That Thomas guy

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
scott2000 said:
kinda puts a twist on that whole "let the courts take care of it and then we'll know for sure and get off the fence " deal....
Click to expand...
I saw your patronizing put down toward me the first time… I suppose, in a way, you’re proving my point:
Apparently, we need courts, lawyers, judges, juries, and trials to “interpret” whether or not Thomas needed to and now doesn’t need to list gifts. This is insane!!! We also apparently need 24-hour “news” to tell us what to think of all this.
 
Recording Engineer said:
I saw your patronizing put down toward me the first time… I suppose, in a way, you’re proving my point:
Apparently, we need courts, lawyers, judges, juries, and trials to “interpret” whether or not Thomas needed to and now doesn’t need to list gifts. This is insane!!! We also apparently need 24-hour “news” to tell us what to think of all this.
Click to expand...
I've removed the comments.
 
Recording Engineer said:
What does that have anything to do with what has happened for them to supposedly change things? That is what my question was.
Click to expand...
You want to judge a man based on either "appearance" (subjective opinion which has no legal merit) or newly implemented law (in which case ex post facto comes into play). Thomas apparently voluntarily over-reported, then, after being hounded by the press he stopped (legally). Now the rules have changed and he's complying.
 
AnalogPackrat said:
judge a man based on either "appearance"
Click to expand...
Interesting choice of words, since the standard for most judges in this country is to avoid the "appearance" of impropriety. While that standard does not apply to SCOTUS, should we expect less from the judges on the highest court in the land?
 
hodad said:
Interesting choice of words, since the standard for most judges in this country is to avoid the "appearance" of impropriety. While that standard does not apply to SCOTUS, should we expect less from the judges on the highest court in the land?
Click to expand...
Appearance is subjective. I wish he'd reported some of these things, but I also understand that he's been unfairly attacked by the press for over 30 years because he disagrees with the ever more troubling views of the left with respect to government's role, dependence on the state, and the value of individual liberty/personal responsibility. I can't blame him for wanting some privacy after all of the unfair treatment he's received.
 
AnalogPackrat said:
You want to judge a man based on either "appearance" (subjective opinion which has no legal merit) or newly implemented law (in which case ex post facto comes into play). Thomas apparently voluntarily over-reported, then, after being hounded by the press he stopped (legally). Now the rules have changed and he's complying.
Click to expand...
What about my genuine question of “What has changed for them to change-things now? Appearance? Or?” -made you think I’m saying any of that? Seriously. Or are you just doing that purposely? Seriously.
 
Recording Engineer said:
What about my genuine question of “What has changed for them to change-things now? Appearance? Or?” -made you think I’m saying any of that? Seriously. Or are you just doing that purposely? Seriously.
Click to expand...
In my opinion your communication style is not logical or clear. Maybe state directly what you think instead of dancing around the subject or trying to somehow appear neutral or equivocating.

Why do rules or laws change? Sometimes for good reasons (logical, rational, data-driven), sometimes not (political, ideological, authoritarian).
 
AnalogPackrat said:
In my opinion your communication style is not logical or clear. Maybe state directly what you think instead of dancing around the subject or trying to somehow appear neutral or equivocating.

Why do rules or laws change? Sometimes for good reasons (logical, rational, data-driven), sometimes not (political, ideological, authoritarian).
Click to expand...
My question was very, very clear and I still don’t understand why it or anything I’ve said herein would lead you to think that is what I was saying. Sorry, I don’t see that my communication-style is a factor here.

I don’t need a generalization of why things change. I asked about this case, specifically. And it was genuine question… I’m simply trying to gather as much true-information as I can, from anywhere, to form a well-informed opinion in the first-place; or to simply update my opinion.

So far, on one hand, I can see cause for concern; particularly given how his wife is known for continually being extremely-close in the most upper-echelons in politics, pushing agendas, for many, many years. Everyone who’s ever been married knows it’s absolutely impossible to keep things separate. Sorry. On the other hand, both political sides sling much-of-nothing, just to see what sticks and runs with whatever does, so I can’t disregard that at all either so far.

Thomas telling us he was told he didn’t have to, after he previously had done so, and now all of a sudden, as of now, he has to, doesn’t tell us anything other than what that’s what he said. Has anyone, who would know for sure, confirmed a single anything he’s said?

I’m not trying to appear to be neutral or anything else. So far, as from what I know, anything other than fence-sitting in this case is not reasonable. That’s where I am on many many things because this is about as much information we get on many many things; which is a whole lot of nothing!
 
Last edited:
Please don't take this as criticism or an insult, but I cannot easily understand your arguments either. When I don't understand what you are saying, I just move on.

JR
 
JohnRoberts said:
Please don't take this as criticism or an insult, but I cannot easily understand your arguments either. When I don't understand what you are saying, I just move on.

JR
Click to expand...
I don’t blame you… But in this case there was no argument. Did you too not understand the simple question and deduced it to what he thought I was saying? Come on here guys!

My only real argument before my previous post is that it’s stupid that anyone has to interpret whether or not he had to list gifts. It should be that he did or he didn’t. But maybe not. Again, stupid.
 
Last edited:
hodad said:
And yet, it is the standard that all the non-Supreme judges adhere to.
Click to expand...

Code of Conduct for United States Judges said:
An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
Click to expand...
 
 
Matador said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/ruth-bader-ginsburg-poster-swastika.html

https://prayinjesusname.org/2010/05/kagan
https://www.newsweek.com/mitt-romney-ketanji-brown-jackson-support-pedophiles-gop-1695308
Somehow, they all figured out how to properly report donations.
Click to expand...
Except no one here denied that some other Justices have also received unfair treatment. So your strawman does not negate the assertion that Thomas was not treated unfairly. See how that works?

I don't know what other Justices have done with their friends (rich or otherwise) and I suspect that you don't, either.
 
AnalogPackrat said:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Click to expand...
I'm searching for the eyeroll emoji--really weak stuff here. The information we have is that Thomas was accepting off-the-books gifts from an ultra-wealthy conservative activist. Trying to excuse that by saying that another Justice might have done similar with zero evidence of this imagined transgression is sad. Really, really sad. Pathetic, in fact.

Now, where is that eyeroll emoji?
 

Similar threads

C
Rant: Why do people refuse to consider acoustic treatment?
Replies
19
Views
697
sodderboy
sodderboy
T
Parcel Motel hell
Replies
8
Views
944
Tubetec
T
U
Get ready for your first communist neighbor
6 7 8
Replies
156
Views
17K
Gold
Gold
H
The party of personal responsibility
2 3
Replies
48
Views
6K
iturnknobs
I
K
Advanced Audio forum is down
2
Replies
24
Views
7K
terry setter
T

Latest posts

Back
Top