RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/11/2013 8:02:28 AM

thishereboi

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Seriously? Are you saying the people I mentioned aren't conservatives? Are you saying the people I mentioned are "tokens?"

yes.

I'm just going to go ahead and figure you can't see how racist that answer is.

Pointing out reality is not racist. It is just "I have a black friend" again.

I see your point. It's like the ones who claim they don't hate republicans because some of their friends are on the right side and yet spew venom at them on a daily basis. Thanks for clearing that up.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert

This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 101

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/11/2013 10:57:35 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You are willing to denigrate thomas's accomplishments solely because he is conservative. I don't know what the liberal equivalent of being a nazi is - but being willing to denigrate someone solely based on political values is pretty close.

No, I despise Thomas because he is corrupt and has used a position of national trust to enrich himself to the detriment of the rest of us. It's the same reason I despise Scalia.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 102

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/11/2013 12:10:04 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You are willing to denigrate thomas's accomplishments solely because he is conservative. I don't know what the liberal equivalent of being a nazi is - but being willing to denigrate someone solely based on political values is pretty close.

No, I despise Thomas because he is corrupt and has used a position of national trust to enrich himself to the detriment of the rest of us. It's the same reason I despise Scalia.

Corrupt? How so? You're saying he sells supreme court votes?
Do you have any evidence of these accusations you bandy so easily?

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 103

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/11/2013 2:31:24 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You are willing to denigrate thomas's accomplishments solely because he is conservative. I don't know what the liberal equivalent of being a nazi is - but being willing to denigrate someone solely based on political values is pretty close.

No, I despise Thomas because he is corrupt and has used a position of national trust to enrich himself to the detriment of the rest of us. It's the same reason I despise Scalia.

Corrupt? How so? You're saying he sells supreme court votes?
Do you have any evidence of these accusations you bandy so easily?

Yes, he has at the very least given the impression his vote is for sale.

The evidence is that he has never recused himself from votes that would economically affect him through his wife's business dealings.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 104

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/11/2013 9:03:35 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You are willing to denigrate thomas's accomplishments solely because he is conservative. I don't know what the liberal equivalent of being a nazi is - but being willing to denigrate someone solely based on political values is pretty close.

No, I despise Thomas because he is corrupt and has used a position of national trust to enrich himself to the detriment of the rest of us. It's the same reason I despise Scalia.

Corrupt? How so? You're saying he sells supreme court votes?
Do you have any evidence of these accusations you bandy so easily?

Yes, he has at the very least given the impression his vote is for sale.

The evidence is that he has never recused himself from votes that would economically affect him through his wife's business dealings.

So thats a no.

As I thought. Disparaging comment, absent evidence.

Now you'll go dig up some far left hit piece and claim it supports your viewpoint.

For curiousity: can you cite ANY supreme court justice that has recused themselves in the last 20 years for their wives economic interests? Even if you can name one or two - why is it that you only consider thomas corrupt?

Partisan hack. I can't stand Kagan's rulings - but I wouldn't dispute her worth ethic or legal mind.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 105

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/11/2013 9:59:34 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
For curiousity: can you cite ANY supreme court justice that has recused themselves in the last 20 years for their wives economic interests? Even if you can name one or two - why is it that you only consider thomas corrupt?

Partisan hack. I can't stand Kagan's rulings - but I wouldn't dispute her worth ethic or legal mind.

I can't find any evidence that any spouse of any SCOTUS justice except Thomas has had a spouse who worked at all. And certainly none but Thomas lied on a decades worth of financial disclosure forms and had a spouse professionally involved in opposing a law that came before the court.

As to Thomas' work ethic and mind, he writes almost no opinions and hasn't asked a question in oral arguments in at least 7 years. Questioning his preparedness and his involvement seems entirely justified.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 11/11/2013 10:00:11 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 106

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/11/2013 10:15:04 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
For curiousity: can you cite ANY supreme court justice that has recused themselves in the last 20 years for their wives economic interests? Even if you can name one or two - why is it that you only consider thomas corrupt?

Partisan hack. I can't stand Kagan's rulings - but I wouldn't dispute her worth ethic or legal mind.

I can't find any evidence that any spouse of any SCOTUS justice except Thomas has had a spouse who worked at all. And certainly none but Thomas lied on a decades worth of financial disclosure forms and had a spouse professionally involved in opposing a law that came before the court.

As to Thomas' work ethic and mind, he writes almost no opinions and hasn't asked a question in oral arguments in at least 7 years. Questioning his preparedness and his involvement seems entirely justified.

You're ill informed. Clarence asked one last session. You would question his preparedness and involvment if he was the most garrulous member of Scotus. Unless you have some evidence that questions are measure of preparedness?

I thought not.

As for Scotus spouses working - really?

So for grins, and giggles. Whats the standard for recusing yourself?

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 107

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/11/2013 10:55:28 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
For curiousity: can you cite ANY supreme court justice that has recused themselves in the last 20 years for their wives economic interests? Even if you can name one or two - why is it that you only consider thomas corrupt?

Partisan hack. I can't stand Kagan's rulings - but I wouldn't dispute her worth ethic or legal mind.

I can't find any evidence that any spouse of any SCOTUS justice except Thomas has had a spouse who worked at all. And certainly none but Thomas lied on a decades worth of financial disclosure forms and had a spouse professionally involved in opposing a law that came before the court.

As to Thomas' work ethic and mind, he writes almost no opinions and hasn't asked a question in oral arguments in at least 7 years. Questioning his preparedness and his involvement seems entirely justified.

You're ill informed. Clarence asked one last session.

No, he did not. He mumbled something that no one understood but since he chuckled it was apparently some kind of joke. The lawyer speaking at the time did not respond which no lawyer would ever do when asked a question by a justice during oral arguments.

quote:

You would question his preparedness and involvment if he was the most garrulous member of Scotus. Unless you have some evidence that questions are measure of preparedness?

Questions are an indicator of involvement and preparedness. He asks none, and by some reports sleeps through sessions, so it is entirely appropriate to question whether he is doing hi s job

quote:

As for Scotus spouses working - really?

Can't find any indication any but Thomas' does.

quote:

So for grins, and giggles. Whats the standard for recusing yourself?

The canon of ethics to start with.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 108

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/12/2013 1:02:23 AM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

Right. I'm asking you to repeat it to see if you knew, since you were making the allegation of corruption and saying that he should have.
Should have means there's a standard. If you don't know what it is - you're not in a position to make that judgement, are you.

Kagan has slept through sessions as well. You don't seem to question her qualifications...

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 109

RE: GOP pushback against Tea Party - 11/12/2013 5:11:32 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Right. I'm asking you to repeat it to see if you knew, since you were making the allegation of corruption and saying that he should have.
Should have means there's a standard. If you don't know what it is - you're not in a position to make that judgement, are you.

Kagan has slept through sessions as well. You don't seem to question her qualifications...

I told you what it is. If you didn't know what it was you should have asked more clearly. Just to make it clear to you here is the federal canon of ethics for judges.
http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx
Pay particular attention to canon 3C (1)c and d, as well as 3C (2)

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 110