SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

Good column by Jennifer Rubin about why the SCOTUS AA decicsion is probably not going to make much difference in practice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/02/affirmative-action-swallows-rule/

Speaking of Roberts:

"However, what he takes away with one hand he immediately gives back with the other: “At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Perhaps realizing the exception might swallow the rule (and usher in a flood of “Tell us something you had to overcome in your life” questions and clever college counselors to help craft replies), Roberts hastened to add that colleges shouldn’t try to do indirectly what the court doesn’t want them to do directly. But once again, his “limitation” will not stop determined admissions officials and savvy students:"

This is almost as though Roberts is virtue signalling to the conservative movement that "I'm here for you" while in reality leaving a loophole that admissions officers will drive a Mack truck through.

Edited July 3, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

this ****ing guy again

 

[smr-nj]

Of course. 🤬

[gehringer_2]

42 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Gentleman said:

this ****ing guy again

 

Who is going to tell him 'judical review'  of Congressional acts is not in the Constitution either.

Edited July 28, 2023 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

Wapo push notification is telling me that Clarence Thomas is claiming he flew on Harlands PJ for safety reasons after the Dobbs leak.

Oh OK chief lol

[CMRivdogs]

 

[romad1]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

Very interesting

[gehringer_2]

It took the IRS to get Capone on tax evasion, maybe they can do us the same favor with Clarence Thomas

Quote

The terms of the private loan were as generous as they were clear: With no money down, Justice Clarence Thomas could borrow more than a quarter of a million dollars from a wealthy friend to buy a 40-foot luxury motor coach, making annual interest-only payments for five years. Only then would the principal come due.

But despite the favorable nature of the 1999 loan and a lengthy extension to make good on his obligations, Justice Thomas failed to repay a “significant portion” — or perhaps any — of the $267,230 principal, according to a new report by Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee. Nearly nine years later, after Justice Thomas had made an unclear number of the interest payments, the outstanding debt was forgiven, an outcome with ethical and potential tax consequences for the justice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/us/politics/clarence-thomas-rv-loan-senate-inquiry.html

[smr-nj]

Crook. 
Will everyone continue to turn a blind eye?

[Jim Cowan]

Wait...after a long and highly-paid career, he doesn't have 250 grand of his own?

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

Wait...after a long and highly-paid career, he doesn't have 250 grand of his own?

First rule of ambition to enter the rarefied air of the 1%: "Never spend your own money when you can spend someone else's"

Edited October 26, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

First rule of ambition to enter the rarefied air of the 1%: "Never spend your own money when you can spend someone else's"

Ain’t it the truth. That’s kind of what John Salley once said: the more money you make, the more things you get for free.

[RatkoVarda]

Those who have, get.

[chasfh]

14 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

Those who have, get.

 

[Jim Cowan]

15 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

First rule of ambition to enter the rarefied air of the 1%: "Never spend your own money when you can spend someone else's"

Perhaps, but the point I was trying to make is that 250 grand is such a chicken**** amount of money for him to forfeit his integrity over.  If the loan was for 2 million I would understand it better.  I also think that your comment would apply better if he were exploiting someone by using their money, when in this case he is clearly the one being exploited.

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

Perhaps, but the point I was trying to make is that 250 grand is such a chicken**** amount of money for him to forfeit his integrity over.  If the loan was for 2 million I would understand it better.  I also think that your comment would apply better if he were exploiting someone by using their money, when in this case he is clearly the one being exploited.

I think it is less about the amount involved and its possible effect on his career, and more about his sense of entitlement to all favors large and small as a privilege of his position. He must honestly believe his lifetime appointment has made him bulletproof, so why not behave as such in all matters?

After all, if he were to take the amount of the loan in account in terms of the effect it would have on his career, he would be tacitly acknowledging that there is corruption at hand, and irrespective of whether he believes it does constitute corruption, to get past any sense of internal cognitive dissonance, he must behave as though it doesn't.

[Jim Cowan]

Roger Clemens once caused a disturbance at a golf course in Toronto, the kid behind the counter wanted him to pay $60 like everybody else, and he didn't think he should have to.  

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think it is less about the amount involved and its possible effect on his career, and more about his sense of entitlement to all favors large and small as a privilege of his position. He must honestly believe his lifetime appointment has made him bulletproof, so why not behave as such in all matters?

And I think the sense of entitlement is about a lot more than his appointment - it's about the perceived sense of grievance he carries about his life in general. If you followed Coleman Young at all he was very explicit about this, you couldn't shame him over what he considered to be petty corruptions of power, because "it's our turn now." I see this dynamic at work in Thomas in pretty much the same way, he just adds an an Ivy league gloss on his. And what the heck, maybe he should be aggrieved, but no society can ultimately accept that as a valid excuse to being unethical yourself. To take on moral leadership in society, and where is that more the case than a judgeship,  requires you to transcend your personal grievances, not play to your own lowest common denominator.

Edited October 26, 2023 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

This is rich:

In the spirit of the current approach among right wingers, they will announce the reform but not actually do anything about their conduct, figuring that simply announcing it will be good enough, that their MAGA supporters will parrot the line that they’ve reformed even though they haven’t, and that everyone else will get off their backs about their conduct. Let’s see how well that all works. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by chasfh

[CMRivdogs]

38 minutes ago, chasfh said:

This is rich:

In the spirit of the current approach among right wingers, they will announce the reform but not actually do anything about their conduct, figuring that simply announcing it will be good enough, that their MAGA supporters will parrot the line that they’ve reformed even though they haven’t, and that everyone else will get off their backs about their conduct. Let’s see how well that all works. 

Is this like the cheating spouse promising to do better next time?

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by CMRivdogs

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

Is this like the cheating spouse promising to do better next time?

 

"Rules" without an enforcement mechanism are not much more than invitations to hypocrisy.  Which is the main reason they've never existed before - how do you institute an enforcement regime against SCOTUS justices is not a trivial problem. Another one the Founders never anticipated as they certainly never imagined the appointment of SCOTUS members would devolve into partisan food fights over candidates that had no business to have been nominated in the first place.

[CMRivdogs]

38 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

"Rules" without an enforcement mechanism are not much more than invitations to hypocrisy.  Which is the main reason they've never existed before - how do you institute an enforcement regime against SCOTUS justices is not a trivial problem. Another one the Founders never anticipated as they certainly never imagined the appointment of SCOTUS members would devolve into partisan food fights over candidates that had no business to have been nominated in the first place.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary" James Madison, Federalist Papers

Unfortunately Madison and company never took human nature into account with their philosophies. Heck, they never even envisioned political parties. Since only the white male gentry was allowed to vote in 1787.

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary" James Madison, Federalist Papers

Unfortunately Madison and company never took human nature into account with their philosophies. Heck, they never even envisioned political parties. Since only the white male gentry was allowed to vote in 1787.

Men are not angels, so government is necessary. Angels do not govern men, so external and internal controls are necessary. 

[CMRivdogs]

I guess his wife's under the table grifting wasn't enough to pay the bills. Maybe just use a tent instead of an RV you couldn't afford

 

[Tiger337]

On 11/13/2023 at 2:31 PM, chasfh said:

This is rich:

In the spirit of the current approach among right wingers, they will announce the reform but not actually do anything about their conduct, figuring that simply announcing it will be good enough, that their MAGA supporters will parrot the line that they’ve reformed even though they haven’t, and that everyone else will get off their backs about their conduct. Let’s see how well that all works. 

To be fair, the MAGA leader, has never ever announced or even considered a code of conduct