What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS, Now with KBJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since these pay-for-play scandals starting becoming disclosed, I had begun to think of Thomas as a sold man, a slave to those who’ve purchased his decisions. Today I realized that the thought was ludicrous - too many people owns piece of him. He’s Justice Timeshare. Those who own a piece of him will have to get in early in order to get their decision.
 
St. Clown said:
Since these pay-for-play scandals starting becoming disclosed, I had begun to think of Thomas as a sold man, a slave to those who’ve purchased his decisions. Today I realized that the thought was ludicrous - too many people owns piece of him. He’s Justice Timeshare. Those who own a piece of him will have to get in early in order to get their decision.
Click to expand...

In my opinion you are not seeing a situation with Thomas where decisions are purchased. Is the theory that if these guys weren't putting him up on their yachts or in their mountain ski chalets, he'd be voting in lockstep with Kagan?? This is a guy that came onto the court joined at the hip with Scalia and Rehnquist. Paying him with the hope he might vote conservative seems sort of silly, imho. It would be like sending Kepler $100 with a request that he write a post referring to Republicans as Nazis. Save your money. You're good.

I tell my wife all the time that we don't need a boat. We have friends with boats. If we want to ride in a bigger or better boat, we just need to find wealthier friends.

When you have the silly amounts of money these people have, when you have bought more houses than you can reasonably live in during any given year, when you have every toy available to be purchased, and you still have more money than you know what to do with, there is only one more thing you can do.

Dikmeasuring contest.

Lavishing these things on Thomas isn't for the purpose of "buying" court decisions. It's so when one of their wealthy friends comes to visit, they can tell them that they'll be staying in the bedroom where US SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS slept last week.

It's for bragging rights. Thomas has figured that out and has been more than willing to sell the prestige and cache of hanging out with a SCOTUS justice to anyone who will pay.
 
SJHovey said:
In my opinion you are not seeing a situation with Thomas where decisions are purchased. Is the theory that if these guys weren't putting him up on their yachts or in their mountain ski chalets, he'd be voting in lockstep with Kagan?? This is a guy that came onto the court joined at the hip with Scalia and Rehnquist. Paying him with the hope he might vote conservative seems sort of silly, imho. It would be like sending Kepler $100 with a request that he write a post referring to Republicans as Nazis. Save your money. You're good.

I tell my wife all the time that we don't need a boat. We have friends with boats. If we want to ride in a bigger or better boat, we just need to find wealthier friends.

When you have the silly amounts of money these people have, when you have bought more houses than you can reasonably live in during any given year, when you have every toy available to be purchased, and you still have more money than you know what to do with, there is only one more thing you can do.

Dikmeasuring contest.

Lavishing these things on Thomas isn't for the purpose of "buying" court decisions. It's so when one of their wealthy friends comes to visit, they can tell them that they'll be staying in the bedroom where US SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS slept last week.

It's for bragging rights. Thomas has figured that out and has been more than willing to sell the prestige and cache of hanging out with a SCOTUS justice to anyone who will pay.
Click to expand...

Hovey is right. (!?)

I don't think that if we pooled our money we could buy Thomas' vote to save reproductive freedom or roll back vote suppression. I think the company Thomas keeps is an indicator of what kind of a creep he is.

But he isn't a purchased creep. He comes by it naturally.
 
SJHovey said:
In my opinion you are not seeing a situation with Thomas where decisions are purchased. Is the theory that if these guys weren't putting him up on their yachts or in their mountain ski chalets, he'd be voting in lockstep with Kagan?? This is a guy that came onto the court joined at the hip with Scalia and Rehnquist. Paying him with the hope he might vote conservative seems sort of silly, imho. It would be like sending Kepler $100 with a request that he write a post referring to Republicans as Nazis. Save your money. You're good.

I tell my wife all the time that we don't need a boat. We have friends with boats. If we want to ride in a bigger or better boat, we just need to find wealthier friends.

When you have the silly amounts of money these people have, when you have bought more houses than you can reasonably live in during any given year, when you have every toy available to be purchased, and you still have more money than you know what to do with, there is only one more thing you can do.

Dikmeasuring contest.

Lavishing these things on Thomas isn't for the purpose of "buying" court decisions. It's so when one of their wealthy friends comes to visit, they can tell them that they'll be staying in the bedroom where US SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS slept last week.

It's for bragging rights. Thomas has figured that out and has been more than willing to sell the prestige and cache of hanging out with a SCOTUS justice to anyone who will pay.
Click to expand...
In politics, it’s well established that the money and perks come after a voting history has been established. The problem is that once the money starts to roll on, even if a politician or Justice-ish like Timeshare should ever have a change of mind/heart regarding a subject, are they more or less willing to make that change when it could impact their lifestyle? The money creates a system of intellectual laziness for those whose wits are generally needed most. And Timeshare just doesn’t care about what’s right, otherwise he would’ve reported these grifts on the front-end and not waited for journalists to expose the man for what he is. He clearly is more interested in a comfier life than the meager salary of a SCOTUS justice.
 
SJHovey said:
In my opinion you are not seeing a situation with Thomas where decisions are purchased. Is the theory that if these guys weren't putting him up on their yachts or in their mountain ski chalets, he'd be voting in lockstep with Kagan?? This is a guy that came onto the court joined at the hip with Scalia and Rehnquist. Paying him with the hope he might vote conservative seems sort of silly, imho. It would be like sending Kepler $100 with a request that he write a post referring to Republicans as Nazis. Save your money. You're good.

I tell my wife all the time that we don't need a boat. We have friends with boats. If we want to ride in a bigger or better boat, we just need to find wealthier friends.

When you have the silly amounts of money these people have, when you have bought more houses than you can reasonably live in during any given year, when you have every toy available to be purchased, and you still have more money than you know what to do with, there is only one more thing you can do.

Dikmeasuring contest.

Lavishing these things on Thomas isn't for the purpose of "buying" court decisions. It's so when one of their wealthy friends comes to visit, they can tell them that they'll be staying in the bedroom where US SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS slept last week.

It's for bragging rights. Thomas has figured that out and has been more than willing to sell the prestige and cache of hanging out with a SCOTUS justice to anyone who will pay.
Click to expand...

So, just hypothetically, if you were a billionaire owner of say, a foreign energy company, you might want to be able to tell your friends that you placed a relative of an already rich, prominent US politician on your board, with no other motive and no expectation of any sort of quid for your quo?

is that what we’re talking about here?
 
SJHovey said:
In my opinion you are not seeing a situation with Thomas where decisions are purchased. Is the theory that if these guys weren't putting him up on their yachts or in their mountain ski chalets, he'd be voting in lockstep with Kagan?? This is a guy that came onto the court joined at the hip with Scalia and Rehnquist. Paying him with the hope he might vote conservative seems sort of silly, imho. It would be like sending Kepler $100 with a request that he write a post referring to Republicans as Nazis. Save your money. You're good.

I tell my wife all the time that we don't need a boat. We have friends with boats. If we want to ride in a bigger or better boat, we just need to find wealthier friends.

When you have the silly amounts of money these people have, when you have bought more houses than you can reasonably live in during any given year, when you have every toy available to be purchased, and you still have more money than you know what to do with, there is only one more thing you can do.

Dikmeasuring contest.

Lavishing these things on Thomas isn't for the purpose of "buying" court decisions. It's so when one of their wealthy friends comes to visit, they can tell them that they'll be staying in the bedroom where US SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS slept last week.

It's for bragging rights. Thomas has figured that out and has been more than willing to sell the prestige and cache of hanging out with a SCOTUS justice to anyone who will pay.
Click to expand...

Even if every word of what you are saying is true (and most of it likely is) that isn't the point and you know it. The criminal justice system only works if there is not any hint of impropriety. Any inkling of bias from a judge should get them recused so that there is never a question about whether the judge acted in the best interest of justice. Some of the people that are in the midst of these dik measuring contests were involved in business with the Court. Now maybe he would have decided the way he did in those cases anyways, maybe he wouldn't. But the fact that the question could be asked legitimately is why he should not be aparty to any decision that involves them. His opinions need to be above reproach whether we agree with them or not. ITs why people didn't want him hearing Trump cases since his wife was part of the Stop the Steal movement...why should we trust he will do the right thing?

And here is the rub...all anyone is asking from him is what he asks of the people who argue before him. These are not special requests made because of his station they are the bare minimum of what was ethically expected of him. This guy is a stickler for every "t" being crossed and every "i" being dotted but he just chooses what to declare and what not to declare even though he is required to do so? Come on son that is some elitist BS right there. He is not some small town legislator or something HE IS A FRIGGIN SUPEREME COURT JUSTICE. He is a member of one of the 3 highest branches in the government...one of the most powerful jurists in the world.

Here is the deal I have no issue with him hanging out with his Federalist Buddies and giving speeches, I dont care if he goes fishing in Canada with them or hits the strip club...whatever. But trust is earned, and when he can't be bothered to be open and honest about where the money comes from and why he got it that doesn't pass the smell test. And when he doesn't recuse himself when there is an apparent conflict of interest, that tells me his arrogant azz thinks he is untouchable so screw the rules. He might be doing everything above board, but if we can honestly ask whether he is, he might as well not be and it just stinks of justice not being blind in these cases.
 
Sorry, but given that rent control has been around for 50 years, anyone who bought property during that time knew what they were getting into and should have factored that in to how much they were willing to pay for the property. Anyone who’s had the property longer that? Sorry, no sympathy. According to one index I found, housing prices have had a CAGR of 5.4% for the last 50 years. You’re suing because you wanted 7%?

FOaD, billionaires.
 
LynahFan said:
Sorry, but given that rent control has been around for 50 years, anyone who bought property during that time knew what they were getting into and should have factored that in to how much they were willing to pay for the property. Anyone who’s had the property longer that? Sorry, no sympathy. According to one index I found, housing prices have had a CAGR of 5.4% for the last 50 years. You’re suing because you wanted 7%?

FOaD, billionaires.
Click to expand...

Lmao. We're running numbers of a very large project at work with a CAGR on sales of 5% for 10 years and we're getting side-eyed by a number of people. (The accountants, product teams. and sales dept keep pushing that 5%+ is realistic, the rest of us like our heads attached to our bodies so we're sticking with under 5% in our justifications.)
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Do... do they understand this might actually result in violence?
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is what they want. It would instantly validate the longstanding fascist narrative that all cities are full of violent, dangerous, woke minorities. Which would boost the case for martial law and federal intervention if Republicans regain power.

End the right. Don't even elect them to be dogcatchers.
 
the-daily-spleen-v0-73h1r0k2t8kb1.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top