Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: In the Court of the Crimson Koch's(kings)

Posted 4 years ago on Nov. 17, 2013, 10:55 a.m. EST by shoozTroll (17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It's a place where ethics are for other Justices, and a personal "choice" for them.

"The vice president for policy and litigation for Common Cause, Arn Pearson, said “Justice Thomas is among several members of the high court who’ve made a habit of flouting judicial ethics by headlining Federalist Society fundraisers, and he gets away with it because the Court has exempted itself from the Code, but that doesn’t make it right.” Likely, Pearson is alluding to more than conservatives on the Court fundraising for the Federalist Society because it is well-documented that Scalia and Thomas are devotees of the Koch brothers ideological bent and notoriously attended a secret Koch billionaire policy meeting in 2010 with advocates for Citizens United prior to ruling that corporations have the right to buy Republican politicians and influence legislation with unrestricted campaign contributions. In a press release on Wednesday, Representative Slaughter said “The guidelines contained in the Code exist to ensure the public has faith that judicial decision-making is based on the facts and the law, not politics and outside interests.” Obviously, Thomas and Scalia’s judicial decisions are not based on facts, or the law, but on directions from political activists the Koch brothers and their libertarian ideology that is inherently contrary to the public faith and their interests."


Making sure NOTHING stands in the way of libe(R)topia.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 4 years ago

They should have moved two years ago on Thomas.In fact, that was a topic of discussion on this forum.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 4 years ago

Just like that.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

Who needs ethics, when you have the Koch's funding?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 4 years ago

Precisely. The thing that ticks me off is that with this court, and especially Thomas, is that ...............it is clowns like this that instead of having the decency to recognize that there is a major conflict of interest via his wife and his fund raising it is almost as if he knows that he is untouchable. This, to me, gave permission.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

Ethic's are for other people, preferably Democrats.

Just don't mention the pathology of a psychopath.

They both qualify.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 4 years ago


[+] -5 points by olmanwinter (-4) 4 years ago

Is not an attack on a black scotus kinda racist??

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 4 years ago

What attack?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

In the interest of fairness for you then, just concentrate on the Scalia part.

Ignoring that, was kind of racist on your part.