More evidence for the need of an ethics board to govern the SC.

Yes, it does.

 

Nope. Mitch is the one person who said the same thing from first to last.

 

No, it does not. Why should Justice Thomas resign?

 

Not even close. Utter hypocrisy. He used two completely opposite justifications for Bart O'Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett's husband.

 

Does the word "ethics" mean anything to you?

 

Nope.

 

Yes.

Why should Justice Thomas resign?

 

McTreason's warning about the filibuster essentially amounted to him saying, "if you (Dems) do something about my historic abuse of power by using the filibuster to block even non-controversial Obama nominees for the lower courts (a conservative make-over of the judiciary long having been McTurtle's wet dream) I promise to abuse my power even more egregiously by ending the filibuster for SC nominees (to fulfill my wet dream of a conservative make-over of the judiciary).
History will record Mitch has abused his power to thwart the will of the majority many times over the years. He's prevented popular legislation on gun control, the environment, civil rights, and immigration reform from passage. He gleefully nicknamed himself the "grim reaper" for his ability to kill any of the bills sent to the Senate by the Dem controlled House. He's probably done more to stymie the people's agenda than any other member of Congress in history.

“When Democrats next have power, we should be bold and clear: We’re done with two sets of rules — one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats,” Warren says in advance text of a Friday speech to the National Action Network obtained by CNN. “And that means when Democrats have the White House again, if Mitch McConnell tries to do what he did to President Obama and puts small-minded partisanship ahead of solving the massive problems facing this country, then we should get rid of the filibuster.”
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/5/18241447/filibuster-reform-explained-warren-booker-sanders

 

Who Is Behind Coordinated Attacks on High Court?
Mollie Hemingway, FOX News

 

Congress doesn't have the Constitutional Authority to impose an ethics board on the Supreme Court, but, they do have the authority to end Insider Trading by Congress, and they should.

SCOTUS has ruled against the wishes of the hard left on 2A, Abortion, and soon, on racist college admissions, so, too many of the Hard Left in league with the lying mainstream media, are attacking the Court, though, without assassin's this time.

The Left-Wing Assault on the Supreme Court

'Republican nominees receive invasive exams from the media and get accused of everything from sexual harassment (Thomas) to gang rape (Kavanaugh) to Catholicism (Barrett).'

 

What attacks?

 

Senate Judiciary chair says ‘everything is on the table’ in response to Clarence Thomas revelations

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin said Sunday that “everything is on the table” as the panel scrutinizes new ethics concerns around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“The bottom line is this: Everything is on the table. Day after day, week after week, more and more disclosures about Justice Thomas – we cannot ignore them,” the Illinois Democrat told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

“The thing we’re going to do first, obviously, is to gather the evidence, the information that we need to draw our conclusions. I’m not ruling out anything,” he added.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/07/politics/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-harlan-crow/

Something needs to be done.

 

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: It's obviously not just an effort by the media, but a larger effort by the left to delegitimize the Supreme Court. Thhey feel this is the one instutiton that they haven't captured, they're upset that some decisions have not gone their way and they're trying to bully.

What's interesting about these stories is they sort of allege something nefarious without explaining what the nefarious thing is, and so there's no crime involved. They'll say we wish that the rules were different so that he would have had to disclose this thing that he didn't have to disclose according to the rules. I'm very interested in who's organizing this concerted effort. You've got multiple media companies, it's all a very well-laid-out PR strategy, that would be that would good for the media to look into, who's running this organized effort to take on the court? . . . .

 

Willful blindness is the worst kind.

 

You just gave the short answer. Ethics mean something.

 

Right.

Why should Justice Thomas resign?

 

You do realize that Uncle Clarence is doing unethical ****, right?

 

That's what you say.

Unethical like what?

 

Justices Must Disclose Travel and Gifts Under New Rules
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/...tion=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

Will Clarence comply? He hasn't complied with the rules up to now. And he knows nothing will be done if he doesn't, especially by John Roberts, to whom I'd like to say.........

 

From the link in #259:
What's interesting about these stories is they sort of allege something nefarious without explaining what the nefarious thing is, and so there's no crime involved. They'll say we wish that the rules were different so that he would have had to disclose this thing that he didn't have to disclose according to the rules.

 

Thomas broke the rules and the law. So there's that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Tho...#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:89169ff4,vid:aK4qdq6zuAY

 

Nope.

 

You do realize that making racist posts on internet forums while complaining about ethics is an oxymoron, right?

 

As Sir John Geilgud said of the hooker in "Arthur," you have a marvelous economy of words. But you're still wrong.

 

Left Pursues Dishonest Campaign to Discredit Supreme ...

The Washington Stand
https://washingtonstand.com › commentary › left-purs...


3 days ago — ... of the allegedly unethical behavior appears perfectly innocent. ... Crow and Clarence Thomas once conspired to aid a penniless widow.

". . . The court reviewed these details because, it turns out, all the juicy ethics violations “discovered” by left-wing investigations weren’t hidden because they didn’t actually violate the ethics rules. In fact, many of the mudslinging claims have been directly refuted — ProPublica’s here, here, and here, Politico’s here and here, and NYT’s here and here (The Washington Post story was only published yesterday, but here is a refutation from last month of similar allegations against Ginni Thomas made in The Washington Post). The claims of ethical breaches are manufactured and disproven. . . ."