As Randall D. Eliason has pointed out, the Supreme Court has spent more than twenty years limiting the reach of corruption laws to the point that it takes an cash-for-favors transaction to convict a public official of corruption. So if a rich guy gives gifts, money or provides free trips and vacations to a public official without a direct nexus to the official's job, that is OK in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
Well, now we know why they did that. The justices apparently wanted it to be legal for them to elbow their way to the feeding trough. Anyone who thinks that Harlan Crow would be doing all those favors to Clarence Thomas if Thomas wasn't on the Supreme Court has to be smoking both crack and meth. Anyone who truly believes that Neil Gorsuch suddenly had fantastic luck in finding a buyer for his property just days after he was confirmed to the Court is probably sneaking access to the Internet from the computer at the nurse's station in the psych ward. And do you really think that the wives of Clarenece Thomas and John Roberts would have been raking in so much cash if their husbands were judges in the Idaho district court?
The Supreme Court most assuredly does not like that we are all talking about how corrupt they are. But those fuckers did it to themselves.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Friday, May 19, 2023
7 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
An ideologically stacked unelected panel of actively partisan Opus Dei ~ Catholic Illuminati ~ vigilantes handing down religious edicts, fatwas, in the dark is illegitimate, unconstitutional, and contrary to The Founders Intent. A Gestapo Court
ReplyDeleteThere is no "law", nothing "compels" us to "obey" ...
Ten Bears is this what you are saying?
ReplyDelete“If they give you ruled paper, write the other way.”
Juan Ramón Jiménez
Yet you are willing to look away from the corruption of Biden using his influence to get his family "Consulting" gigs with China, Ukraine and others.....
ReplyDeleteOr Hillary selling her influence,
Odd, that.
All that pales compared to the $2B that the Saudis gave Jared the Biy Winder. Which doesn’t seem to bother you in the slightest.
ReplyDeleteBut still, nice deflection from the point that the Supremes arguably neutered anticorruption laws for their own benefit. Which doesn’t seem to bother you in the slightest.
Jared the Biy Winder fed MBS the US intel to do the shakedown hotel
ReplyDeleteBut a year ago Sunday, on Nov. 4, 2017, the ultra-luxurious Riyadh hotel — with its marble floors and vast indoor swimming pool — became a gilded prison, when hundreds of Saudi royals, billionaires and senior government officials were detained in an extraordinary power play by the heir to the throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The involuntary guests were told they had to sign away large chunks of their assets to be released. The detention involved both psychological abuse and — in some cases — torture, current and former U.S. officials say.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/how-saudi-royal-crushed-his-rivals-shakedown-ritz-carlton-n930396
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wro3bqi4Eb8
SO then, at what point is corruption acceptable? Joe's level? Hillary's? You seem to think that it is ok, but only for RNC approved folks. Why is that? Why do you think that ANY level of corruption is ok?
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that you only object to (What you claim is) corruption when it is someone on the other side of the aisle, and change the definition so you can accept it when it is folks that you agree with?
You object to perceived corruption by the Supremes but when faced with real corruption by Joe and Hillary you accept it and claim that it is ok because it is less than others.
Sad, really.
And you seem to think that it's OK to be corrupt if you're a Republican.
ReplyDelete