|
VitalSigns posted:And anyway, Virginia Thomas is not in the government Yes, it can. You can be guilty of bribery by offering the thing of value to a third party to influence the official acts of the govt official. Otherwise, everyone would just influence by buying their son a house, or give a million to their spouse and they'd be innocent. Whoever— (1)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent VitalSigns posted:And anyway, Virginia Thomas is not in the government
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
Yeah I know I'm pointing out the absurdity of the "Hunter Biden is not in the government" defense for bribery on the other side of the aisle. Proof by contradiction or whatever it's called. If P it's not bribery when it's paid to someone not in the government, then Q paying off Virginia Thomas instead of Clarence Thomas isn't bribery. Not Q, therefore not P
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I know I'm pointing out the absurdity of the "Hunter Biden is not in the government" defense for bribery on the other side of the aisle. You seem to be shouting at the sky with this line of discussion. Is there somebody in particular in this thread that has tried to make that point recently?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I know I'm pointing out the absurdity of the "Hunter Biden is not in the government" defense for bribery on the other side of the aisle. I would say there is a difference between married people, who share finances, and parent and adult child, who do not, but in the end you just want to whine about Hunter Biden so I will say fine arrest Hunter Biden for bribery I don't really give a poo poo, if you can show that bribe money went to Joe Biden arrest/impeach him as well (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Piell fucked around with this message at 15:02 on May 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
No no we can't go after Hunter, it's a trap! https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1653818132124008449 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! AREST HUNTER! oh poo poo no, don't actually. I wasn't being serious
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
Leo Leo sounds like the name of a Jojo's villain but sadly he's very real and received a very real 1.6 billion dollar political donation last year to continue his work to reshape the courts, the SCOTUS in particular, on behalf of his fellow Talibangelicals. He's probably done more to undermine the judiciary than any other (unelected) person in the last half century.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
More specifically, he's the head of the Federalist Society, the entity responsible for the entire College Republican -> lifetime judgeship pipeline that's been stood up over the past few decades
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:You seem to be shouting at the sky with this line of discussion. Is there somebody in particular in this thread that has tried to make that point recently? VitalSigns posted:Big deal. VitalSigns posted:Even if she died it wouldn't help because Republicans have already vowed to filibuster any replacement on the judiciary committee Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:14 on May 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
Durbin still isn't going to subpoena Roberts so even though all the excuses from Leo and Thomas and defenses from the conservative intelligentsia are transparently stupid it won't matter in the end. edit: https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1654498694920560644?s=20 Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The Dems got a justice through with 50 Senators once before - why exactly would they be unable to do it again? I believe they're referring to filibustering Feinstein's theoretical replacement on the committee, not an actual SC nominee.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
welcome posted:I believe they're referring to filibustering Feinstein's theoretical replacement on the committee, not an actual SC nominee.  )
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Durbin still isn't going to subpoena Roberts so even though all the excuses from Leo and Thomas and defenses from the conservative intelligentsia are transparently stupid it won't matter in the end. What a loving tool. The answer is no. Chief Roberts has already said as much. The question is "what are you going to do about it?"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
He’s spent the entire time since the first corruption revelation on Thomas passing the buck to Roberts They’re not going to do anything
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Durbin just gets wussier and wussier with age. WTF is Roberts going to "say" that's going to save the reputation of the Court? "Yeah, one of our members is a bought-and-paid for agent of a private citizen, but we're all really mad about it so you can trust the rest of us to make decisions that affect the lives of millions."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Leonardo Leonardo?? Every time I read that guys name, this is the first thing that pops into my head.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Durbin just gets wussier and wussier with age. WTF is Roberts going to "say" that's going to save the reputation of the Court? "Yeah, one of our members is a bought-and-paid for agent of a private citizen, but we're all really mad about it so you can trust the rest of us to make decisions that affect the lives of millions." It isn't that one of them is bought and paid for, but that one of them has now been revealed to be as such.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
Meatball posted:What a loving tool. Someone should probably inform the chair of the senate judiciary committee about this.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
SCOTUS did one good thing today at least https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1654551823355637761?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS did one good thing today at least Apparently Gorsuch recused because he heard a different case from Glossip in 2015. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Yes the Glossip case has been going on forever at this point
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 02:34
|
|
|
Still nothing compared to the Kennedy recusal in 2018 due to having heard an earlier stage of the same lawsuit. In 1985. E: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-269/39869/20180323153617321_Recusal%20Letter%20in%20No.%2017-269.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Still nothing compared to the Kennedy recusal in 2018 due to having heard an earlier stage of the same lawsuit. That's crazy. How much could he even remember about that case at that point? Anything?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 10:47
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That's crazy. How much could he even remember about that case at that point? Anything? I mean, as part of the later case he would presumably be reading all the briefing/opinions from back then, which might refresh his memory somewhat?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655991632125382656?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655993723866738688?s=46&t=TBi_iSImUmzjTxXAKsMEHw While a snarky quip is this possibly actually pretty clever? The obvious “legislative purpose” for investigating a Supreme Court justice would be for impeachment, a function of the house and not the senate. Subpoenas for impeachment would have to go through a committee setup by McCarthy so could this angle simply be to create a stalemate?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:While a snarky quip is this possibly actually pretty clever? The obvious “legislative purpose” for investigating a Supreme Court justice would be for impeachment, a function of the house and not the senate. Subpoenas for impeachment would have to go through a committee setup by McCarthy so could this angle simply be to create a stalemate? Legislation is also a legislative purpose, and if Clarence Thomas is saying that the poo poo he's doing is not illegal, then we do need some new laws
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:While a snarky quip is this possibly actually pretty clever? The obvious “legislative purpose” for investigating a Supreme Court justice would be for impeachment, a function of the house and not the senate. Subpoenas for impeachment would have to go through a committee setup by McCarthy so could this angle simply be to create a stalemate? The Senate is free to propose and pass court-related bills, which the House could then take up*, even if they don't plan to get rid of any current justice. That's the legislative purpose *they won't, but not important for the argument
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655993723866738688?s=46&t=TBi_iSImUmzjTxXAKsMEHw More likely its a way to show that the Dems are 'doing something', even though they are powerless. Perhaps if there was enough pressure the DOJ might investigate for financial crimes, but thats doubtful. Garland has enough on his plate already.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Our government seems powerless to go after people who tried to openly steal an election, then cause an insurrection, and then sell state secrets afterwards when they could no longer profit from being in power. With the above in mind, I am pretty sure the SCOTUS judges feel above the law. They probably look into a mirror every morning and shout I AM THE LAW.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Our government seems powerless to go after people who tried to openly steal an election, then cause an insurrection, and then sell state secrets afterwards when they could no longer profit from being in power. Does it? I thought that investigation was still going on, and bringing new charges, and in fact just a few days ago secured another raft of convictions for seditious conspiracy for doing exactly that, a charge so rare almost no one had been charged with it after Reconstruction until last year (the last was over a decade earlier), let alone convicted (the last was nearly three decades ago).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1655993723866738688?s=46&t=TBi_iSImUmzjTxXAKsMEHw Impeachment is to remove a person from office and IIRC there's no explicit requirement to remove someone from office before prosecuting and imprisoning them for breaking the law. It would be entirely possible for a judge or member of Congress to retain their office while sitting in a cell and with modern technology they could still do their jobs while incarcerated. Even if Thomas gets to remain untouchable due to our hosed up and idiotic lack of ethic laws for the SCOTUS, Harlan Crow and people like him desire to die forgotten and alone in a cell.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
JFC a billionaire is unironically arguing separation of powers protects him from a senate enquiry? That’s some quiet part out loud mask off poo poo right there.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
Murgos posted:JFC a billionaire is unironically arguing separation of powers protects him from a senate enquiry? Not exactly. He’s arguing separation of powers prevents the Senate from inquiring into a judiciary member’s affairs (at least outside of a legitimate legislative purpose), and (correctly) asserts that the inquiry is really targeted at Justice Thomas. I think the claim stands or falls with the claim that this is outside of legislative purpose, fwiw.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Impeachment is to remove a person from office and IIRC there's no explicit requirement to remove someone from office before prosecuting and imprisoning them for breaking the law. It would be entirely possible for a judge or member of Congress to retain their office while sitting in a cell and with modern technology they could still do their jobs while incarcerated. uhh why does Harlan Crowe deserve to die alone and forgotten in a cell (I assume that's what you meant)?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
Oversight of the judiciary is obviously within the wheelhouse of the legislature, seeing as they are the branch that is obligated to set up the judicial branch in the Constitution. Further, justices are given their position during "good behavior." The SCOTUS can't determine it's own good behavior and oversight is with Congress in other matters, so it naturally falls under Congressional oversight authority here too. It's supposed to be the supreme branch after all. I don't see how investigating Thomas isn't a legitimate legislative purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 02:49
|
|
|
Feinstein is coming back this week (supposedly), so maybe Durbin can finally do something
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Not exactly. He’s arguing separation of powers prevents the Senate from inquiring into a judiciary member’s affairs (at least outside of a legitimate legislative purpose), and (correctly) asserts that the inquiry is really targeted at Justice Thomas. The subpoena is for Crow. Not Thomas. The law is pretty good at identifying who is on the Supreme Court and what privileges attach. Crow doesn’t have any and he can’t get privileges by proxy. Congress absolutely has a legislative purpose in deciding what is and is not a taxable contribution or gift. Just look at any IRS form of you need an example.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Oversight of the judiciary is obviously within the wheelhouse of the legislature, seeing as they are the branch that is obligated to set up the judicial branch in the Constitution. Further, justices are given their position during "good behavior." The SCOTUS can't determine it's own good behavior and oversight is with Congress in other matters, so it naturally falls under Congressional oversight authority here too. It's supposed to be the supreme branch after all. I don't see how investigating Thomas isn't a legitimate legislative purpose. Yes, oversight of the judiciary is within the wheelhouse of the legislature. Specifically, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not Senate Finance. Committees (as opposed to the house as a whole) have only the authority they’re given, and Finance ain’t got judiciary oversight. Murgos posted:The subpoena is for Crow. Not Thomas. The subpoena is for Crow, but that doesn’t mean he’s the target of the investigation. Same as when Mazars got subpoena’d while investigating Trump. It’s almost like we had a Supreme Court case on this recently. It’s almost like Crow’s lawyers cited that case in their letter. E: and I didn’t say they didn’t have a legit purpose re: gift taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Not exactly. He’s arguing separation of powers prevents the Senate from inquiring into a judiciary member’s affairs (at least outside of a legitimate legislative purpose), and (correctly) asserts that the inquiry is really targeted at Justice Thomas. The idea that Congress, and the judiciary committee specifically, has no right to question a justice and consider laws that would punish corruption in another branch of government is just beyond absurd. Especially this SCOTUS whose majority have been directly involved in cases where the judiciary directly intervened in another branch's business because it suited their political goals. If someone made this same argument during a case like Shelby County, the conservative majority wouldn't even have pretended to consider it. Grip it and rip it posted:uhh why does Harlan Crowe deserve to die alone and forgotten in a cell (I assume that's what you meant)? Because wealthy assholes buying off officials and corrupting the government to suit their own ends is something that should be treated as a severe crime instead of a shrug of the shoulders? Especially when it involves corruption at the highest levels of government and causes lasting damage for millions of people. Similar to how all of the Sacklers involved in pushing the opioid crisis in the pursuit of more money should be in jail if not on death row considering they have more blood on their hands than some dictators at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 14:15
|
|