4 ms·

>because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration. Several justices are openly taking bribes

by mrguyorama 8mo ago

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 8mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  No. Like actual bribes over a 20 year period. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un... https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-cr...
  - parineum 8mo ago
    Granting the argument that these are bribes, I don't see how one (not several) justice taking bribes from not Trump means the Court is in Trump's pocket.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      I think it's already clear (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47093049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47093049) that you struggle a bit with causality. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/harlan-crows-deep-dark-money-connections/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/harlan-crows... > Harlan Crow is more than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s secret patron—he’s also deeply intertwined with the shadowy world of Republican dark money. In fact, Crow personally took part in the creation of the post-Citizens United dark money system and secretly helped bankroll some of the new groups.
      - parineum 8mo ago
        I'm waiting for the link between _Trump_ and alleged bribes to Clarence Thomas. Despite the "where there's smoke there's fire" idiom, smoke is not fire. You still have to find the fire if you see smoke before you call it fire. By the analogy, your going linking smoke A to smoke B to smoke C and claiming Fire A caused Fire C. The same broken logic you used in the linked thread. Proposing an explanation that fits the facts doesn't prove that explanation correct and, more importantly, it doesn't disprove any other explanation that also fits the facts. Anyway, I stopped responding to the previous thread because your conspiratorial thinking is impervious to argument. If I had noticed it was you I was replying to, I wouldn't have replied.
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > I'm waiting for the link between _Trump_ and alleged bribes to Clarence Thomas. Republican activists bribe Thomas for decades. Republican president in office with… significant need for friendly SCOTUS decisions, and got to appoint several of them. Connecting those dots seems... trivial?

>because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration. Several justices are openly taking bribes

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 8mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 8mo ago
No. Like actual bribes over a 20 year period. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un... https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-cr...
- parineum 8mo ago
  Granting the argument that these are bribes, I don't see how one (not several) justice taking bribes from not Trump means the Court is in Trump's pocket.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    I think it's already clear (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47093049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47093049) that you struggle a bit with causality. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/harlan-crows-deep-dark-money-connections/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/harlan-crows... > Harlan Crow is more than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s secret patron—he’s also deeply intertwined with the shadowy world of Republican dark money. In fact, Crow personally took part in the creation of the post-Citizens United dark money system and secretly helped bankroll some of the new groups.
    - parineum 8mo ago
      I'm waiting for the link between _Trump_ and alleged bribes to Clarence Thomas. Despite the "where there's smoke there's fire" idiom, smoke is not fire. You still have to find the fire if you see smoke before you call it fire. By the analogy, your going linking smoke A to smoke B to smoke C and claiming Fire A caused Fire C. The same broken logic you used in the linked thread. Proposing an explanation that fits the facts doesn't prove that explanation correct and, more importantly, it doesn't disprove any other explanation that also fits the facts. Anyway, I stopped responding to the previous thread because your conspiratorial thinking is impervious to argument. If I had noticed it was you I was replying to, I wouldn't have replied.
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > I'm waiting for the link between _Trump_ and alleged bribes to Clarence Thomas. Republican activists bribe Thomas for decades. Republican president in office with… significant need for friendly SCOTUS decisions, and got to appoint several of them. Connecting those dots seems... trivial?