sigh Here's another new Exhibit A of GOP judicial corruption pertaining to the record-breaking $1.6 billion donation we heard about last year: Leonard Leo used Federalist Society contact to obtain $1.6B donation The funniest part, to me, is the byline: Fact: There is nothing like the Federalist Society on the left. So every time you hear someone on the right bitching about "activist judges", you're free to disregard anything else they allege. Fact 2: SCOTUS has had a majority of GOP-appointed judges since 1969.The society’s close ties to Leo’s network raise questions about its nonpartisan, non-political status.
That’s actually the reason that these conservatives giving Thomas and friends tons of money doesn’t bother me that much: it’s largesse, not influence peddling. If it were influence peddling, then there might be some unexpected decisions. As it is, we all know how they’re going to rule on almost every controversial decision, so it’s not as if the bonus bucks are buying the votes.
Ω I actually don't know how I got an omega, but, How is Harlan Crow friend'ing Clarence around the world in private jets and yachts not a conflict of interest? Is that honestly remotely normal to you?it’s largesse, not influence peddling
It’s not that I don’t think it’s fucked up. I do. Not normal at all. I just don’t think it’s affecting Thomas’s jurisprudence all that much, because he’s already so ideologically committed to voting only one single way in politically charged cases. His wife’s business bothers me a lot more, because it’s easy to point to the trump cases he was the lone dissenter on and say, “Yep, that’s her influence.” I just doing think that as bad of a look as it is, that crow’s money has bought that much, I guess.
So fundamentally you're saying "Clarence Thomas would vote the way he votes regardless of the influence because he's so ideologically pure?" This is an interesting take, as the general consensus on Clarence Thomas in private life is "Ginni is his Svengali" while the general consensus on Clarence Thomas in jurisprudence is "Antonin Scalia was his Svengali". Scalia, of course, was even shadier than Clarence Thomas. I find the argument "he's a scumbag on principle, not a scumbag for money" rarely holds water, especially when dealing with political movements that indoctrinate through largesse.
I'm not saying that I support it or I'm not bothered by it. But I am saying that I haven't seen evidence that he's voting in ways that I wouldn't have expected him to vote but for the influence of Harlan Crow. I am saying that there is clear evidence he votes in ways he wouldn't otherwise vote but for the influence of his devil-wife. The last thing I'm ever going to do is hand wave away the damage that Thomas and his ilk has done and is continuing to do to the country. But again, I think it's not clear to me that his vacationing habits are really the root issue, and there's a lot else to be annoyed by.
I think where I disagree is in the idea that the water we swim in doesn't impact the way we swim. You are pretty sure that Clarence Thomas votes exactly the way he votes regardless of whether or not Harlan Crow pays for his kid's private school tuition. Would you feel the same if it were revealed Clarence Thomas goes fishing with George Soros every month? How would you feel about a "fairness doctrine" in which Clarence Thomas were compelled to have lunch every weekend with Antifa and OWS? The issue is that the idea is laughable - the thought experiment of liberal influence touching such an extremely conservative judge is rejected out of hand because it'll never fucking happen. Thomas' ideological alignment is crystal-clear, and no amount of hanging out at World Central Kitchen will change that. So why, then, do you reject the idea that Thomas cannot be influenced by those he chooses to associate with? Especially considering the massive rightward shift within the Republican Party at the ascent of Donald Trump?
Right?? I'm not sure of their distant history, but it seems like Politico is going the route of CNN. Maybe Politico can host the second Trump town hall.
When Politico hit the scene they positioned themselves as ostensibly neutral, but politically counterbalancing Air America. They seemed to put effort into actually presenting both sides of a political story when they could - my perspective was they went easy on the Republicans because of course that was my perspective. I think their "leftward drift" since then is more reflective of standing in place while the Republicans shot the rapids. In 2007, Politico could say "Dick Cheney's daughter has a bright future within the Republican Party" and be excoriated by the lefties and accoladed by the 'wingers. In 2023, Politico can say "Dick Cheney's daughter has a bright future within the Republican Party" and get chin-stroking from the lefties while the fascists fling their poop. The fact that the Democrats are more often pleased by Politico than the Republicans has more to do with the Republicans leaving the ground than it does with Politico's lean, I think.