No supposed campaign against the court's legitimacy would gain traction without the kinds of violations engaged in by Clarence.
Federal judge calls out judicial panel’s handling of 2011 ethics complaints against Clarence Thomas Leaders of the policy-making body for the federal courts repeatedly failed to inform its full membership of complaints raised by lawmakers and watchdog groups about Justice Clarence Thomas’ pattern of nondisclosure on his financial reports more than 10 years ago, a sitting federal judge testified to a Senate panel on Wednesday. In 2011, the Judicial Conference received a number of complaints from lawmakers and watchdog groups about Thomas after media reports revealed that he failed to disclose income his wife earned between 1998 and 2003 from The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The complaints asked the conference to refer the matter to the US attorney general to probe whether the justice’s behavior ran afoul of a federal ethics law. Thomas quickly amended his reports when the allegations were brought to his attention, leading the body to conclude that no further action was needed. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics/judicial-conference-clarence-thomas-mark-wolf/index.html It's been a pattern for years.
No one has used the errors to attack her. Indeed, they have been ignored because she holds "the right kind" of views.
Of course it would in a press/media community inclined to oppose Thomas. His actions were not unusual; the coverage was.
Democrats are learning that what goes around comes around. The Democrats' Latest Effort To Pack the Supreme Court Washington Examiner Many Democratic leaders just won't give up their nefarious court packing schemes. They also keep repeating flagrant falsehoods to support the... Read More
Actually, that's what the Republicans have been doing. Read the linked article to refresh your memory.
You guys were fine with Trump's daughter and his son-in-law getting millions from foreign sources even while they were themselves in office. So spare us the fake outrage.
Where's the evidence that no business was being conducted? If you are going to claim a difference, then actually show a difference.
The idea that negatives cannot be proven is, itself, fallacious. Everyone who has taken Logic 101 has proven a negative. But I appreciate your confession that you have no basis for your claim. You've admitted that your claim is entirely baseless. I will dismiss it accordingly. Feel free to introduce your claim again when you are capable of substantiating it, which you've admitted that so far you can't.
That's adorable. You've admitted that you have no evidence of your claim and that you don't even think it is possible for you to do so, and you try to project the impotence of your position onto others. So cute. Actually defend your position. Bet you can't do it . . . and you've already confessed that you can't. Until you can actually support your claim, it isn't deserving of debate. It is, by your own admission, a completely baseless emote. I will treat it accordingly. The flaccidness of your "argument" is not my responsibility.
You've already admitted that your own position is entirely made up with no evidence behind it. Trump is a pedophile. Prove me wrong. If you can't prove me wrong, then that is proof I'm right . . . at least according to you. I prefer being more rational and honest than that and I don't think that your inability to prove that Trump isn't a pedophile is proof that he is a pedophile. And, frankly, you don't actually believe that **** either. You are just making it up and getting upset when asked for evidence that you lack the willingness or ability to provide. Sorry, I'm not responsible for the intellectual dishonesty of others.
You literally admitted you had no evidence for your claim. Sorry, but that makes it entirely made up. And you know it. Lol.
Another post. Another failure to provide evidence. Another admission (which you've explicitly made before) that you have no evidence. Stamping your feet and crying that I know you are right is a pathetic excuse for continuing to fail at intellectual honesty.
I'd prefer actual evidence over, "bro . . . lol," but I can understand, given your previous claims, that your standards are far lower. I'm sorry you are upset that I care about evidence. I'm sorry that you are upset that you, by your own admission, have none.