1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jan 20, 2021.

  1. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    Can we make it like wrestling, with Collins and Jake Tapper as a tag team?
     
  2. swingline

    swingline Well-Known Member

    Need somebody bigger who can pile drive Trump.
     
  3. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

  4. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

  5. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Well-Known Member

    Good to see the Supreme Court is impartial.

     
  6. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Clarence Thomas was the "deciding" vote. Not Scalia, not Kennedy, not Roberts or Alito. It was Clarence Thomas, because clearly he was actually inclined to vote with Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens, but the expectation that Harlan Crow's family were going to start giving a lot of money to political candidates two years later got him to vote differently. :rolleyes:

    Why isn't enough to just say that it's seedy and slimey and at least vaguely corrupt-looking for a Supreme Court Justice to be taking gifts that large (and then not reporting them on financial disclosure forms)? Because that kind of connecting the dots is a bit silly. Clarence Thomas was voting very predictably for about 2 decades before Harlan Crow's family's political donations picked up in 2012. That vote was Thomas being the same Thomas he had been in 1992. It clearly wasn't a quid pro quo.
     
  8. Woody Long

    Woody Long Well-Known Member

    I'm sure all the unreported gifts, did, however, in the words of LBJ, keep Thomas "pissing out of the tent rather than pissing in it."
     
    Liut likes this.
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    My guess is that it's a lot more nuanced than that. ... not purely transactional. I think Crow and Thomas are birds of a feather, and Thomas would be being Thomas if Harlan Crow didn't exist and didn't take care of him. At the same time, I also think that for Crow, he wouldn't be that close to Thomas if they weren't already part of the same cabal, and then it becomes "I have the ability to give my good buddy Clarence nice things, and he doesn't earn so much with that kind of job, so why shouldn't I be generous with him?"

    It's obviously incumbent on Thomas to not take those things -- that is what he signed up for -- but he's got the moral compass of a hyena. And it rightlfully opens him up for what he is getting. I really feel safe in guessing, though, that these are not outright quid pro quos. In the case of that tweet I was responding to, it was kind of ridiculous. The same 5 justices at the time were voting as a block in one particular way. There was nothing unusual about the Citizen's United ruling from that standpoint. Do you really think that Harlan Crow thinks has to buy Clarence Thomas to keep him pissing out of the tent?
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2023
  10. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Because it's Twitter, home of the but-what-it-gets-worse forever story.

    Lots of rich people's contributions went up after the Citizens United decision - because they could.
     
  11. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

  12. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Are you now, or have you ever been…
     
    Liut likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page