- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:27 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Mickey wouldn’t post this if it wasn’t under a screen name. He is usually somewhat reasonable. Thomas really bothers him, clearly. It’s strange. What could it be about him?
Thomas really doesn't bother me. I don't give much thought to the SCOTUS honestly. I went to a speaking engagement that he participated in years ago and actually liked him.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:27 am to VOR
quote:
The relevant cases have not yet reached the Court, but his financial dealings have compromised him.
Which cases, specifically? And which financial dealings, specifically?
And if the cases have not reached the court, how can you allege he is compromised?
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:28 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I never said he broke any rules.
Yet you post this:
quote:
Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Are you making the allegation he violated 1.2 or not?
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:30 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Please report Mickey and VOR
I have no clue who they are and what they are doing isn’t likely anything the ODC would care about…at all. I just think it’s funny the flimsy accusations they use to indict Thomas are weaker than me saying they are violating a rule. Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:30 am to BBONDS25
All I'm saying is his financial disclosures were/are worth looking into. It obviously was needed as previously unknown connections to wealthy donors are now public knowledge as they should be.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:33 am to BBONDS25
quote:
have no clue who they are and what they are doing isn’t likely anything the ODC would care about…at all. I just think it’s funny the flimsy accusations they use to indict Thomas are weaker than me saying they are violating a rule.
Would have been a classic story on here. Look how mad he is about Thomas yet any dem who gets "gifts" he doesnt care to look at them
His source was from a far left rag that started Fix the Court cause he belived Anita and Blasely Ford
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:33 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
All I'm saying is his financial disclosures were/are worth looking into
Isn’t that precisely what the U.S Judicial conference, which is the subject of the OP, did? Yet here you are, I guess, insinuating…since you claim you aren’t making allegations.
Again, is amending a disclosure evidence of anything in any court anywhere? Or are you purposely engaging in deceitful conduct in your insinuations regarding a sitting Supreme Court justice?
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:35 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Would have been a classic story on here. Look how mad he is about Thomas yet any dem who gets "gifts" he doesnt care to look at them
His non-allegation allegation is about an “appearance of impropriety.” I’d love to see his posts about that rule regarding any of the Trump lawfare cases.
And what case or ruling led him to believe there is an appearance of impropriety?
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:38 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Isn’t that precisely what the U.S Judicial conference, which is the subject of the OP, did? Yet here you are, I guess, insinuating…since you claim you aren’t making allegations.
My initial post was more about the "Thomas Derangement Syndrome" line. It's as if anything regarding Thomas is a witch hunt when this "witch hunt" led to him amending his financial disclosures and led to the SCOTUS adopting new rules of professional conduct.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:38 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Don't y'all usually hate on 'bought and paid for' politicians? One would think y'all would care about potential bought and paid for judges/justices.
Absolutely.
As long as the standards are applied equally and to everyone, not just Democrats' political enemies.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:38 am to BBONDS25
This is a whole lot of nothing. Are these assholes on standby to post bullshite?
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:40 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Absolutely.
As long as the standards are applied equally and to everyone, not just Democrats' political enemies.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:42 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
This is weird timing by the left. Let's say they put enough pressure on Thomas to resign, Trump will just appoint his replacement. In fact, it's likely that this will happen during Trump's 2nd term anyway because Thomas is likely to retire. So is Alito. The wildcard is Type 1 diabetic Sotomayor. The average lifespan of female type 1 diabetics is 68 years. Sonia is 70. But since she is receiving the best healthcare in the world she will likely make it past Trump's second term as she falls within the right side tail of the type 1 diabetic normal distribution curve.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:42 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Gabe Roth is a left-of-center judicial policy activist who is runs Fix the Court (FTC), an organization formerly part of the Arabella Advisors network of liberal advocacy groups founded in 2014 to secure liberal control of the United States Supreme Court.
Roth has a master’s in journalism, and his initial work experience was as a local TV reporter and producer in Florida. He has also worked as a communications officer for the State of New York, and the public relations firms Glover Park Group and Rubenstein. Roth later joined the high-powered left-of-center media and communications consultancy SKDKnickerbocker (SKDK). Working alongside liberal operatives personalities Stefan Friedman and Hilary Rosen, SKDK provided media services to several major left-of-center organizations, including the Obama Foundation, Sixteen Thirty Fund, New Venture Fund, and Arabella Advisors.
This post was edited on 1/3/25 at 8:43 am
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:51 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It's as if anything regarding Thomas is a witch hunt
Well, you know why.
The Anita Hill nonsense was the original Brett Kavanaugh set-up.
Why Anita Hill's Story Never Added Up
When they've gone after you falsely once, that perception tends to stick.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:52 am to texag7
A Sorosite invited his neighbor over for a beer. When the neighbor entered the house he gasped when he saw that there was human shite everywhere and the house smelled like a sewer.
The Sorosite looked at his neighbor with an accusatory expression and said,”damn, dude, did you just fart?!”
Identify a Sorosite, isolate them, then eradicate them!
The Sorosite looked at his neighbor with an accusatory expression and said,”damn, dude, did you just fart?!”
Identify a Sorosite, isolate them, then eradicate them!
This post was edited on 1/3/25 at 8:55 am
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:55 am to Tigerinthewoods
Ya mind not continuously posting about killing Americans, please?
Posted on 1/3/25 at 8:59 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It's as if anything regarding Thomas is a witch hunt when this "witch hunt" led to him amending his financial disclosures and led to the SCOTUS adopting new rules of professional conduct.
Make your allegation. I’ve asked several times and you have avoided. Is amending a disclosure evidence of anything I. Any court of law anywhere?
Also…what is the specific “gift” that was the subject of the amended disclosure. Was it a gift as defined by the Tax Code or was it a more lenient definition used by political enemies? Was the amended disclosure required by any specific code? If so, which? Can you think of another reason, besides something nefarious, that might cause Thomas to decide to amend the disclosure?
Of course you know I am correct, yet you deceitfully insinuate in an attempt to smear a sitting justice.
This post was edited on 1/3/25 at 9:04 am
Posted on 1/3/25 at 9:10 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Make your allegation. I’ve asked several times and you have avoided. Is amending a disclosure evidence of anything I. Any court of law anywhere?
Because I'm not making an allegation. Investigating something does not mean an allegation is being made.
quote:
Also…what is the specific “gift” that was the subject of the amended disclosure.
quote:
VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EXPLANATIONS. (Indicate part of report.)During the preparation and filing of this report, filer sought and received guidance from his accountant and ethics counsel.Consistent with the review of prior filings that the filer began last year, report for calendar year 2019 is hereby amended to include the following entries under thereimbursement section, which was inadvertently omitted at the time of filing:
Source: Harlan & Kathy Crow Dates: July 12, 2019 Location: Bali, Indonesia Purpose: Guests of Source Items Paid or Provided: Food and Lodging atHotel
Source: Harlan Crow Dates: July 18-21, 2019 Location: Monte Rio, CA Purpose: Guest of Source Items Paid or Provided: Food and Lodging atPrivate ClubPart VII, lines 3 and 4 - Asset description changed to reflect the allocation during the covered period as detailed by the insurance agent.
He made those amendments after the were publicly reported.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News