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
Kamchak
February 15th, 2011
11:52 am
IOKIYAR
larry
February 15th, 2011
11:58 am
Justice Thomas along with Scaila think they are above the law. Impeachment hearings should be started for both of them but i know it will not happen.
Conflict of interest means nothing to them , or most Republicans for that matter. Much like the state of Georgia.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
12:03 pm
“Justice Thomas along with Scaila think they are above the law”
A sense of entitlement is only bad if you’re poor
Bosch
February 15th, 2011
12:04 pm
And no people Ginsberg’s husband did not work at MoveOn.org, it is the liberal equivalent to the Heritage Foundation….
Bosch
February 15th, 2011
12:05 pm
Jay,
You might wanna rethink that moveon.org reference — the wingnuts heads are gonna splode just seeing that.
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:07 pm
But the job was never disclosed on federal documents.
I wonder if her job and the money she earned was disclosed on that ultimate tax document , form 1040?
Hello? IRS??
jm
February 15th, 2011
12:07 pm
Here’s a better question. How did a minority, a man who grew up in abject poverty, in Savannah, become such a conservative? One can throw Uncle Tom BS at him all day if one wants.
But I think the better answer is that he is someone who learned about the shortcomings of government, and the benefits of individual hard work, and took those lessons to heart.
I’m not saying the issue Jay brings up doesn’t deserve merit. Sure, hack away at the guy for non-disclosure. But I’m more curious how a man, who by all liberal accounts should probably be a Democrat leftist, became so conservative. I need to go read a Thomas biography, if a good one exists.
Plus, sorry, I’m a bit of a “native son” supporter…. (Southside Savannah!)
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
12:08 pm
This is a travesty. A true injustiice that must be corrected. I say we dig up Mr. Ginsburg’s bones and put them on trial right now!
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:09 pm
I wonder if her job and the money she earned was disclosed on that ultimate federal document , form 1040?
Federal , not tax is what i meant.
jm
February 15th, 2011
12:09 pm
BTW, Pin Point was still scary, even when I was growing up. A bad bad place to be around…. avoid at all costs. Hopefully different now.
SOUTHERN ATL
February 15th, 2011
12:11 pm
I hope that his attendance does not interfere with his decision making when it comes to cases that he will hear…what a conflict of interest!!!!
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
12:11 pm
But I’m more curious how a man, who by all liberal accounts should probably be a Democrat leftist, became so conservative.
Maybe it had something to do with his Heritage.
Mr. Right
February 15th, 2011
12:11 pm
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.
On the other hand, what would your reaction be? I don’t think we would have heard a peep out of you!
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:12 pm
I hope that his attendance does not interfere with his decision making when it comes to cases that he will hear…what a conflict of interest!!!!
Sorry, it already has. The Citizens United case.
JohnnyReb
February 15th, 2011
12:12 pm
I would love to comment, but my head is exploding!!
barking frog
February 15th, 2011
12:13 pm
I believe that kind of stuff cost Charles Rangel his dignity,
if nothing else….
jt
February 15th, 2011
12:13 pm
Silly rabbit,
federal tax laws are for the commoners, not the federal ruling class.
As per Charlie Rangel,or Geithner, or ad naseum…., just censor him.
Bosch
February 15th, 2011
12:14 pm
“On the other hand, what would your reaction be? I don’t think we would have heard a peep out of you!”
Hmmmmm…..criticizine Jay over a hypothetical instead of defending a position based on something real.
You just can’t make up this stuff.
jm
February 15th, 2011
12:14 pm
“Maybe it had something to do with his Heritage.”
True, like being a descendant of slaves and a very poor family and knowing the price of economic and political slavery…. (and the value of economic and political freedom).
JohnnyReb
February 15th, 2011
12:16 pm
OK, the fit of my Rush Limbaugh hat contained my brain explosion and I can, after all comment.
You Lefties have reason to be concerned of Thomas, I must admit. I just wish you would not salivate when doing so. Obviously, if he were to exit the court while Barry is POTUS, the Liberal World would shut down for a day due to mass orgasmic activity.
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:16 pm
You just can’t make up this stuff.
Bosch, you know better than that.
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:19 pm
I just wish you would not salivate when doing so.
Im not salavating, i just think its sad. I mean Scaila went hunting with Cheney several years ago when Cheney had a case before the court.
They can sit there and say it does not influence them all they want. I , for one , do not believe them.
USinUK
February 15th, 2011
12:20 pm
what Kam said.
USinUK
February 15th, 2011
12:21 pm
JohnnyReb – no, we would save that for Scalia
we have our standards.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 15th, 2011
12:23 pm
The Weiner is on him…..conflictedclarencethomas.com
Join the call to stop Thomas
JohnnyReb
February 15th, 2011
12:24 pm
In otherwords, you guys will only be happy when every memeber of the court is a Liberal.
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:24 pm
Even our own ethically challenged governor put all of his earnings on his disclosure form.
Okay , so it took him five tries but i think he got it all on there. I think.
Tall
February 15th, 2011
12:25 pm
“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…..
Yeah. If Justice Thomas is guilty of not reporting income…he should face the charges….blah..blah…blah…
USinUK
February 15th, 2011
12:25 pm
Johnny – “In otherwords, you guys will only be happy when every memeber of the court is a Liberal.”
no, just when they’re not effing wankers like Fat Tony
JohnnyReb
February 15th, 2011
12:26 pm
Larry, I agree certain behavior and relationships should be off limits to SCOTUS, however, they can’t be locked up in solitary when not on the bench. They have opinions no doubt formed by living a life.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 15th, 2011
12:29 pm
Johnny….actually a recent study of the Court has shown that even so-called “liberal” members are moving to the right and unfortunately will likely continue that way until a President decides to truly provide some balance.
USinUK
February 15th, 2011
12:29 pm
heck, as I think about it, I’d be willing to trade – you can keep Thomas, just get rid of Scalia (of course, that’s killing 2 birds with 1 stone as Thomas can’t write his own decisions without cribbing from Big Ton)
JohnnyReb
February 15th, 2011
12:30 pm
BTW Jay, good subject to get the crowd off the story of the day. That is, Obama finding instant rebuke to budget and having a news conference to try and convince people that when he buys a Chevrolet instead of a Cadillac he saved the 20 grand difference.
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:31 pm
They have opinions no doubt formed by living a life.
I agree, but i would not have any connection to someone who will have a case before the court.
After the case is over, maybe . But not before. Even if they are a good friend to me.
USinUK
February 15th, 2011
12:32 pm
wow – the GOP didn’t like his budget cuts?
next thing you’ll tell us, the sun rises in the east …
is water wet, too???
RW-(the original)
February 15th, 2011
12:32 pm
What a cheap, transparent smokescreen. This whole poutrage over Thomas is just to take the heat off Kagan when the calls for her to recuse herself begin after Obamacare gets to SCOTUS.
/d b
JohnnyReb
February 15th, 2011
12:32 pm
Good Fight – I liiiike it, mmmmumm, I liiiike it.
jt
February 15th, 2011
12:33 pm
Only frightened naive people pay attention to these guys anyhoo.
“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”
~ Thomas E. Wood
FOURTEEN, that is 14 (FOURTEEN)
new nullification laws are being passed as we speak….And the great sovereign state South Carolina is mulling over a state currency. Georgia will not be far behind.
Pass all of the laws you want and rule until your eyes are blue. We will ignore you and them.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/10-amendment-nullification-movement2.html
JohnnyReb
February 15th, 2011
12:34 pm
Larry – no debate on that. I agree. And, Thomas is stupid for putting himself in the current position. Very disappointing.
pn
February 15th, 2011
12:34 pm
There is a Code of Conduct for United States Judges found at
http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx
But, alas, the U.S. Supreme Court has no adopted code of conduct and there is no formal mechanism for review of conflicts of interest.
Which is probably why the U.S. Supreme Court Justices feel themselves above the law–quite literally.
Scary, eh?
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
12:36 pm
“Maybe it had something to do with his Heritage.”
True, like being a descendant of slaves and a very poor family and knowing the price of economic and political slavery…. (and the value of economic and political freedom).
I was thinking something a little more Foundation-al. And organized. And right wingish. And Libertarianish. Aw heck. Heritage Foundation. All Right!
buck@gon
February 15th, 2011
12:38 pm
Imagine, if you will, the reaction of conservatives if _______________
Charlie Rangel
Nancy Pelosi
Timothy Geithner
Vann Jones
Harry Reid
…….
You wanna go there Bookman? I’m fine with that. Let’s go! Let’s sweep them all out.
Stop picking on Thomas all by himself. You are a racist!
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
12:38 pm
“wow – the GOP didn’t like his budget cuts?”
Neither do some Democrats…so I figure he’s probably got it about right.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
12:39 pm
ANd of course we all know that Justice Thomas has just celebrated an unusual and frankly creepy anniversary….
No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 12, 2011
A week from Tuesday, when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.
If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.
In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.
From the NYT
What the hell are we paying this guy for?
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
12:39 pm
How long before some right winger gets on here and attacks Kagan even though Kagan clearly does not have these conflicts of interest hanging over her past decisions or have clear ethics violations hanging over her.
USinUK
February 15th, 2011
12:39 pm
“Stop picking on Thomas all by himself.”
leave Thomas alooooooone!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:40 pm
Thanks for the link pn, i saved it to my favorites file to read later. Interesting reading so far.
USinUK
February 15th, 2011
12:40 pm
Doggone – you got that right
larry
February 15th, 2011
12:43 pm
If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.
Used to work with someone like this. Of course ,he got promoted . Stupid me asked questions, sweated over spreadsheets etc, etc.
@@
February 15th, 2011
12:44 pm
Well, I know what progressives wanna do with Justice Thomas…
Kill him?
Put him back in the fields?
String him up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc
jm
February 15th, 2011
12:47 pm
Taxpayer 12:36-
I got it the first time…
jt
February 15th, 2011
12:51 pm
The sheep accepted a Tax cheat to be in CHARGE of the Tax code in the LEGISLATURE.(Rangel).
The sheep accepted a Tax cheat to be in CHARGE of tax collecting in the EXECUTIVE.(Geithner)
The sheep should except a Tax cheat to rule over the tax code in the JUDICIAL.
If not……………..I call racism.
UGA graduate
February 15th, 2011
12:51 pm
Justice Thomas and Scalia should be impeached now, before they do any more damage to this country. It really started with installing that imbecile George W. Bush. How did his four years of conservative rule work out? Two endless wars and the biggest economic bust since the great recession. Now we have Alioto and Roberts who will be on the court forever.
The right-wing trifecta of pompous Bill O’Reilly, windbag Rush Limbaugh, and crazy Glen Beck would be calling for the impeachment of any moderate justice with ties to any liberal organization and had secret speeches to such groups. They offer nothing positive to further the American agenda and keeping taxes low for people with the highest incomes.
pn
February 15th, 2011
12:52 pm
Here is the revised list of ethics canons, which for some reason, have not been updated on the U.S. Courts website (above) Still mandatory on federal judges–but not Supreme Court Justices.
And why don’t they apply to Supreme Court Justices?
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in
All Activities
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and
Diligently
Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That Are Consistent with
the Obligations of Judicial Office
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity
jm
February 15th, 2011
12:54 pm
The liberals have the most liberal president in office since Jimmy Carter. And they’re still upset. Unbelievable.
See UGA Graduate’s post….
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
12:57 pm
“The liberals have the most liberal president in office since Jimmy Carter. And they’re still upset. Unbelievable”
Not quite correct. Not all “liberals” are as “liberal” as you’d maybe like to think.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
12:57 pm
The Idiot Messiah wants to spend $3.7 trillion next year, and his parasite base will scream if Republicans cut a measly $100 billion.
$3.7 trillion comes to about $12,000 per person. Are you paying your fair share?
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
12:59 pm
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.
Maybe you ought to think about that instead of blindly buying the “corporations are people now” propaganda.
the watchful eye
February 15th, 2011
12:59 pm
Dick Armney, Tea Party Leader. The Tea Party as we are all aware are great believers in the Constituion and some members although not lawyers are experts on the Constituion. A little known fact, the framers of the Constitution did not see fit to make provisions that the members of the Supreme Court be only lawyers. They deliberately left it open to people of other learnings than the law. We should be looking at candidates for the Supreme Court from areas outside the legal profession. Then there would be fresh insight into what the citizens really think and have them represented like for example, the tea Party themselves.
It is becoming increasing apparent that the Supreme Court Justices, like Clarence Thomas, are listening and even attending polically oriented events.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
12:59 pm
Lil Barry
You must agree with Jay on Thomas…..as you are silent on the topic.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:00 pm
Amen to that, Doggie. For example, a whole bunch of “liberals” want to require all Americans to buy certain products.
Those kinds of “liberals”: Fascists.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
1:01 pm
“”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.”"”
Boy can’t wait to see you back that one up.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:01 pm
No, I just find the topic boring and hypocritical.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:02 pm
“Fascists”
Fascism is not a liberal philosophy
JohnnyReb
February 15th, 2011
1:03 pm
jm – obviously you did not receive the memo declaring Barry a moderate. And, some nut on Matthew’s show this past Sunday pointed out that Obama knew just how to handle Egypt because he grew up in Kenya. I was soooooooooo impressed.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:03 pm
Democrats arguing in Citizens United wanted to prevent a movie from being shown.
Such a proud moment for the “liberals”.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:03 pm
“No, I just find the topic boring and hypocritical.”
Blogspot is ready whenever you are, go for it
Larry
February 15th, 2011
1:04 pm
pn – what part of those ethics has Juatice Thomas violated? Possibly #2 but that has yet to be proven. Let’s see what happens before you lynch a man. Obama has lied several times, has proven himself to be incompetant and yet you hear nary a word of him from Jay.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:04 pm
Fascism IS a neo-liberal philosophy.
Tweets that mention Justice Thomas owes some answers on ethical questions | Jay Bookman -- Topsy.com
February 15th, 2011
1:04 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sean walker, sean walker. sean walker said: Justice Thomas owes some answers on ethical questions: Since then, new questions have popped up regarding Thomas… http://bit.ly/hEypaS [...]
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:05 pm
Doggie, if you feel the need to go off topic, might I suggest blogspot?
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
1:05 pm
“Democrats arguing in Citizens United wanted to prevent a movie from being shown.”
how incredibly shallow and vapid.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:07 pm
Johnny, I’m not sure the Idiot Messiah was ever in Kenya before taxpayers paid to fly his sorry arse there a while back.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:07 pm
“Fascism IS a neo-liberal philosophy”
Ummm, hmmm…because liberals, and especially neoliberals, are just SO right-wing:
fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm)
— n
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism
AmVet
February 15th, 2011
1:07 pm
So, a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America is a tax dodger and serial liar.
To quote Captain Renault from the film Casablanca, I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
The worst government that tons of dirty money can buy.
“…one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for some (usually the wealthy).” …
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:08 pm
You’re welcome to your opinion, Granny, but not to your own facts.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:08 pm
“if you feel the need to go off topic, might I suggest blogspot?”
No need. Already got a blog there…but might I point out that I’m not stupid enough to come HERE and complain about the subjects that Jay chooses?
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.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:11 pm
“They desire state control of private enterprise”
Proof?
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:13 pm
If you have a blog on blogspot, why are you hypocritically going off-topic here, not to mention complaining about others going OT?
No one’s forcing you to read my posts. You just can’t resist.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
1:13 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:08 pm
You’re welcome to your opinion, Granny, but not to your own facts.
No doubt, however the FACT remains that your summation of the Citizens United is indeed shallow and vapid.
USinUK
February 15th, 2011
1:13 pm
Neo-liberals are fascists because the effects of their policies are fascist.
yay!
I’ll play!!
the sky is blue because the sky is blue
water is wet because water is wet
rocks are hard because rocks are hard
boy, howdy, can’t beat his logic
AmVet
February 15th, 2011
1:13 pm
“Huckabee: Abortion issue trumps all”
Seldom does one see somebody give themselves the political kiss of death…
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:14 pm
“They desire state control of private enterprise”
Oh, and BTW, fascism doens’t desire state control of private enterprise – it’s more the other way around.
It’s communism that desires public control (owenership) of production.
Can’t you keep your insults straight?
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
1:14 pm
clean up on aisle BARRY
“They desire state control of private enterprise.”
now I don’t care who you are, that there’s funny.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:15 pm
Exhibit A is, of course, Obozocare.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:15 pm
JohnnyReb 1:03 – Obama is as much a moderate as Scalia is a liberal. Obama is bought and paid for by the Unions and Retirees. And if there’s two groups I despise, its those two.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:15 pm
“not to mention complaining about others going OT”
I wasn’t complaining about it…just pointing out that if you don’t like the subject’s Jay chooses you are at perfect liberty to start your own blog…where YOU can choose the subjects.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:16 pm
“Exhibit A is, of course, Obozocare”
Exhibit A of WHAT? Government ownership of private enterprise? You don’t even get an E for effort for that one.
barking frog
February 15th, 2011
1:18 pm
I believe I see a high tech lynching not too far down the road…..
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
1:18 pm
I think Barry you shouls just call the folks you don’t like and are afraid of “ists”, since you obviously don’t understand the first parts of those big words.
i’m godzilla-ist
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
1:19 pm
USinUK
boy, howdy, can’t beat his logic
———————
But you were perfectly happy with the argument that neo-liberals can’t be fascist because not all neo-liberals are Italian.
Doh!
larry
February 15th, 2011
1:20 pm
Good gosh, someone despises retired people?
I guess Bosch is right, you cant make this up.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:24 pm
larry 1:20 – oh, I’m not the only one.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/02/06/alan-simpson-america-is-a-cow-w300m-tits-plus-10m-motus/
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:25 pm
“neo-liberals can’t be fascist because not all neo-liberals are Italian”
Since you don’t appear to know what either “fascism” OR “neoliberal” actually mean…it’s a little hard to understand your “logic”
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:25 pm
larry1:20 I’m not the only one
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/06/us-economy-usa-commission-idUSTRE7151VN20110206
Former Senator Alan Simpson, Republican co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also trashed certain critics as “jerks” and compared the United States to “a milk cow with 300 million teats.”
Originally this was a reference to Social Security with 300 million t-ts.
Vinny
February 15th, 2011
1:26 pm
Keep swinging at the wind, Jay.
Obama-care WILL be repealed.
Obama WILL be a one-termer.
Get used to it.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:27 pm
“Obama WILL be a one-termer.”
One hopes so, but conservatives are going to have to work overtime in 2012.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
1:27 pm
“A brief (four-day) drop-by”? On whose dime?”
Hey, a “three-hour tour” turned into years of syndication on Gilligan’s Island. Things get extended.
And in case you psedo-geniuses missed it, his oath is to uphold the Constitution, and there is nothing in the workings of either the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society that would conflict with that oath.
Would you like some cheese with that whine, Jay?
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:29 pm
“And in case you psedo-geniuses missed it, his oath is to uphold the Constitution, and there is nothing in the workings of either the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society that would conflict with that oath”
Then why didn’t he report it, as he is required to do?
larry
February 15th, 2011
1:30 pm
So, some people arent going to be happy until grandma is out on her kister on the side of the road with her stuff.
Dont worry jm , you will get old too. You will be retired, are you going to despise yourself?
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
1:31 pm
I’d answer you if you were capable of serious debate, Doggone, which you are not. Please refrain from attempting to engage me in any of your useless banter.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:33 pm
“Please refrain from attempting to engage me in any of your useless banter”
Nope, no deal. I’ll reply whenever I see fit. If you don’t like it you are at perfect liberty to NOT REPLY…as you see fit.
there’s only one person who can stop me from replying as I wish…and YOU are not him.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:35 pm
larry 1:30 – nope. I won’t be sucking on the gov’t teat. I no problem with old people. I have a problem with old people who didn’t save for retirement. And for the old people who oppose any changes to SS & Medicare, EVEN IF SAID CHANGES WON’T AFFECT THEM!
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:40 pm
This has to be one of the most frustrating things around. Our generation (under 45) is willing to make changes to SS so that it doesn’t go broke and burden our economy with an undue amount of taxes and costs. But the old people (55 and over) have adamantly opposed any changes, even though the damn changes won’t affect them….
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:42 pm
“But the old people (55 and over) have adamantly opposed any changes, even though the damn changes won’t affect them….”
I haven’t seen that opposition. I’ve seen opposition to changes that WILL affect them, like smaller payouts. The opposition I’ve seen is to raising the cap – primarily, but funny thing about that…I haven’t seen ANY opposition to that from people who are already UNDER the existing cap. Itsn’t it odd?
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:45 pm
People can’t vote under the age of 18. I’m inclined to think you shouldn’t be able to vote when over the age of 75. Maybe even 65…. that whole senility thing. Or at minimum, they should have to take a minimum competency test.
Which brings me back to another pet peeve. All drivers, but in particular those over 65, should be required to actually retake their driving test when renewing their license every 4 years. Over 65 it should probably be every 2 years…. I almost got run over by an idiot old person with a handicapped thing in their window when crossing a street the other day. Not only did they run a red light, they came within about a foot of running my butt over….
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:46 pm
Doggone 1:42 – blather without reference…. I look forward to you posting the links to the research that shows you the exact non-opposition you purport to have seen.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:47 pm
“within about a foot of running my butt over….”
which no doubt disappoints Doggone et al
cosby smith
February 15th, 2011
1:48 pm
Poor guy has been undrer attack ever since he was nominated…but lets dig up dirt on all to the supreme court and see if any have actually read and studied the constitution. Sotomyer has not!
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:50 pm
Jay believes a significant number of retirees aren’t physically capable of working over the age of 65. If they can’t work, then logically they must not be able to think. If you can’t think, why should you be able to vote? Seems logical to me.
You can accept government hand outs, but you lose your right to vote…. (and I’m all for a business corollary, any business receiving subsidies couldn’t hire a lobbyist)
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:52 pm
“which no doubt disappoints Doggone et al”
why should it? A bad driver is a bad driver, their age has nothing to do with it.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:53 pm
“Sotomyer has not!”
Proof?
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:54 pm
“I look forward to you posting the links to the research that shows you the exact non-opposition you purport to have seen.”
Nah, no links…just going by what I’ve seen here…mostly. I know that *I* fit into your age category and I don’t have any opposition to what I would consider needed changes to SS.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:56 pm
Doggone – “to what I would consider needed changes to SS.”
And what are those?
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:56 pm
“If they can’t work, then logically they must not be able to think.”
How do you define “work”? Because Stephen Hawking MIGHT want to argue your statement that “if you can’t work…you might not be able to think”
He seems to be pretty good at thinking. Don’t you think?
Nate Downes
February 15th, 2011
1:56 pm
Martin Ginsburg was a professor at Georgetown University, a position he’s held since 1980. Before then he worked for the Law Firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson, and represented Ross Perot for them in the 1970’s. He had never worked for moveon.org, or any other similar agency. Simple factcheck.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:58 pm
“And what are those?”
Mostly? Raise the cap, and tweak the COLA to better reflect the actually economic conditions. Maybe even raise the rate some on everyone.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:58 pm
Doggone 1:56 – “He seems to be pretty good at thinking. ” Thanks, you made my point. I agree. Hawkins can think. And Hawking works.
Adam
February 15th, 2011
1:59 pm
Justice Thomas owes some answers on ethical questions
No he doesn’t. He’s a conservative, and a good con never admits to anything
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
1:59 pm
“And Hawking works”
But just because someone is retired doesn’t mean they CAN’T work and it SURE doesn’t mean they can’t think…take a line through Hawking.
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:00 pm
“Raise the cap, and tweak the COLA to better reflect the actually economic conditions. Maybe even raise the rate some on everyone.”
So 2/3 tax increase. No spending cuts, but some slow down on the spending increases…. well, at least you’re willing to consider some changes (most of which don’t affect you as a retiree). As always, stick it to someone else….
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:01 pm
“As always, stick it to someone else….”
as is true of ALL insurance. Those who don’t actually use it still pay for those who do.
Adam
February 15th, 2011
2:03 pm
as is true of ALL insurance. Those who don’t actually use it still pay for those who do.
Unless they are cut from the insurance once they have to make a claim
larry
February 15th, 2011
2:05 pm
So my 90 year old grandma, who has all of faculities , can walk , talk , carry on an intellegent conversation, drive better than most folks 60 years younger, should not be allowed to vote?
Please discrmininate some more please.
Bruno
February 15th, 2011
2:07 pm
Shout out to AmVet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_nFwwjBlEc
And you know that you’re over the hill when your mind makes a promise your body can’t fill….
larry
February 15th, 2011
2:07 pm
And besides, these are not government handouts. This is money they have paid into the system.
Matti
February 15th, 2011
2:08 pm
I’m still trying to imagine why no one in the “liberal” media around here reported that my Congressman was at the Koch Bros. retreat in Palm Springs a couple of weeks ago, and that both his local and D.C. offices were lying about his whereabouts. (Each claimed he was at the other location.) Perhaps he was hiking the Appalachain Trail? Heh….
Whatevs. Our government does not belong to “the people.” It belongs to its corporate sponsors. Period. Once we get past the silly notion of ethics in “public service,” it all makes perfect sense.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
2:15 pm
Has anyone else noticed that when the Koch brothers wiggle their fingers, all the Republican’s lips move at the same time. How do they do that! It’s as though they are all on the synchronized trickle-down swim team.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:19 pm
“Unless they are cut from the insurance once they have to make a claim ”
But even in that case, they are paying for it…but not using it, and are still paying for those who DO use it!
Normal
February 15th, 2011
2:21 pm
You ever notice that when a subject like this one comes up that Lil Barry can’t argue against, be works his tail off trying to find something the “other side” did to divert attention from the subject at hand….You just can’t buy that kind of partisan loyalty…or can you…
Logical Dude
February 15th, 2011
2:24 pm
My first criticism is of Jay’s use of the “If WE did it, THEY would HATE IT!” argument. I always found it pretty weak (although, yes, I’ve used it myself a few times)
My second criticism is of Mr. Thomas and/or his wife, and failure to fill out paperwork correctly. I have a feeling that marking “no” to the question “spousal non-investment income” means that Mr. Thomas read the question quite strictly (*in his own mind*) and was quite able to mark “none” since it WAS investment income. She invested some travel time, and she got a fairly large return on that investment. It’s the same thinking that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” meant. (*in his own mind*).
My third criticism is of the whole process to either prosecute or remove a judge. From my (allegedly poor) memory, A Supreme Court judge serves for life, without a real process for removal for being dumb/ criminal/ shady. Help correct me if I am mistaken.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 15th, 2011
2:25 pm
Well, when I think of this Justice Thomas, I get the same feeling I would get from watching my mother-in-law drive off of a high cliff in my new Ford F-450. On one hand he’s a good Conservative that socks it to the libruls. On the other hand he’s one of Those People, all uppity and such.
So I’m just staying out of this fuss.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
carlosgvv
February 15th, 2011
2:25 pm
Jay, you must enjoy being a punching bag. You know all the conservatives are going to call you those bad liberal names and all the liberals will call you racist.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:26 pm
Funny how liberals rail about only AMERICAN corporations.
Do you even realize that foreign competition like Chinese and Russian state run companies dwarf our companies? We should be looking out for American interests.
Do you seriously think if we cripple American corporations without changing trade and other laws it will benefit us? I hope you’re not that naive.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:27 pm
Matti – “that both his local and D.C. offices were lying about his whereabouts.”
Well, either they were tired of you calling them…..ooooorrrr…they were looking out for his security…..or it was a corporate event that wasn’t open to the public….to name a few.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
2:28 pm
It’s not just Thomas, by the way…..
From TPM
Reagan DOJ Official Slams Scalia’s Tea Party Gathering
Bruce Fein, Ronald Reagan’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General, published a letter in today’s New York Times castigating Justice Antonin Scalia for speaking to a backroom meeting organized by the House Tea Party Caucus:
Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action. If there are better ways to destroy public confidence in judicial impartiality, they do not readily come to mind. …
Associate Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign for, among other things, secretly advising President Lyndon B. Johnson on race, urban unrest and the Vietnam War.
Sadly, Scalia’s schmoozing with Tea Partiers is only one of many recent instances which call into question the impartiality of the federal bench. Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement. Likewise, Justice Alito is a profligate fundraiser for right-wing political causes. Justice Thomas’ wife may have found a way to get rich off of her husband’s judicial decisions. Three federal appellate judges sit on the board of an infamous “junkets for judges” organization that offers expense-paid trips to western resorts for judges who agree to attend a seminar on how to rule in favor of corporations. In the Fifth Circuit, which will hear appeals arising out of the BP oil disaster, ten of the court’s sixteen judges hold oil investments. The court’s chief judge, Edith Jones, holds as much as $330,000 in oil investments and frequently attends pro-corporate junkets. All of this raises serious questions about whether ordinary Americans can expect impartial justice, or whether justice is only available to those who can afford it.
Libertarian
February 15th, 2011
2:30 pm
Jay you are a racist.
Oh wait, Thomas is conservative.
Nevermind.
Logical Dude
February 15th, 2011
2:31 pm
Matti – “that both his local and D.C. offices were lying about his whereabouts.”
Or they each didn’t know that he was getting paid to have a vacation.
Or they didn’t know he was walking the Appalachian Trail.
Or they did know and didn’t want the press to find out.
Or they did know and didn’t want anyone to find out.
Or they did know and. . . . okay, I’ll quit “imagining what happened”
Logical Dude
February 15th, 2011
2:33 pm
Granny Godzilla:
“Scalia and his colleague Clarence Thomas both attended Koch-hosted fundraising sessions devoted to building and funding a corporate political movement.”
Like the Tea Party? (ducking)
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:34 pm
Liberals latest strategy. Not enough members on the SCOTUS to pass their unconstitutional laws so slander conservative judges to try to nullify their votes.
Classy. Real classy.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:35 pm
Has anyone seen DebbieDoRight lately? After her recent epic and embarassing meltdown, I haven’t caught her on here.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:36 pm
“so slander conservative judges to try to nullify their votes.”
telling the truth is not slander – not is it libel
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:36 pm
Sad how foreign governments and businesses have the liberal foot soldiers doing their work for them.
Trash American corporations so they can take market share and buy them out.
Jimmy62
February 15th, 2011
2:36 pm
Common Cause, now there’s a bipartisan organization with no predetermined agenda or bias!
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:38 pm
So Doggone you’re against Citizen’s United right?
So then do you agree with democrats that they should be able to use the law to ban books? That was the central issue behind SCOTUS allowing another hearing where democrats still argued banning pamphlets.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf
Lord Help Us
February 15th, 2011
2:38 pm
’so slander conservative judges to try to nullify their votes.’
Maybe Thomas knows a good lawyer to sue Jay…
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:39 pm
“So Doggone you’re against Citizen’s United right?”
I can disagree with part of a ruling, without necessarily disagreeing with all of it.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:41 pm
“telling the truth is not slander – not is it libel”
Um, I think he is implying that the truth is not being told, Doggone.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:42 pm
“So Doggone you’re against Citizen’s United right?”
I can disagree with part of a ruling, without necessarily disagreeing with all of it.
================
The issue at hand could not be decided in part. How would you rule on it in their place?
With the democrat government lawyers arguing the law gave them the right to ban books and you uphold that law you implicitly give them that right.
Sorry your scapegoat answer won’t suffice in this scenario.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:42 pm
“Um, I think he is implying that the truth is not being told, Doggone”
Ok, then where is his proof that Thomas did his taxes correctly?
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:44 pm
The “slander” I’m referring to is how the leftist media is translating attending meetings into directly influencing the decision on issues.
So if a SCOTUS member goes to see a movie can they then not rule on anything having to do with the media or recording industries? Just think how far the relevant arguments being made can be strung.
Matti
February 15th, 2011
2:44 pm
Wifebeater is right, of course. My duplicitous Congressman (Is he Republican? Is he Tea Party? When will he decide?) has no reason at all to want to talk to lil’ ol’ me, as I represent no large industry lobby or special interest group, and cannot pay my way in to play his game. Plus, women should be seen and not heard. Actions have consequences.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:44 pm
“Sorry your scapegoat answer won’t suffice in this scenario”
No apologies from me. The only part of Citizen’s United that I am familiar with is the part affecting business contributions to candidates. I’m not familiar with any other part, so have no comment.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
2:44 pm
Um, I think he is implying that the truth is not being told,
Perhaps he would do well to just share facts and make explicit his concerns.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:45 pm
“The “slander” I’m referring to is how the leftist media is translating attending meetings into directly influencing the decision on issues.”
But that is not the focus of what Jay wrote. HE wrote about tax indiscretions
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:47 pm
Lol doggone you are horrible at deflection. Jay mentions the “4 day retreats” and I’m talking about the media in general.
You’re dodging of all the real questions makes this my last reply to your posts. You’re not worth wasting my time with. Just another simpleton who believes what they’re told without any critical thinking skills. Baaahhhhhh
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:48 pm
“You’re not worth wasting my time with”
jm – is that you?
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
2:49 pm
LYNCHING ! LYNCHING !
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:51 pm
Oops! got my posters mixed up! Should have said:
“You’re not worth wasting my time with”
Dave R. – is that you?
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:51 pm
“You’re not worth wasting my time with”
jm – is that you?
=========
Sounds like whomever jm is knows a tool when he sees one as well.
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:51 pm
“jm – is that you” nope. I only have one other name I use on rare occasions… and Cryos is definitely not it….
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:51 pm
Cryos 2:51 –
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:53 pm
“Wifebeater is right, of course.”
“Actions have consequences.”
By golly, me thinks Matti (without an ‘e) just might be comin’ around.
Oh and the “Is he Republican? Is he Tea Party? When will he decide?” statement…it doesn’t matter what is party affiliation is, does it? They’re all bribe hungry crooks.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
2:53 pm
That Cryos character needs to go back into the deep freeze.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:53 pm
” nope. I only have one other name I use on rare occasions”
Correction has been made above
Justice Thomas as walking billboard: a conversation with Kevin Zeese of ProtectOurElections.org | Law
February 15th, 2011
2:53 pm
[...] February 15, 2011 By Matt J. Stannard Justice Clarence Thomas’s public stock continues to fall. The conservative Justice failed to disclose the paid political work done by his teabagger wife [...]
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
2:54 pm
Headline: “CAIRO (AP) – Egypt’s long banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday it intends to form a political party once democracy is established, as the country’s new military rulers launched a panel of experts to amend the country’s constitution enough to allow democratic elections later this year.”
Well, here we go !
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
2:54 pm
Cryos
I am quite confident that the “democrat government lawyers” weren’t going all Farenheit 451 on ya, so remain calm.
As the case was about campaign contributions in money and media
I suspect the offending pamphlet was anti-Hillary and the challenge was
whether or not it could be considered campaign material.
Last book I saw anybody want to burn was poor old Harry Potter….and we know how that turned out.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
2:54 pm
“Well, here we go !”
Nope. Here THEY go.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:55 pm
That Cryos character needs to go back into the deep freeze.
========
Wow you’re about as clever as Doggone.
Sorry but imo it is only worth debating people who can challenge my thinking and where I might learn something. Debating with kids who deflect, distract and have no factual basis for their posts is a waste of time.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
2:55 pm
“Justice Antonin Scalia galloped beyond the farthest boundaries of judicial propriety in secretly meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss the Constitution with Tea Party members of Congress saddled with a co-equal duty to assess the constitutionality of legislative action.”
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?
Granny’s gone all senile again . . .
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
2:56 pm
0311/0317 – 1811/1801
Seems to me the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot in common.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
2:56 pm
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
2:54 pm
Cryos
I am quite confident that the “democrat government lawyers” weren’t going all Farenheit 451 on ya, so remain calm.
As the case was about campaign contributions in money and media
I suspect the offending pamphlet was anti-Hillary and the challenge was
whether or not it could be considered campaign material.
Last book I saw anybody want to burn was poor old Harry Potter….and we know how that turned out.
==========
Feel free to go to the links. Couple of key words search on “express advocacy” and “400 page” or “500 page.” “Pamphlet would work too.”
You are making wrong assumptions.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
2:57 pm
Headline: “OJ BEATEN UNCONSCIOUS IN BRUTAL PRISON ATTACK!”
I’m betting it wasn’t as vicious as what he did to his wife and Ron Goldman.
“You do the crime ………… you do the time”
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:57 pm
“Egypt’s long banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday it intends to form a political party once democracy is established,”
But just remember, Jay said they would only get 25-30% of the vote, so they wield no real power.
Riiight.
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:57 pm
Wow. Politico has lots of good stuff today.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
2:58 pm
“Seems to me the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot in common.”
Then you don’t know much about either, then. Do you, Granny?
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
2:58 pm
“Seems to me the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot in common.”
Really, Granny? And what might those commonalities be?
jm
February 15th, 2011
2:59 pm
Obama said his budget plan would help get the country on the right fiscal path by bringing spending for everything other than interest costs into line with revenues by 2017.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49563.html#ixzz1E3kWoDv9
What a joke. 2017 is too late… and guess what, every borrow has to pay interest too….
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
2:59 pm
Granny :
O.K. ……….. I can play that vicious game !!!!!!!!
Seems to me the Democrat party and, and ……….. and, the Marx brothers have a lot in common.
SO THERE …….. TAKE THAT !
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:00 pm
“Debating with kids who deflect, distract and have no factual basis for their posts is a waste of time.”
You are SO right:
“Liberals latest strategy. Not enough members on the SCOTUS to pass their unconstitutional laws so slander conservative judges to try to nullify their votes”
“Sad how foreign governments and businesses have the liberal foot soldiers doing their work for them”
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:00 pm
Nice Guy :
She’s just funnin’ …………. like your Grandma.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:01 pm
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.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49563.html#ixzz1E3l8fYWa
Wish he would heed his own rhetoric and cut spending on entitlements… Maybe he hasn’t heard of the tea party yet.
ODDOWL
February 15th, 2011
3:01 pm
CLARENCE THOMAS….. A big house uncle tom who step and fetch for the extreme right wing, neo-con Republicans and the stuck on stupid Tea party clowns. Hey Clarence Thomas, you need to listen up boy. Your little minstrel show act has become embarrassing and tiresome for the 40 million African-Americans in this Country. Its time for you to go. You will either resign from the Supreme Court now or you will be impreached and remove by force. Clarence Thomas, do your race and your Country a favor. “Do the right thing.”
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:01 pm
“Egypt’s long banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday it intends to form a political party once democracy is established,”
Just yesterday liberals were touting how the MB wasn’t political so they couldn’t take control.
Liberals – leaves in the winds of their masters
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:01 pm
“Obama said his budget plan would help get the country on the right fiscal path by bringing spending for everything other than interest costs into line with revenues by 2017.”
Another ‘presser, another string of lies from the least qualified person in any room to be President.
AmVet
February 15th, 2011
3:02 pm
Thanks for the shout out, Bruno. (I think!)
Yeah, I may be oldish, but I guarandamntee you, I can still kick some youthful ass.
And before I got terribly sick with blood clots, it wasn’t even a contest.
Back at ya with some Peter Gabriel…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts78Gg6RRHc
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:03 pm
“A big house uncle tom who step and fetch for the extreme right wing, neo-con Republicans and the stuck on stupid Tea party clowns.”
And that’s where I stop reading and continue scrolling….
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:03 pm
Headline: “Obama’s Media Machine: State Run Media 2.0?”
“As the 2012 presidential campaign kicks into gear, President Obama’s White House media operation is demonstrating an unprecedented ability to broadcast its message through social media and the Internet, at times doing an end-run around the traditional press.”
Hummmm …………… if ABC is concerned …………… !
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-white-house-media-operation-state-run/story?id=12913319
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:03 pm
Integrity. Something Obama complimented Warren Buffett on. Something Obama knows nothing about…
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:03 pm
” Hey Clarence Thomas, you need to listen up boy.”
Love the way some liberals are so . . . politically correct.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:04 pm
Christie, flip flopping, jumping in?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49531.html
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:04 pm
“And that’s where I stop reading and continue scrolling….”
and so did I
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
3:04 pm
Doggone/GA you ducked away from Citizen’s United and you claimed Jay’s article was only about the tax issue even though over 1/2 is about the meetings. You can’t even see how you fail? Lol.
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…..
Night Train
February 15th, 2011
3:05 pm
JM wrote “People can’t vote under the age of 18. I’m inclined to think you shouldn’t be able to vote when over the age of 75. Maybe even 65…. that whole senility thing. Or at minimum, they should have to take a minimum competency test.”
Using that logic, let’s require everyone to take a test before they can vote, regardless of age.
Doggone/GA
February 15th, 2011
3:06 pm
“you claimed Jay’s article was only about the tax issue even though over 1/2 is about the meetings.”
You need to re-read what Jay wrote. The meetings were only relevent in that they were relevent to the tax issue. The tax issue is the focus of the article, not the meetings.
and I’ve already explained Citizens United…I’m not doing it again.
Nice Guy
February 15th, 2011
3:06 pm
“Maybe he hasn’t heard of the tea party yet.”
Oh, he’s no doubt heard of them. But he lends no credibility to them, just like the Left-nuts on here, because the Tea Party is just based on a bunch of lies and misinformation.
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:06 pm
I’m less of a Christie fan. Let’s see the guy’s end results after 8 years. And being a “conservative” in a state with the highest taxes in the nation, is not exactly what I would call the boldest leadership, although it is historically a very blue state. Whatever. I prefer Mitch Daniels, but I’ll take Christie if I have to.
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!
Ragnar Danneskjold
February 15th, 2011
3:51 pm
Dear Taxpayer @ 3:43, “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.” I suspect you missed my post @ 3:25, where I posit that if ethics laws have any purpose, Justice Thomas is an innocent man.
If one takes the normal leftist perspective, that ethics laws are mostly to be used as a “gotch” against conservatives, then my post will have no meaning to you.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
3:52 pm
“Bush did and look what Congress did to the economy.”
Fixed your typo, mm. No thanks needed.
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:52 pm
A group of American citizens made a movie and tried to distribute and advertise it. Democrats wanted to stop them.
What other movies should we ban, Granny?
AmVet
February 15th, 2011
3:54 pm
mm, to your point, it would seem that to some running a business is the exact same qualification as running them into the ground. (Think Arbusto, Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation and Harken Energy…)
But then maybe quasi-money laundering in the “free market’ is valuable knowledge when one gets to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…
Lil' Barry Bailout
February 15th, 2011
3:54 pm
TaxPayer
“as required by the law that he is sworn to uphold.”
—————
SCOTUS doesn’t “uphold” laws. They tell us what they mean as applied to real world cases.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:54 pm
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”
Well now, you sound a little jealous ? Don’t forget “the taxpayer” includes me …………..
But that said, it hasn’t been my “whole” life but a good portion of it and at great personal risk I would had.
If you have a problem with that …………….. too bad …………… I still get my pension …………
jm
February 15th, 2011
3:54 pm
In his new budget, Obama kicks the can one more time
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021405643.html
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:55 pm
Disgusted
February 15th, 2011
3:12 pm
Why? You fell for Obama.
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
3:56 pm
Ragnar,
You believe that Justice Thomas did nothing ethically wrong by failing on several occassions to uphold the laws that he is supposed to defend. No surprise there.
Jay
February 15th, 2011
3:56 pm
“Headlien: “Woman, 61, Gives Birth to Her Grandson”
but was she Muslim, Scout?
Fresh sheets upstairs.
Granny Godzilla
February 15th, 2011
3:58 pm
Barry
in my house anything with Fatty Arbuckle, Chuck Norris or anime.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
3:58 pm
Matti
February 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
Why are some of you liberal posters on here so angry and personal all the time ?
Can’t you just have a little fun ?
Adam
February 15th, 2011
4:00 pm
Dave R: Serious question: Why does running a business qualify someone to be President? What about military service? That used to be a big thing too. Why is a law degree, a senate term, and community organizing a BAD thing for a president to have as a background? Please answer all of these, I am honestly interested in knowing what your perspective is.
JG
February 15th, 2011
4:00 pm
don’t engage in innuendo and speculation, do what you should do and investigate it. Wait, I forgot, you’re not a journalist, you’re a columnist. Never mind.
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
4:01 pm
Excuse me: “add”
0311/0317 - 1811/1801
February 15th, 2011
4:02 pm
Jay:
LOL !
TaxPayer
February 15th, 2011
4:05 pm
Well now, you sound a little jealous ? Don’t forget “the taxpayer” includes me
Recycled taxpayer money is what you paid in, yup. Hardly jealous. I made my way through life just fine and am drawing a pension too — from a corporation. Assuming you guys (right wing nuts) don’t screw up the government any worse than you already have, I might even get to draw social security when I’m old enough, in another ten years. After all, I did pay into it and I think I should at least get back what I paid in. As for your living the bulk of your life off of taxpayers, I just thought it beneficial for all to understand a little more of where you come when they’re reading some of your posts. A little perspective. After all, that gratitude thing with you serving your country works both ways once you start accepting payment for services rendered.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
4:07 pm
“Why is a law degree, a senate term, and community organizing a BAD thing for a president to have as a background?”
Law degree? Not bad, but not exactly what has been helpful in crafting laws traditionally. Usually used to try to find ways to circumvent less than precise language in the Constitution.
Senate term? Not hardly. 2-years removed from a jr. STATE senate seat before deciding to run, Accomplished nothing of note in any legislation in either state or Federal Senate seats.
Community organizing? What does that even mean? Did he manage a payroll? No. Did he manufacture a product? No. Did he even remotely understand free market principles? No.
Least qualified person in ANY room, possibly even if you were in the room with him.
btw, military service would have been great. At least someone could have taught him leadership skills and integrity if he was willing to learn them.
Dave R.
February 15th, 2011
4:10 pm
” After all, that gratitude thing with you serving your country works both ways once you start accepting payment for services rendered.”
Written, as usual, by someone who has never actually served their country, and therefore has no reference by which to make any informed judgment on said service.
Paul
February 15th, 2011
4:10 pm
Glad I had time to think this over. Some of the earliest comments or going-in comments seemed a bit extreme. If any of these points have been addressed, sorry ‘bout that.
First off, it appears Justice Thomas has a problem with nonreporting of spousal income. Note: the requirement does not include the amount of compensation, just a listing of the source. I have to ask, given his compliance in other areas, why the omission?
“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.”
Well of course they did. Anything deemed controversial is sure to be raised by some. But… in the case cited, he did disclose attendance (that was the Federalist Society, correct?). He listed dates, where he was and what he did (gave a speech). Is the test to be whether or not we think the forum is too controversial? Are Associate Justices to speak at events deemed only noncontroversial?
BTW – one may want to check thru some of the other disclosures. Justice Ginsberg, for example, had so many reimbursements for extracurricular events she had to file under a separate schedule. I’m sure someone, somewhere would take exception to some of the organizations.
“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.””
Evidently, the spokesman got it wrong. And this should be charged as a foul against Justice Thomas? As noted, he complied with reporting requirements.
“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 generally like Common Cause, but c’mon, Arn, spend ten minutes online and you’ll have your answer! It’s in the form.
Anyhow, anyone wants to peruse the filings, they’re here:
http://moneyline.cq.com/flatfiles/editorialFiles/moneyLine/reference/scotus/scotus.html
I do like source material.
One Nation Under educated
February 15th, 2011
4:15 pm
Law cannot have ambiguity.
Then the last administration should meet some rope & trees
woodie
February 15th, 2011
4:22 pm
Mr. Thomas is in over his head. Probably because his wife gets so much money from this ultra conservative outfit she works for, and because his lack of knowledge of the law, he could not participate in the proceedings of the court when they hear cases even if he wanted to. He has sold his soul to the Repubs. Pray for him, for he does not know what he does!
David
February 15th, 2011
4:23 pm
Jay let me tell you what my reaction would be if Ruth Ginsburgs late husband worked for Move-on.org. SO WHAT! I don’t care. My guess is that Ginsburgs court rulings would have been impact more by her previous employment working for the ACLU. Seems to me that it’s just more political crap, but hey I am used to the fact that the Left gets to toss political bombs and the right gets taken to task if they ever question a liberals motive.
stay away from the crusty cavity
February 15th, 2011
4:28 pm
Yawn…
one tuff talker
February 15th, 2011
4:30 pm
One Nation Under educated
February 15th, 2011
4:15 pm
Law cannot have ambiguity.
Then the last administration should meet some rope & trees
You must be a tough guy. Please go for it. Be the first. I would love to see your quivering body bleed out on TV.
Bad Bob
February 15th, 2011
4:31 pm
Justice Thomas has NO ethics just like all the other republican judges on the SCOTUS. They stole our right to vote in 2000 when they appointed The Moron!
Pauly
February 15th, 2011
4:32 pm
Paul
February 15th, 2011
4:10 pm
So Ginsburg can be a executive in the ACLU but Thomas can’t attend conservative conferences.
Sounds like you have a lack of understanding.
the truth hurts
February 15th, 2011
4:33 pm
Bad Bob == dumba$$
scotty t.
February 15th, 2011
4:34 pm
vastly more significant violation of law that Clinton’s. the politicization of the Supreme Court is another (as always, Republican-driven) encroachment on our failing democracy.
eubieful o'sheet
February 15th, 2011
4:34 pm
Sounds like Clarence got hold of Charlie Rangel’s income reporting/tax paying handbook.
But I’ll bet that all the same people who leapt to Charlie’s defense will be at the front of the mob waving their pitchforks and swinging their ropes to give Clarence a “low-tech lynching”.
Jay
February 15th, 2011
4:37 pm
Ginsburg worked at the ACLU back in the ’70s, Pauly. What’s your point? Every justice on the court did something before donning the robes.
Jay
February 15th, 2011
5:00 pm
That is correct, Scout. State legislatures don’t get to set constitutional standards.
Pogo
February 15th, 2011
5:32 pm
Funny that the historical “fascists” such as Hitler and Mussolini courted and embraced selected industries and labor movement leaders because of their support for their political agendas. Very much the same as Obama embracing and giving taxpayer funded monetary support to selected groups such as GE, Google, GM, the unions and the big banks that supported him in his political campaign. Obama’s relationship with all of these is a glaring example of corruption at the highest level but yet his supporters refuse to see. They only see ideology and nothing else matters.
I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you
February 15th, 2011
5:33 pm
Shouldn’t the IRS charge them with something if they have unreported income (how about tax evasion)? Assuming they file joint returns, he’s then responsible for items on his return (or not). If guilty, he should be removed from the Court.
If not, he can stay.
It’s not about liberal or conservative, it’s about the law (we all pay, or should pay, taxes, right?).
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
6:07 pm
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’
====================================
This post doesn’t really make sense.
They ARE advocating to ban a book that they label as campaign material that is the whole point. That is what the government lawyer said. It sounds to me like you want to BELIEVE “oh they’re good people they wouldn’t ban books” when the REALITY of the argument was to do ban books.
You Distort/We Deride
February 15th, 2011
6:08 pm
Remember, compassionate conservatives, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
6:09 pm
Bad Bob
February 15th, 2011
4:31 pm
Justice Thomas has NO ethics just like all the other republican judges on the SCOTUS. They stole our right to vote in 2000 when they appointed The Moron
==========
Actually they protected our rights to have our votes counted equally and to prevent laws changing in the middle of the game.
Repeatedly counting only 2 counties’ votes without recounting the others, like the democrats wanted, is not equality.
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
6:14 pm
You Distort/We Deride
February 15th, 2011
6:08 pm
Remember, compassionate conservatives, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
==========
So the head of writing tax law, Rangel, and the head of the Treasury, Geithner, are not expected taxes but Thomas is?
You Distort/We Deride
February 15th, 2011
6:18 pm
Cryos
Do you truly want to ascribe that conclusion to my statement? Really?
Rangel: Boot him. Geithner: Boot him. Republican offender? Boot him. Democratic offender? Boot him.
The issue is the ethical violations, not party affiliation, not conservative versus liberal. But that would defuse your one-dimensional thinking, wouldn’t it?
Cryos
February 15th, 2011
6:36 pm
You Distort/We Deride
February 15th, 2011
6:18 pm
Cryos
Do you truly want to ascribe that conclusion to my statement? Really?
Rangel: Boot him. Geithner: Boot him. Republican offender? Boot him. Democratic offender? Boot him.
The issue is the ethical violations, not party affiliation, not conservative versus liberal. But that would defuse your one-dimensional thinking, wouldn’t it?
=============
If that truly is your view that is good. However typically someone posting partisan threads like yourself morphs your view depending on the situation.
Hard to say if this is an ethical situation. If he selectively listed income only certain years it would definitely be ethical. Never listing it harder to say.
You Distort/We Deride
February 15th, 2011
7:17 pm
Cryos
That’s truly my view. Cleaning up Washington is not about placing one ideology into power. It’s about refining the ethics and cleaning house. Both parties are replete with their own violators. The Democrats and Republicans rely on party faithful to defend them simply on the basis of their politics. Unfortunately, you see it on this blog day in and day out. Deplorable behavior. I think America gets what it deserves when partisanship permits situational ethics. Let’s determine this on the merits of the facts, and forget that this man is considered a conservative.
He is, however, a Supreme Court Justice….and ignorance of the law is obviously no excuse in this case.
Adam
February 15th, 2011
10:03 pm
Dave R: First of all, you didn’t answer all my questions. Second, I’m still not sure where your objection is truly. You are saying none of this helps qualify him but I’m missing the why. And I admit, it may be because we are not communicating well. But I really want to understand what is driving your qualification objection.
juan carlos diego raul sanchez
February 16th, 2011
7:59 am
Thomas is twice the man and John Lewis (who marched in Selma & and talks like he has a mouth full of liberal marbles) …Democrats hate black men and women that can think and work for themselves…as long as liberal socialist can keep an inner city full of poor blacks the better they feel – no way would they want to loose their base…
Wednesday round-up : SCOTUSblog
February 16th, 2011
8:05 am
[...] Katrina vanden Heuvel at the Washington Post, Steve Benen of Washington Monthly, Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Joan Walsh of Salon (who also links to video by Rachel Maddow) – are critical of Justice [...]
TnGelding
February 16th, 2011
9:29 am
He owes his soul to George H. W. Bush! His appointment is a good example of what’s wrong with our political system and was an insult to the many deserving, truly distinguished citizens that were passed over.
One Nation Under educated
February 16th, 2011
11:55 am
“one tuff talker” – here’s a new sock for you – “stupid f*&^% redneck”
tougher than you – name-changin wimp – caught in the hypocrisy circle jerk again – go crawl back under mommy’s skirt, and get your parents permission before getting online
Vicki Rowan
February 16th, 2011
12:07 pm
Giving a false answer on a required federal form is a felony under 18 USC 1001. Fraser Verrusio, former Policy Director for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is awaiting trial under section 1001 for not reporting income on his “United States House of Representatives Financial Disclosure Statement for 2003 and he was not gfiven the option to amend. Martha Stewart went to jail under state same statute. And does anyone remeber Marion Jones- same felony. But does the criminal law apply to sitting justices? Time will tell.
Wednesday round-up | theConstitutional.org
February 17th, 2011
3:59 am
[...] Katrina vanden Heuvel at the Washington Post, Steve Benen of Washington Monthly, Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Joan Walsh of Salon (who also links to video by Rachel Maddow) – are critical of Justice [...]
Melissa
February 17th, 2011
7:22 am
What drive Clarence Thomas is ego, greed and self centeredness. He is apathetic at most to social injustice.
bankalchemist
February 21st, 2011
7:30 pm
is it unusual to be examining a persons ethical standards when as part of his conformation process his ethics were a distracting force. why would the act of taking office change the premise of the character issues. We don’t know why he has not debated with the other justices and perhaps his quietness is to not give the media anymore bullets for use in their guns regarding his dialog when he may believe his power is the pen. Aren’t we all tired of reading about the Coke Can, L D Silver rides again, his sexual prowess or not and Mr Footlong. Oh by the way it has been said that as part of his entourage he as added a long time Banking associate from Napa Ca Brian Kelly who is carrying on the role of Mr Footlong. bankalchemist.