TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

---

Which cases? Which cases currently before the court do you see a conflict of interest, for which judge?

None of the examples you have given today have cast a shadow on the standard.

---

What standard? There is none.

There doesn't have to be any current cases. It's about the appearance of impropriety. " Crow has long been an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics. He has given millions to efforts to move the law and the judiciary to the right and serves on the boards of think tanks that publish scholarship advancing conservative legal theories." (Posted article)

---

So a SCOTUS justice can have friends, just not influential friends who are active in civic affairs. Would look so terrible if they were to, you know, like have served in a cabinet of a partisan administration. Why, look at all the potential conflicts which might arise.

You are aware that a great many judges in this country at state level are elected, are you not?

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

---

Which cases? Which cases currently before the court do you see a conflict of interest, for which judge?

None of the examples you have given today have cast a shadow on the standard.

---

What standard? There is none.

There doesn't have to be any current cases. It's about the appearance of impropriety. " Crow has long been an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics. He has given millions to efforts to move the law and the judiciary to the right and serves on the boards of think tanks that publish scholarship advancing conservative legal theories." (Posted article)

---

So a SCOTUS justice can have friends, just not influential friends who are active in civic affairs. Would look so terrible if they were to, you know, like have served in a cabinet of a partisan administration. Why, look at all the potential conflicts which might arise.

You are aware that a great many judges in this country at state level are elected, are you not?

---

It's not friendships. It is payment of large sums of money and/or gifts of large sums of money from anyone, including so-called 'friends', to the benefit of a sitting judge/justice. Why do you want to hold the SC to a lesser standard than we hold federal judges and congressmen?

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

---

Which cases? Which cases currently before the court do you see a conflict of interest, for which judge?

None of the examples you have given today have cast a shadow on the standard.

---

What standard? There is none.

There doesn't have to be any current cases. It's about the appearance of impropriety. " Crow has long been an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics. He has given millions to efforts to move the law and the judiciary to the right and serves on the boards of think tanks that publish scholarship advancing conservative legal theories." (Posted article)

---

If, as you say, there is no standard why are you picking on the black judge as your example to campaign for a standard?

You've been on these boards for years and the lack of a standard has existed for years? So how is this different?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

---

Which cases? Which cases currently before the court do you see a conflict of interest, for which judge?

None of the examples you have given today have cast a shadow on the standard.

---

What standard? There is none.

There doesn't have to be any current cases. It's about the appearance of impropriety. " Crow has long been an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics. He has given millions to efforts to move the law and the judiciary to the right and serves on the boards of think tanks that publish scholarship advancing conservative legal theories." (Posted article)

---

If, as you say, there is no standard why are you picking on the black judge as your example to campaign for a standard?

You've been on these boards for years and the lack of a standard has existed for years? So how is this different?

---

I'm picking on Alito, and Sotomayor also.

It hasn't come to light until now that justices have been on the take receiving thousands of dollars in gifts, and personal benefits.

Tex said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.


Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

---

Which cases? Which cases currently before the court do you see a conflict of interest, for which judge?

None of the examples you have given today have cast a shadow on the standard.

---

What standard? There is none.

There doesn't have to be any current cases. It's about the appearance of impropriety. " Crow has long been an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics. He has given millions to efforts to move the law and the judiciary to the right and serves on the boards of think tanks that publish scholarship advancing conservative legal theories." (Posted article)

---

So a SCOTUS justice can have friends, just not influential friends who are active in civic affairs. Would look so terrible if they were to, you know, like have served in a cabinet of a partisan administration. Why, look at all the potential conflicts which might arise.

You are aware that a great many judges in this country at state level are elected, are you not?

---

It's not friendships. It is payment of large sums of money and/or gifts of large sums of money from anyone, including so-called 'friends', to the benefit of a sitting judge/justice. Why do you want to hold the SC to a lesser standard than we hold federal judges and congressmen?

---

Sigh. There is not a single shred of evidence that large sums of monies have been paid to a SCOTUS justice.
Not. One.

Taking a ride on a private plane owned by a person who does not have business before the court is not an ethical matter.

All you have is smear. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?

Sigh. Large sums of money were expended for his benefit. Vacations, tuition, real estate purchases for his mother, payments of cash to his wife. Come on. You would be livid if Sotomayor had done the same. And yes, the group that Crow sits on has an interest in the outcome of some of the cases before the court. It's not much of a leap to get to a kickback.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sigh. Large sums of money were expended for his benefit. Vacations, tuition, real estate purchases for his mother, payments of cash to his wife. Come on. You would be livid if Sotomayor had done the same. And yes, the group that Crow sits on has an interest in the outcome of some of the cases before the court. It's not much of a leap to get to a kickback.

---

Stupefying, sophomoric argument, premised on a definition of "interest before the court" that is so broad as to include everyone in the country on everything, which of course would require all SCOTUS justices to recuse themselves from every case.

The sale of a property which allows the seller a life estate is a common transaction of value to the buyer (who perceives a capital gain in the future) and seller (who accesses the wealth of an asset without losing use of it), not any elected officials in the seller's family. it generates retirement income for the seller, not her family. By your logic, if she'd taken out a reverse mortgage, Thomas would had to recuse himself from all banking-related cases. To prove graft in such a transaction, one would normally need to prove that the amounts paid for the property far exceeded the value of it. No one has made that claim, likely because Crow stands to profit from it (which of course undermines the needed narrative.)

By your logic, a SCOTUS justice may only socialize with the poor as anyone else might have an interest before the court somewhere in the next 3-4 decades.
By your logic, a SCOTUS justice may only vacation with the poor, or alone, as anyone else might have an interest before the court somewhere in the next 3-4 decades.
By your logic, any scholarship extended to extended familial relations creates a conflict of interest.


I guarantee you Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer have all done similar things. We're just not hearing about it because they're safe from such scrutiny.

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sigh. Large sums of money were expended for his benefit. Vacations, tuition, real estate purchases for his mother, payments of cash to his wife. Come on. You would be livid if Sotomayor had done the same. And yes, the group that Crow sits on has an interest in the outcome of some of the cases before the court. It's not much of a leap to get to a kickback.

---

Stupefying, sophomoric argument, premised on a definition of "interest before the court" that is so broad as to include everyone in the country on everything, which of course would require all SCOTUS justices to recuse themselves from every case.

The sale of a property which allows the seller a life estate is a common transaction of value to the buyer (who perceives a capital gain in the future) and seller (who accesses the wealth of an asset without losing use of it), not any elected officials in the seller's family. it generates retirement income for the seller, not her family. By your logic, if she'd taken out a reverse mortgage, Thomas would had to recuse himself from all banking-related cases. To prove graft in such a transaction, one would normally need to prove that the amounts paid for the property far exceeded the value of it. No one has made that claim, likely because Crow stands to profit from it (which of course undermines the needed narrative.)

By your logic, a SCOTUS justice may only socialize with the poor as anyone else might have an interest before the court somewhere in the next 3-4 decades.
By your logic, a SCOTUS justice may only vacation with the poor, or alone, as anyone else might have an interest before the court somewhere in the next 3-4 decades.
By your logic, any scholarship extended to extended familial relations creates a conflict of interest.


I guarantee you Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer have all done similar things. We're just not hearing about it because they're safe from such scrutiny.

---

By your logic the current ethics for federal judges and congressmen are too strict. Those rules were put in place in part for prior abuses. Sotomayor, Kalgan, and Breyer should be held accountable also. Why do you excuse unethical behavior on the grounds that others have gotten away with it?

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

TexasScientist said:

---

You would be livid if Sotomayor had done the same.

---

Anything that can change Sotomayor's vote is a net plus in my book.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sigh. Large sums of money were expended for his benefit. Vacations, tuition, real estate purchases for his mother, payments of cash to his wife. Come on. You would be livid if Sotomayor had done the same. And yes, the group that Crow sits on has an interest in the outcome of some of the cases before the court. It's not much of a leap to get to a kickback.

---

Stupefying, sophomoric argument, premised on a definition of "interest before the court" that is so broad as to include everyone in the country on everything, which of course would require all SCOTUS justices to recuse themselves from every case.

The sale of a property which allows the seller a life estate is a common transaction of value to the buyer (who perceives a capital gain in the future) and seller (who accesses the wealth of an asset without losing use of it), not any elected officials in the seller's family. it generates retirement income for the seller, not her family. By your logic, if she'd taken out a reverse mortgage, Thomas would had to recuse himself from all banking-related cases. To prove graft in such a transaction, one would normally need to prove that the amounts paid for the property far exceeded the value of it. No one has made that claim, likely because Crow stands to profit from it (which of course undermines the needed narrative.)

By your logic, a SCOTUS justice may only socialize with the poor as anyone else might have an interest before the court somewhere in the next 3-4 decades.
By your logic, a SCOTUS justice may only vacation with the poor, or alone, as anyone else might have an interest before the court somewhere in the next 3-4 decades.
By your logic, any scholarship extended to extended familial relations creates a conflict of interest.


I guarantee you Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer have all done similar things. We're just not hearing about it because they're safe from such scrutiny.

---

By your logic the current ethics for federal judges and congressmen are too strict. Those rules were put in place in part for prior abuses. Sotomayor, Kalgan, and Breyer should be held accountable also. Why do you excuse unethical behavior on the grounds that others have gotten away with it?

---

No, the transactions did not infringe up on existing ethical standards.

You can keep making the allegations all you want, but it doesn't change the facts, which do not remotely support your allegations.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

what do you mean to whose benefit? The benefit was to the kid(do you think it benefited me when I sent my kids to private school?!), the benefit was to the lady who owned the house(Do you think it benefited me when my dad sold his house?!), the benefit was to the person who did the work. Do you think if I paid my plumber to come over and do plumbing work at my house that his wife benefited? Of course she did because he brought money home from work Like any other spouse with a paycheck.. Such a moronic question.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

You would be livid if Sotomayor had done the same.

---

Anything that can change Sotomayor's vote is a net plus in my book.

---

I hear you, but in prinicple, I dont' think you reall mean that.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

You would be livid if Sotomayor had done the same.

---

Anything that can change Sotomayor's vote is a net plus in my book.

---

I hear you, but in prinicple, I dont' think you reall mean that.

---

Yeah, kinda joking!

ETA: Although, I don't think I would be outraged if Sotomayor did the same.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

what do you mean to whose benefit? The benefit was to the kid(do you think it benefited me when I sent my kids to private school?!), the benefit was to the lady who owned the house(Do you think it benefited me when my dad sold his house?!), the benefit was to the person who did the work. Do you think if I paid my plumber to come over and do plumbing work at my house that his wife benefited? Of course she did because he brought money home from work Like any other spouse with a paycheck.. Such a moronic question.

---

Your limited view of benefit would not excuse a federal judge who did the same. It's the amount of money. If your plumber's wife were a sitting federal judge, and you paid her plumber husband for working on your house by giving him a paid vaction for two to Europe, it would be a violation. What you're saying is you don't want those holding positions of public trust to be held to a high level of ethical standards - You should like Mexico and the third world.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

what do you mean to whose benefit? The benefit was to the kid(do you think it benefited me when I sent my kids to private school?!), the benefit was to the lady who owned the house(Do you think it benefited me when my dad sold his house?!), the benefit was to the person who did the work. Do you think if I paid my plumber to come over and do plumbing work at my house that his wife benefited? Of course she did because he brought money home from work Like any other spouse with a paycheck.. Such a moronic question.

---

You're limited view of benefit would not excuse a federal judge who did the same. It's the amount of money. If your plumber's wife were sitting federal judge, and you paid her plumber husband for working on your house by giving him a paid vaction for two to Europe, it would be a violation. What you're saying is you don't want those holding positions of public trust to be held to a high level of ethical standards - You should like Mexico and the third world.

---

lol. You are arguing stuff that was previously covered as if it wasnt. You are creating arguments about things that arent being argued. You are a circle. I am out, enjoy your merry go round ride.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

what do you mean to whose benefit? The benefit was to the kid(do you think it benefited me when I sent my kids to private school?!), the benefit was to the lady who owned the house(Do you think it benefited me when my dad sold his house?!), the benefit was to the person who did the work. Do you think if I paid my plumber to come over and do plumbing work at my house that his wife benefited? Of course she did because he brought money home from work Like any other spouse with a paycheck.. Such a moronic question.

---

Your limited view of benefit would not excuse a federal judge who did the same. It's the amount of money. If your plumber's wife were a sitting federal judge, and you paid her plumber husband for working on your house by giving him a paid vaction for two to Europe, it would be a violation. What you're saying is you don't want those holding positions of public trust to be held to a high level of ethical standards - You should like Mexico and the third world.

---

lol. You are arguing stuff that was previously covered as if it wasnt. You are creating arguments about things that arent being argued. You are a circle. I am out, enjoy your merry go round ride.

---

At the very minimum, it's about the appearnce of impropriety.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

what do you mean to whose benefit? The benefit was to the kid(do you think it benefited me when I sent my kids to private school?!), the benefit was to the lady who owned the house(Do you think it benefited me when my dad sold his house?!), the benefit was to the person who did the work. Do you think if I paid my plumber to come over and do plumbing work at my house that his wife benefited? Of course she did because he brought money home from work Like any other spouse with a paycheck.. Such a moronic question.

---

Your limited view of benefit would not excuse a federal judge who did the same. It's the amount of money. If your plumber's wife were a sitting federal judge, and you paid her plumber husband for working on your house by giving him a paid vaction for two to Europe, it would be a violation. What you're saying is you don't want those holding positions of public trust to be held to a high level of ethical standards - You should like Mexico and the third world.

---

lol. You are arguing stuff that was previously covered as if it wasnt. You are creating arguments about things that arent being argued. You are a circle. I am out, enjoy your merry go round ride.

---

At the very minimum, it's about the appearnce of impropriety.

---

Can you roll your window down sir? Your license sir

Mr Scientist, I pulled you over because you appeared to be speeding.

That's right sir, appeared.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

You should be lobbying congress to change the rules and not whinnying about someone appearing to not follow rules that don't approve them in the first place.

This fall, when Richard Reese runs up the middle for 25 yards and he doesn't dribble the ball, nobody will be expecting a travel call.

If there is a travel call, we'll all know it's BS-similar to your claims here.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

what do you mean to whose benefit? The benefit was to the kid(do you think it benefited me when I sent my kids to private school?!), the benefit was to the lady who owned the house(Do you think it benefited me when my dad sold his house?!), the benefit was to the person who did the work. Do you think if I paid my plumber to come over and do plumbing work at my house that his wife benefited? Of course she did because he brought money home from work Like any other spouse with a paycheck.. Such a moronic question.

---

Your limited view of benefit would not excuse a federal judge who did the same. It's the amount of money. If your plumber's wife were a sitting federal judge, and you paid her plumber husband for working on your house by giving him a paid vaction for two to Europe, it would be a violation. What you're saying is you don't want those holding positions of public trust to be held to a high level of ethical standards - You should like Mexico and the third world.

---

lol. You are arguing stuff that was previously covered as if it wasnt. You are creating arguments about things that arent being argued. You are a circle. I am out, enjoy your merry go round ride.

---

At the very minimum, it's about the appearnce of impropriety.

---

Can you roll your window down sir? Your license sir

Mr Scientist, I pulled you over because you appeared to be speeding.

That's right sir, appeared.

---

Or appeared to be under the influence.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

You should be lobbying congress to change the rules and not whinnying about someone appearing to not follow rules that don't approve them in the first place.

This fall, when Richard Reese runs up the middle for 25 yards and he doesn't dribble the ball, nobody will be expecting a travel call.

If there is a travel call, we'll all know it's BS-similar to your claims here.

---

I'm glad you recognize there should be eithical standards for the SC.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

what do you mean to whose benefit? The benefit was to the kid(do you think it benefited me when I sent my kids to private school?!), the benefit was to the lady who owned the house(Do you think it benefited me when my dad sold his house?!), the benefit was to the person who did the work. Do you think if I paid my plumber to come over and do plumbing work at my house that his wife benefited? Of course she did because he brought money home from work Like any other spouse with a paycheck.. Such a moronic question.

---

Your limited view of benefit would not excuse a federal judge who did the same. It's the amount of money. If your plumber's wife were a sitting federal judge, and you paid her plumber husband for working on your house by giving him a paid vaction for two to Europe, it would be a violation. What you're saying is you don't want those holding positions of public trust to be held to a high level of ethical standards - You should like Mexico and the third world.

---

lol. You are arguing stuff that was previously covered as if it wasnt. You are creating arguments about things that arent being argued. You are a circle. I am out, enjoy your merry go round ride.

---

At the very minimum, it's about the appearnce of impropriety.

---

Can you roll your window down sir? Your license sir

Mr Scientist, I pulled you over because you appeared to be speeding.

That's right sir, appeared.

---

Or appeared to be under the influence.

---

Well that would explain some of your reasoning.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

You should be lobbying congress to change the rules and not whinnying about someone appearing to not follow rules that don't approve them in the first place.

This fall, when Richard Reese runs up the middle for 25 yards and he doesn't dribble the ball, nobody will be expecting a travel call.

If there is a travel call, we'll all know it's BS-similar to your claims here.

---

I'm glad you recognize there should be eithical standards for the SC.

---

That's why there is an impeachment process.

So why do you keep lobbying a message board. Direct your efforts towards congress.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

You should be lobbying congress to change the rules and not whinnying about someone appearing to not follow rules that don't approve them in the first place.

This fall, when Richard Reese runs up the middle for 25 yards and he doesn't dribble the ball, nobody will be expecting a travel call.

If there is a travel call, we'll all know it's BS-similar to your claims here.

---

I'm glad you recognize there should be eithical standards for the SC.

---

That's why there is an impeachment process.

So why do you keep lobbying a message board. Direct your efforts towards congress.

---

he just wants to tell you his feels and let you validate them..

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

You should be lobbying congress to change the rules and not whinnying about someone appearing to not follow rules that don't approve them in the first place.

This fall, when Richard Reese runs up the middle for 25 yards and he doesn't dribble the ball, nobody will be expecting a travel call.

If there is a travel call, we'll all know it's BS-similar to your claims here.

---

I'm glad you recognize there should be eithical standards for the SC.

---

That's why there is an impeachment process.

So why do you keep lobbying a message board. Direct your efforts towards congress.

---

There is one for federal judges also. Is that alone enough? You can always vote an unlawful congressman out of office. Is that sufficient. Let's just do away with ethics, graft and anti corruption laws?

The same reasons you post on this board.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

You continue to push things that don't make any sense to a rational person. Justice Thomas did not benefit from the kid having a school tuition paid for by another person. The kid benefited. Just as Thomas would not have had to pay that tuition if Crowe didn't, the kid could've gone to another school including a free public one.

The only thing that you have ever said that could actually be construed as a benefit was things that actually affected Thomas like the vacation. I'm not saying that they are or are not permissible benefits but the school tuition, his mom selling her house, and the money paid to his wife for work did she did is nonsensical when looked at rationally.