Archive version: https://archive.ph/g6MOr
8 Likes
7 Likes
Archive link to WAPO article:
7 Likes
Has anyone seen Merrick?
6 Likes
That guard dog is no damn good!
4 Likes
7 Likes
And the hits just keep on comin’…
In case you hit a paywall: https://archive.ph/wQKFm
7 Likes
5 Likes
At the level of a Supreme Court Justice, the extent of Thomas’ corruption makes it irrelevent whether it is by mistake or intentional. Incompetence (specifically in the law) is as damning as dishonesty.
9 Likes
Heck, “earned 6-figures from a foundation” is well into the “pay an accountant to make sure your filing is kosher” territory.
9 Likes
I believe he would have needed some serious mob accountants to find someone willing to hide that much.
12 Likes
I’m sure his buddy Donnie can make a recommendation.
11 Likes
Especially the superhuman levels of incompetence he is claiming here. This is about as clever a lie as the “Give what back?” from the Simpsons, and done from the same disdain of consequences.
10 Likes
9 Likes
Perhaps, taking a page from Clarence Thomas, we can pursue a different path. If money is speech that secures outsized influence and access for the wealthiest citizens, maybe the problem is not the presence of money in politics but the distribution of money in the economy.
As radical as that claim may sound today, it has been the heart and soul of democratic argument since the founding of the republic. Noah Webster, of American dictionary fame, claimed in 1790 that “the basis of a democratic and a republican form of government is a fundamental law favoring an equal or rather a general distribution of property.” Without that equal distribution of wealth and power, “liberty expires.”
If money is speech, the implication for democracy is clear. There can be no democracy in the political sphere unless there is equality in the economic sphere. That is the real lesson of Clarence Thomas.
5 Likes
oh this is rich
Thomas, through a court spokeswoman, declined to comment when asked in writing why he deemed it appropriate to accept some of the larger gifts. But a former clerk to Thomas defended the practice.
“I don’t see anything wrong in this. I don’t see why it is inappropriate to get gifts from friends,” said John C. Yoo, now a law professor at the UC Berkeley. “This reflects a bizarre effort to over-ethicize everyday life. If one of these people were to appear before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas would recuse himself.”
It’s technically true to describe John Yoo as a former clerk, but it does feel like a lie by omission.
5 Likes
It feels to me that is a long way to spell “corruption”
7 Likes
Sheesh… like “former soldier & painter”
4 Likes
Really, Mr Yoo? Because he hasn’t recused himself so far, even when the cases in front of him were egregiously too close to home.
11 Likes
16 Likes
