The vehicle is a key part of the justice’s just-folks persona. It’s also a luxury motor coach that was funded by someone else’s money.
Archive link: https://archive.ph/zQdpf
This is what corruption looks like. Thomas and Alito are unethical human garbage and don’t deserve to be on the highest court.
None of the federalist society “judges” deserve to be on the court, but here we are…
Can confirm, they are laughed at in law schools. They clique up. None of the actual smart kids like them. The smartest federalist society members are just smart enough to be dangerous. Mostly religious types. Not very diverse.
They basically believe that the law can only be understood in the original sense that it was written in, yes? Instead of the law being living it is dead.
Very basically, yes.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dictionary is, a snapshot of a language in time. The meaning of words change over time. “Nice” used to mean stupid in English.
They believe they can divine the intentions of the dead, that they hear the voices of dead people, and can know what they mean.
They also believe that from the writings of a collective, enacted in the form of statutes, they can discern a single, unified intention. This is of course completely ridiculous, but to hear them tell it, they figured out a way to interpret law “objectively,” which is also of course ridiculous.
I’m sure they are nice people.
I’m sure they are nice people
I am pleased with what you accomplished today
Thanks. I know very little about this stuff. My understanding is that there is an order to understand the law. Canons of construction, right? So wouldn’t that mean that the intent behind the law can only be invoked if the text as written is open to multiple understanding? If that is the case how can they invoke that if the text can never be ambiguous?
If the text must only be looked at exactly as written you can’t claim it could be ambiguous. If you can’t claim it is ambiguous then you can’t worry about what they really meant to say. Guess I am lost. It seems like they are arguing for a method that if fully applied would mean the method can’t be applied.
What mistake am I making? Also thanks again.
You’re looking for logical consistency where there isn’t any. It’s all made up.
There is no one right or wrong way to interpret law. For every canon of statutory construction, there is an equal and opposite canon. My textbook called them thrusts and parries.
Conservatives believe in a plain meaning approach: follow the literal text no matter what because the cold hard text is the best evidence of the legislative intent. If the result is obviously absurd and offensive to justice, too bad, it’s the legislature’s job to fix the statute, not the court’s. Conservatives hate they idea of any power to do affirmative justice resting with the courts, they want it in Congress where their rich benefactors and buy congresspersons.
The problem with that is that legislatures are messy and words are imprecise. The words represent individual understandings and compromises of single members and caucuses, not the whole body. Even when Conservatives say they are following the original text / plain meaning, they are still doing subjective interpretation, just without admitting it.
Purposivism is the idea that statutes should be interpreted and applied by courts with reference to the purpose of the law and common sense.
But a constitution is not a dictionary. It is designed to restrict the current majority, if the majority redefines what the words in the constitution mean it is no restriction.
What about Scalia?
What about him?
It’s one thing to disagree politically, it’s another to take bribes and lie about it or cover it up.
Multiple justices lying under oath somehow doesn’t disqualify them. Ridiculous
Republicans see no problem with these massive gifts and Jared getting $2 Billion, but if Hunter Biden made a dollar they’re all over it.
Removed by mod
None, which is why they’re clearly complaining in bad faith.
If your mom goes to the restaurant that you work at and you charge her a medium for large fries. That is the level of corruption I am ok with. You are allowed to super size the person who brought you into existence fries for free.
Now let me know if you have any more difficult questions I can sort out for you.
Removed by mod
At one point, republicans need to show proof or shut the fuck up. They’ve been talking about the stupid laptop for years to eventually admit they have dogshit. They claim to have dirt on Hunter Biden but never back it up.
It is clearly a diversion tactic as usual.
If they do have dirt on him, throw the book at Hunter/Joe Biden. Until then, shut the fuck up.
Whataboutism
It’s not whataboutism. Corruption is bad. It’s asking for consistency.
Literally brings up some other person not involved in a debate and it is not “what about”
Whataboutism implies that you are using that actions of person A to justify person B. It is not when you point out condemnation of person B for the same actions as person A but person A is not condemned.
I don’t think that’s the point they’re trying to make. A corrupt bastard is a corrupt bastard, there is no immunity.
Geez. Making the Supreme Court is like winning the lottery.
There are literally less than 10 seats in the world. So yeah its literally 1 in a billion.
Yeah, but you have to be highly qualified to get one of those seats, not just any Joe Schmo … lol just kidding. Imagine having to be qualified to decide matters of life and death!
In the US
Naw. The Lottery isn’t rigged toward Catholics.
I’m seriously sick of hearing about this shitbag when no one is ever going to do a damn thing about it.
If it stays in the media, hopefully he will become a pariah. Roberts still holds on to this idea that his court should be seen as legitimate and respected, and Thomas is undermining that more than anyone.
Not that I’m holding my breath over it.
Politicians are just used car salesmen with great healthcare
To be fair, he’s a Supreme Court justice, not just a politician
I think in this case that’s a distinction without a difference.
Because he’s in The Big Club (NSFW).
There are confirmation hearings and supposed investigations before these judges were appointed. Whoever did the investigation failed and should be fired as well as their bosses.
Clarence Thomas is a waste of carbon.
The “friend”? Referring to a criminal engaging in bribery of a Justice as his “friend” is journalistic malpractice.
That’s not even a very nice RV; 270K barely gets you in the door on a decent one.
He bought it in 1999. Adjusting for inflation, it costs about $490k in current dollars.
EDIT: Also the point isn’t really about how much it cost as it does who financed it and how the payments were made (or not). If someone who made a fortune in healthcare loaned a scotus judge money for a luxury home/vehicle Thomas would have a conflict of interest on cases involving healthcare.
Yeah, my mom had a Minnie Winnie, which is small by RV standards and by no means luxurious, and it cost over $150,000 so I doubt $270,000 for a bigger one (and I’m sure it’s bigger) is going to be first class living either.
But who cares when it’s all performative bullshit anyway?
deleted by creator
Well, apparently you’re not going to, so the comment isn’t very useful, is it?
deleted by creator
Oh are one of those types that also shits on Bernie for owning three homes, even though one is a modest D.C. two bedroom, their family home on a very regular, average suburban road, probably 2,000 square feet, and the third a small lakeside cabin his wife inherited from her father, and where he hangs out with his like 15 grandkids?
Dude had to write like five best selling books and be in the Senate for 100 years before he made $1,000,000 dollars, even though insider trading is legal for members of Congress.
Omg, he formed an LLC to publish his books and pay a personal assistant. What a controversy! /s
Trying to portray the one honest Senator in D.C. as a hypocrite, you’d have be to a real know-nothing.
And that’s not even mentioning that he’s not a supreme court justice!
deleted by creator
Just the Jews eh?
Oh please, now you’re going back to the card Thomas played when Anita Hill told the truth about him. Demanding we give someone a pass on douchebaggery and corruption because God forbid we hold a black man accountable is racist. Not as racist as the killing of George Floyd, or the innumerable events that comprise systemic racism, but letting Justice Thomas corrupt the Court doesn’t do one thing to ameliorate any of that. Not that he cares. He’d throw Rosa Parks under the bus in a heartbeat.
I bet you do when police are beating them.
deleted by creator
Why single out Bernie Sanders then? Aren’t there a million people that have access to even more “luxurious” things that a majority can’t afford?
What’s so special about him?
No shit
Have you written a bestseller yet?
Imagine being such a fucking idiot that you think people are upset at Clarence Thomas because he made money.
