Trump On Lex Fridman... Just Dropped

[richaceg]

How much of that was JD attacking her, though?
Did she start aggressive or did he fuck up the interview?

JD simply replied with every follow up question...How did JD attack her?

 

[Valcazar]

JD simply replied with every follow up question...How did JD attack her?

No idea.
You're the one who said it was aggressive.

I look at this and I don't see any aggressive questioning.

 

[WyattEarp]

I know, and you aren't ever going to get one using the criteria you set out.

There might possibly be hints of something if I dug hard enough, but you will never find anything that will prove Clarence Thomas changed his mind because of who was paying him money.

But this means Clarence Thomas isn't being paid off only if you believe that's the only criteria that matters.



Why on earth would you think that?



He didn't have to.
He complained he wasn't making enough as a judge and should resign.
Then money rolled in to keep him happy where he was.
The money didn't pave the way for new decisions -> his decisions paved the way for the money.

This is corruption in the classical sense the Founders believed. (That Thomas will abandon "originalism" if it means he can't get paid is unsurprising.)

And, of course, Thomas hid all these gifts and stopped disclosing them because he clearly thought it was all above board.

But I happily concede that if the argument you want to go with is "you have to prove a specific instance of him changing his mind based on a payment" then I can't.

I am fine with restricting gifts especially money for Justices. I think I follow where your logic takes the argument. He threatened to resign and the money flowed in. That might be true, but if Thomas were really going to resign he likely would resign under conditions favorable to a conservative court. No one is buying a conservative seat on the Supreme Court. If a Justice resigns, they resign. If they die, let the chips fall where they may.

By the way with longevity being discussed in the past, it shouldn't surprise you that I favor 18 year Supreme Court terms. That would be a healthy development for the entire country.

I think you actually made a stronger case against Biden and Trump family members collecting money for dubious business efforts. You can throw Congress in there too. President Biden and President Trump regularly made major decisions directly affecting the Ukraine, China, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Valcazar]

I am fine with restricting gifts especially money for Justices. I think I follow where your logic takes the argument. He threatened to resign and the money flowed in. That might be true, but if Thomas were really going to resign he likely would resign under conditions favorable to a conservative court. No one is buying a conservative seat on the Supreme Court. If a Justice resigns, they resign. If they die, let the chips fall where they may.

Oh, he absolutely isn't going to resign NOW except for a GOP president and Senate.

If Trump wins and the Senate is in Republican hands I expect Thomas and Alito to resign at a minimum.
Roberts... maybe?

The other three are there for a while.

By the way with longevity being discussed in the past, it shouldn't surprise you that I favor 18 year Supreme Court terms. That would be a healthy development for the entire country.

If we keep the Court at 9 then 18-year is my preference as well.
If we expand it to 12 (to more closely match the actual number of circuits) then make it 24.
People leave by seniority and a President normally gets two appointments a year (in year 1 and year 3).
Some kind of rule to prevent the Senate from completely stonewalling would need to be put in, I think - and also how to handle multiple vacancies if they come up.

I think you actually made a stronger case against Biden and Trump family members collecting money for dubious business efforts. You can throw Congress in there too. President Biden and President Trump regularly made major decisions directly affecting the Ukraine, China, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Oh, absolutely.
Everything I said about corruption applies to any of the other branches as well.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nobody will commission a poll on "would this make you more or less likely to support candidate X"?
That seems unlikely.



I think there is absolutely evidence it would increase her odds.
What I am complaining about is a confident statement of a 6% increase on something they didn't actually poll directly.

Complain away.
Just don't argue that something should be done.
That would be a surprise.

 

[richaceg]

No idea.
You're the one who said it was aggressive.

I look at this and I don't see any aggressive questioning.

When you compare it to Kamala's interview it is.

 

[silentkisser]

I agree that Biden did not withhold a vote, but made it very difficult for Republican court nominees. Let's say Clarence Thomas wasn't borked. Let's just say he was kavenaughed.

I don't always agree with Clarence Thomas' judicial rulings. If I had to pick one judge, he would not be it. However, popularity is not the Supreme Court's objective.

I see you have been following headline commentary about Justice Thomas. I understand he has some rich and generous friends. This is not unusual for powerful people in Washington. What I have not been able to determine is what Supreme Court decisions were impacted by alleged bias. Perhaps you can enlighten us with specific instances where people suspected decisions were tainted by Thomas' relationships.

Ethical standards and recusals are there so there can be no second guessing a judges decisions. Even if Thomas would have made the same ruling without the relationship, having that relationship AND not recusing himself with his friends cases opens him up to these attacks and questions. And, if he was just a federal judge, he would likely be sanctioned or even impeached for these ethical lapses. As I said, imagine if a lefty judge was hanging out with ultra wealthy liberals, like say, George Soros. What would the GOP or Fox's response be?

So, to answer your question, if can be argued that any case involving his wealthy pals is tainted. And, if you think he's clean and clear to rule on Trump or January 6 related stuff....need I remind you that his wife could have possibly been deeply involved in some of those shenanigans?

The whole point here is that the SCOTUS has no enforceable ethical standards, which in many ways is mind boggling. That should definitely change, but I can see the GOP blocking things like that...

 

[Valcazar]

Ethical standards and recusals are there so there can be no second guessing a judges decisions. Even if Thomas would have made the same ruling without the relationship, having that relationship AND not recusing himself with his friends cases opens him up to these attacks and questions. And, if he was just a federal judge, he would likely be sanctioned or even impeached for these ethical lapses.

The idea that the Supreme Court doesn't need ethics rules isn't something I think Wyatt is defending.

So, to answer your question, if can be argued that any case involving his wealthy pals is tainted. And, if you think he's clean and clear to rule on Trump or January 6 related stuff....need I remind you that his wife could have possibly been deeply involved in some of those shenanigans?

The whole point here is that the SCOTUS has no enforceable ethical standards, which in many ways is mind boggling. That should definitely change, but I can see the GOP blocking things like that...