Justice Thomas (finally) speaks...

[$tevie]

"I'm certainly not one to play the game of "this politico didn't profit off their position" as I have no doubt that Thomas has used whatever is at his means to advance his goals. Much like Obama and any other politico in the District. That's how it works whether you're a d or an r."

So in short you are agreeing that Thomas is a "politico" disguised as a Supreme Court Justice.

[Mac-A-Matic]

davester wrote:
You do know how courts work right?...and how judges must be impartial, right? ...and how they need to follow the laws, right?

Sure, and America is a free country...

Whether they sit to the right or the left, judges are never "impartial." It's the precise reason why both parties quarrel about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.

[Mac-A-Matic]

$tevie wrote:
So in short you are agreeing that Thomas is a "politico" disguised as a Supreme Court Justice.

As I said (and you quoted):

"I'm certainly not one to play the game of "this politico didn't profit off their position" as I have no doubt that Thomas has used whatever is at his means to advance his goals. Much like Obama and any other politico in the District. That's how it works whether you're a d or an r."

In response to your statement that Thomas is a "politico" disguised as a Supreme Court Justice, I think that Scalia, Kennedy, Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan and Thomas have all used whatever is at their means to achieve their own goals.

[swampy]

The left dislikes Thomas because he (and his wife) are successful black people who escaped the plantation and don't parrot their liberal propaganda. They feel the same way about Sowell, Caine, West, Rice, Powell, and other conservative blacks.

[freeradical]

Mac-A-Matic wrote:
[quote=davester]
You do know how courts work right?...and how judges must be impartial, right? ...and how they need to follow the laws, right?

Whether they sit to the right or the left, judges are never "impartial." It's the precise reason why both parties quarrel about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.
Indeed. Of all people, davester should know that laws are not just statutory in nature, but there are also administrative laws, and most especially common or case laws.

[RgrF]

Several SCOTUS members have gone out of their way to jettison the "Cesars Wife" application as regards behavior of the Court. For a century it's been held that life appointed SC Justices should hold themselves above and apart from partisan politics and commercial life - the sort of activities they would invariably be called to rule upon.

Every state in the union has a judiciary with a code of ethical behavior, some more stringent than others. The SCOTUS has no such code but for that it itself defines and to date the current bench has never shown any inclination to adopt such a code.

While they have no legal obligation to adopt such a code, they certainly have a moral one. It's interesting to note that those of the Court most willing to abdicate moral leadership are almost uniformly from the far right, Scalia, Alito & Thomas.

Attempting to make the indictment of Thomas racial is in itself using the race card to distract from the moral corruption some of the right have brought to this Court.

[Dennis S]

swampy wrote:
Playing the racist card, davester?

There is nothing in his post that is racist.

[$tevie]

RgrF wrote: Attempting to make the indictment of Thomas racial is in itself using the race card to distract from the moral corruption some of the right have brought to this Court.

It is certainly funny that the same folks who always complain about the race card sure do love to play it when anyone discusses Clarence Thomas.

[swampy]

Shoe on the other foot syndrome.

[Dennis S]

There is nothing in davester's post that is racist.