”
Perhaps TaxPayer started caring after Maxine Waters or Charlie Rangel….
Disgusted
February 15th, 2011
3:12 pm
There’s a story spreading like wildfire on the Internet today, saying that O.J. Simpson was beaten at the Nevada prison where he’s jailed, in a racially motivated attack. The original source is the National Enquirer, and a prison official says the report is “Totally bogus.” CNN.com
Hey, Scout. Stop falling for every hoax somebody puts on the Internet.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:12 pm
Rich parasites?
Oh, right, the folks who get rich by providing tens, hundreds, or thousands of jobs to the little people.
Good thinking, economics genius!
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:13 pm
By the way, there’s more to being an American than being a citizen.
And the Idiot Messiah ain’t.
Adam
February 15th, 2011
3:14 pm
There’s more to being qualified than being of a certain age and being a citizen.
Actually, you’re right. You also can’t have previously had two terms as president.
But aside from that, that’s all there is. Sarah Palin proved it. She was on the VP ticket, meaning she was “qualified” to be president. Think about it.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:14 pm
I must have missed something. What did Geithner do. Last I heard, he got audited as part of the process for his job and had to pay additional taxes on some contract income. It is not exactly like he had set up some off-shore account and funneled money there in order to avoid paying any taxes or something like that. He had actually filed his returns and paid taxes.
Adam
February 15th, 2011
3:14 pm
LBB: There is no such thing as an Idiot Messiah, so you are right once again! Doesn’t it feel good to be right about something for a change? Even though it’s on a technicality.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:15 pm
I’ll take Palin’s policies over the Idiot Messiah’s any time. Palin’s an American. The Idiot Messiah ain’t.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:15 pm
“You mean the guy who said women don’t have any constitutional rights? That expert?”
Cite, please!
“Are we doing the whole “he wasn’t born here” thing again? Because the only “qualifications” for president are age and natural born citizenry.”
No, dope, we’re not doing that. Please tell us all how suited a 2-years removed jr. state senator from Illinois who accomplshed nothing significant in office and never ran a business in his life, is qualified to be President.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:15 pm
“ain’t.”
is too
your turn
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:16 pm
Adam, did you pay your $12,000 share of federal taxes last year?
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:16 pm
“Oh, right, the folks who get rich by providing tens, hundreds, or thousands of jobs to the little people.”
Nope…only the ones who ARE rich parasites
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:17 pm
The Chinese Government controlling US Servers. What the hell has our country come to? What a zoo….
Huawei refused Monday to go along with a request from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to divest itself of parts of 3Leaf Systems, a California-based server company.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49543.html#ixzz1E3p5T08y
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:17 pm
Last I heard, [Geithner] got audited as part of the process for his job and had to pay additional taxes on some contract income.”
————–
Mmm hmm…
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:17 pm
Maybe you can give us an example of one of these rich parasites.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
So Cryos (after that firm in Denmark???)
I didn’t make a bad assumption.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
“I must have missed something. What did Geithner do. Last I heard, he got audited as part of the process for his job and had to pay additional taxes on some contract income.”
Yes, TaxPayer, you did miss something, as usual. Geitner didn’t pay payroll taxes for multiple years. This wasn’t a one time over sight. This guy is the top Finance dog in the gubmint. Consistent erros on your tax returns doesn’t look good.
But never mind that, the Dems voted him in anyway.
Logical Dude
February 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout: “And the Idiot Messiah ain’t.”
And that’s where you lose any credibility to me. If you can’t call him the President, even if you don’t like him, then you are disprespecting the Office of the President.
Although not as bad as ODDOWL who I tried to read the whole thing, but after the first couple of lines, my brain only hears Charlie Brown’s teacher.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
In a letter last week, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) and a trio of House members accused Huawei of having “well-established ties” to the People’s Liberation Army; supplying equipment to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban; and “working extensively” in Iran. “In addition to its questionable ties, we are concerned about Huawei’s history of illegal behavior,” the letter stated, mentioning alleged patent and trademark infringement among other charges.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49543.html#ixzz1E3pUbUyg
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
“Cite, please!”
”
Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women’s equality is entirely up to the political branches. “If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex,” he told an audience at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, “you have legislatures.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2020667,00.html#ixzz1E3pWQdJ1
Adam
February 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
Dave R:
1) Obama is a natural born American citizen
2) Obama is over 35 years of age
3) Obama has not served two terms as president prior to being elected president
Therefore, Obama is qualified to be president.
See? That was real simple. Isn’t it nice to know you can live in a country where just about anyone can be president?
Also, about Scalia: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2020667,00.html
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:19 pm
Perhaps TaxPayer started caring after Maxine Waters or Charlie Rangel….
Or Nathan Deal or the toe tapper or Sanford or Tom Delay or… what was your point anyway.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:19 pm
If Obama let’s Huawei in, I will have absolutely no qualms voting R in 2012. Not that I have many now anyway….
Disgusted
February 15th, 2011
3:19 pm
. . . who accomplshed nothing significant in office and never ran a business in his life. . .
If running a business is a qualification to be President of the United States, I would guess that half our presidents were unqualified, including FDR and JFK. Some of the skunks currently running businesses shouldn’t be allowed near the family pet, much less the White House.
Got reality, Dave R.?
Adam
February 15th, 2011
3:19 pm
Wow Doggone, same article. I assume that’s because we had to bend over backwards to get the story from a site that wasn’t a blog, to avoid the little OPINION chestnut?
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:19 pm
If you didn’t pay your $12K share of the federal budget last year, you aren’t rich and you are a parasite.
AmVet
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
Regarding Justice Thomas, I’m hard pressed to find any other member of that august body with such a sordid history of salaciousness and lawlessness. Spanning an eighty year stretch.
Although the LBJ appointed Abe Fortas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (D) resigned when he was discovered to be a paid consultant to a convicted criminal. No charges were ever filed. (1969)
But for real gems there was Tricky Dick’s boy Harold Carswell (R); the original Larry Craig:
Though never confirmed, he was not nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court (1970) after publication of a 20-year-old speech: “I yield to no man… in the firm, vigorous belief in the principles of white supremacy.” Was also alleged to be hostile to women’s rights. Later arrested in (1976) for homosexual advances in a men’s washroom.
Adam
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
Ok LBB, did YOU pay $12K in taxes last year?
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
Geithner looked at his paychecks all those years and just figured he was a special person and didn’t have to pay all those pesky taxes.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
“I assume that’s because we had to bend over backwards to get the story from a site that wasn’t a blog”
And it was SO hard to find too!
Matti
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
0311 Scout @ 3:07,
Good question! Not hard to believe, either, since we can see what a lifetime of deprivation and repression have done for YOU! Please do let us know what you discover in your quest to know the truth.
Check it out
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
Citizens United v F.E.C. transcript.
There is no denying the potential to ban written material was there depending on how the material is interpreted. The DOJ’s arguments left way too much to chance. The SCOTUS ruling was solid. It closed the door to potential abuse by the government.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:18 pm
So Cryos (after that firm in Denmark???)
I didn’t make a bad assumption.
=========
Yes you did. “I am quite confident that the “democrat government lawyers” weren’t going all Farenheit 451 on ya, so remain calm.”
googling on the terms I gave you after your post does not = being informed without making assumptions.
I would go further and bet you’ve never viewed the oral transcripts and depend on editorials for your basis in understanding Citizen’s United.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:22 pm
But two experts in U.S.-China relations told POLITICO that allowing Huawei to install major telecom infrastructure raises legitimate security issues for the U.S. Those concerns aren’t likely to subside any time soon, given the strained and complicated relationship between the two economic superpowers and the global nature of the telecom equipment supply chain; China is a major manufacturer of components of telecom equipment sold by other firms. With Huawei, though, the questions are particularly pointed.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49543.html#ixzz1E3qQc7X7
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:22 pm
I paid my share and then some, Adam, yes. Many grown-ups do.
Logical Dude
February 15th, 2011
3:22 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout: “If you didn’t pay your $12K share of the federal budget last year, you aren’t rich and you are a parasite.”
Well, it’s not a flat tax, you see. . .
Adam
February 15th, 2011
3:22 pm
LBB: I call BS. Let me see your tax return.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:23 pm
Check it out
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
Citizens United v F.E.C. transcript.
There is no denying the potential to ban written material was there depending on how the material is interpreted. The DOJ’s arguments left way too much to chance. The SCOTUS ruling was solid. It closed the door to potential abuse by the government.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf
=========
Exactly. The media of course chose to pander to simpletons with “the evil conservatives made corporations people” rather than explain the potential disastrous outcome of upholding this law given the government arguments.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:23 pm
Yes, TaxPayer, you did miss something, as usual. Geitner didn’t pay payroll taxes for multiple years. This wasn’t a one time over sight. This guy is the top Finance dog in the gubmint. Consistent erros on your tax returns doesn’t look good.
Nice Guy,
As usual, your asessment fails, miserably. The issue is regarding what he did that was ethically wrong or illegal. He broke no law. He made a mistake on his taxes and corrected it when the audit brought forth the error.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:24 pm
In fact, Adam, what I paid by myself covers everyone in my family. The taxes my wife paid covered part of your responsibility.
Normal
February 15th, 2011
3:24 pm
They did a study a while back on why was it so hard to wean a boy baby from breast feeding…the answer was, because boy babies instinctively seemed to know it was going to be another 16 or so years before they got that close to a breast again….I kid you not!
Adam
February 15th, 2011
3:25 pm
LBB: While you’re getting your tax return ready for me to show me that you paid more than $12K in federal taxes, I should note that I also paid my fair share. And my fair share was NOT quite as high as that.
Ragnar Danneskjold
February 15th, 2011
3:25 pm
Good afternoon all. Dear Jay, this is the silliest argument you have offered in the brief time I have observed your essays. If I understand your argument, you postulate that Justice Thomas has voted a conservative line all of these years because his wife (who worked in a similar position before their marriage) worked for a conservative think tank, or because a conservative think tank paid his expenses to attend a seminar?
I think Justice Thomas votes conservative because he is a conservative. Any suggestion that he has to be bribed to pursue a rigorous intellectual conservatism is beyond foolish. Leftists just cannot get over the idea that a black intellectual can also be a conservative. To borrow Charlie Pride’s old joke, “why don’ he soun’ like he s’posed to soun’?”
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:25 pm
“The issue is regarding what he did that was ethically wrong or illegal.”
Umm, I do beleive not paying your taxes is both ethically wrong and illegal.
Geez. Its just too easy sometimes.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:26 pm
And Jeffrey Dahmer just made a mistake when he went out hunting for meat.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:26 pm
“Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women’s equality is entirely up to the political branches. “If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex,” he told an audience at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, “you have legislatures.”
Maybe one of you Constitutional pseudo-geniuses would like to explain how the above statement shows that Scalia says that “women do not have rights under the Constitution”.
Or maybe you could just try Reading Comprehension 101 some day to learn what he actually said and was meant by his comment above.
But I don’t believe that either of you are intellectually capable of doing so.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:26 pm
“If I understand your argument, you postulate that Justice Thomas has voted a conservative line all of these years because his wife (who worked in a similar position before their marriage) worked for a conservative think tank, or because a conservative think tank paid his expenses to attend a seminar? ”
If you got THAT out of what Jay wrote, you REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension
AmVet
February 15th, 2011
3:26 pm
I did also find this:
Samuel Chase Supreme Court Justice appointed by George Washington impeached for political favoritism and acquitted in 1805.
Political favoritism?
That is a requirement for nomination now!
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:26 pm
Wow, Lil Bubble Brain actually has a head so swelled that he thinks the taxes he claims to pay covers what another taxpayer should be paying.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:27 pm
Cryos
WHile yes I did not read the transcripts, they still are not talking
about burning or banning books. It was about campaign material.
I’ll bet the nuance does not escape you, you just spin it.
Kamchak
February 15th, 2011
3:27 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:10 pm
Your definition doesn’t have much to say about the manifestations of fascism. Neo-liberals are fascists because the effects of their policies are fascist. They desire state control of private enterprise.
Neo-liberals: Fascists.
Neo-liberalism or better yet neo-classical theories of economics is “trickle-down,” lil’ bb brain. Odd that you would seek to vilify that since it was St. Ronnie of the Ray-Gun’s economic team that re-introduced that 30 years ago.
Or is it possible that you saw the word “liberal” and just started spouting off about something when you had no idea what you were spouting off about?
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:28 pm
Umm, I do beleive not paying your taxes is both ethically wrong and illegal.
Geez. Its just too easy sometimes
Geez, I do believe you are wrong as usual. You are too easy all the time.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:28 pm
Jm, Dave R and others good analytical posts based in fact. So far being tagged as one of you 2 looks like it’s a compliment
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:28 pm
“Maybe one of you Constitutional pseudo-geniuses would like to explain how the above statement shows that Scalia says that “women do not have rights under the Constitution”.”
One tiny little paragraph, and you STILL don’t see it:
“If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex,” he told an audience at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, “you have legislatures.””
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:29 pm
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:27 pm
Cryos
WHile yes I did not read the transcripts, they still are not talking
about burning or banning books. It was about campaign material.
I’ll bet the nuance does not escape you, you just spin it.
========
The first hearing was not about campaign material. They specifically said the book could be non-political but if it had 1 sentence saying “vote for yyyyy” it could be banned.
You really should try reading the transcripts before deeming yourself an expert on it.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:29 pm
Well, it looks like Kamchak has finished is mid-afternoon lobster thermidor and now is ready to pounce…..
Up first, LBB!
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:30 pm
“Geez, I do believe you are wrong as usual. You are too easy all the time.”
Good one, Taxpayer (giving you a thumbs up).
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:31 pm
Wrong, Kammy. If you want to bring our President Reagan into it, He would be a paleo-liberal. You know, the kind that believe in liberty.
Neo-liberals are about 180 out from that.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:31 pm
“. . . who accomplshed nothing significant in office and never ran a business in his life. . .”
Got reading comprehension, Disgusted?
Kinda forgot that first part of the sentence, didn’t ya? Unless, of course, you think that every jr. state senator is qualified to be President.
And Adam, there are legal qualifications, and there are qualifications of experience and knowledge. Our current President fails in the latter by any OBJECTIVE measure.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:32 pm
Cryos
Never claimed to be an expert, but thanks.
Again no book burning or banning.
Thanks Loads.
John Birch
February 15th, 2011
3:32 pm
Well Jay why don’t you get John Lewis to enter articles of impeachment against him?
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:33 pm
Doggone, don’t even try to debate me. I’m not buying, and you’re not qualified.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:34 pm
Cryos, you’ve walked into a hornets nest of liberals around here…. its pretty easy to be labeled a conservative around here. Basically, if you have any sense of rationality, you’re a conservative…. in the eyes of these folks.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:36 pm
John Lewis. A great leader of the civil rights movement. Subsequently known as “bump on a log”. The guy wasn’t even hardly willing to lift a finger to help the city at least gain a spot in the queue for federal transit funding. The guy is just collecting a paycheck and needs to be fired by this city.
JF McNamara
February 15th, 2011
3:36 pm
Isn’t that tax evasion? If I did that, wouldn’t I be on trial with the distinct possibility of jail time?
md
February 15th, 2011
3:36 pm
“If running a business is a qualification to be President of the United States, I would guess that half our presidents were unqualified, including FDR and JFK.”
Not to be snarky, but FDR ran a little enterprise called the State of NY and JFK was an officer in the Navy along with 13 years in Congress…..so he gets the benefit of doubt.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:36 pm
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:34 pm
Cryos, you’ve walked into a hornets nest of liberals around here…. its pretty easy to be labeled a conservative around here. Basically, if you have any sense of rationality, you’re a conservative…. in the eyes of these folks.
========
Appears that way. Granny won’t even admit the book banning that is directly stated by the government lawyer in Citizens United.
Kamchak
February 15th, 2011
3:36 pm
Neo-liberals are about 180 out from that.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Neoliberalism describes a market-driven[1] approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.
The term “neoliberalism” has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.[2]
AmVet
February 15th, 2011
3:36 pm
John B, if he is found to be a tax dodger, that may well happen. Provided of course, that a historically spineless Legislative Branch grows one.
And after the Reign of Error, that seems an extremely remote possibility, doesn’t it?
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:37 pm
Granny, what other movies should we ban?
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:38 pm
Granny one more question on Citizen’s United. SCOTUS asked the government lawyer this during the 2nd hearing.
“Explain exactly the difference between a book and a pamphlet.”
Law cannot have ambiguity.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:40 pm
President Barack Obama has made a serious bet on clean energy with his budget. What that really means is that he’s banking on one man: Steven Chu.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49515.html#ixzz1E3v4CI5J
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:40 pm
Wrong, Kammy. I’m not talking about neoliberals or neoliberalism. Neo-liberal is my word. See the hyphen? Different.
Neo-liberals are the folks who today call themselves “liberal” or “progressive” and then try to pass laws forcing people to buy certain products, or who ignore private property laws when they want to seize someone else’s property for private uses.
Neo-liberals: Fascists.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:41 pm
“you’ve walked into a hornets nest of liberals around here”
Indeed he has! Those on here who don’t agree with what the master (Jay) has posted are often talked to as second class citizens.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:41 pm
“Secretary Chu is the shining light of this administration,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is ranking member of the subcommittee overseeing DOE’s budget. “He’s helped move the president; he’s helped move toward a clean-energy standard instead of one that picks and chooses winners and losers.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49515.html#ixzz1E3vENW9d
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:43 pm
The stock market is down today, but at least my metals fund is doing nicely….
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:43 pm
Have any of the conservatives here said anything about Justice Thomas’s ethical issues or anything about Thomas at all. All I see from any of them is the typical deflection.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:46 pm
TP, I said something about it. I believe it was regarding how the topic is boring and hypocritical, given the corrupt individuals populating the Idiot Messiah regime, uncommented upon by our host.
Travis Mcgee
February 15th, 2011
3:47 pm
In a nutshell, Clarence Thomas is an angry black man whose lack of participation in oral arguments and unwillingness to answer legitimate questions on his financial disclosure form is nothing but passive aggressive behavior.
I can’t imagine why President Bush nominated him and why his nomination went forward. He may be a great guy, but he comes across as an arrogant jerk!
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:48 pm
Egypt echoes across region: Iran, Bahrain, Yemen
By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press – Mon Feb 14, 10:42 pm ET
—————–
Corrected version:
Iraq echoes across region: Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Yemen
mm
February 15th, 2011
3:49 pm
Dont’ you love how the wingnuts always pounce on Obama for not running a business prior to being elected. Too bad, because he will be re-elected. Have you seen the buffoons the right is trotting out for president?
Geez, Bush did and look what he did to the economy.
And of course, the ever popular change the subject routine:
Thomas may have done this, but you have a democrat that did that.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:49 pm
Ok Cryos
I’ll give you one more shot
“So to those commenting on Citizen’s United are you even aware democrats argued the law gave them the right to ban books and pull them off the shelves.”
And my case is this…..the material you are posting about is considered
campaign material by one side and not the other. (hence it ends up in court) They are not advocating book burning or banning by fighting to have that material labeled as campaign material.
Again they weren’t doing a double flaming Bradbury.
Call me when they really want to ban books and I’ll stand beside ya’
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:49 pm
Lil Barry,
Do you have any problem with Justice Thomas’s actions to date regarding his failure to report income, etc., as required by the law that he is sworn to uphold.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:50 pm
MM. aka Troll.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:50 pm
Headlien: “Woman, 61, Gives Birth to Her Grandson”
Ah ………………… nevermind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y-Q9EM0G9I
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:50 pm
mm
and what a “bidness” man Bush 43 was!
underwhelming!