Clarence Thomas is one of the 'most corrupt justices in American history,'

[gemini104104]

Well it would have been great for Faux propaganda network to not lay all the focus of a corrupt repuke SCOTUS influence on Thomas, considering tRump and his seditious repuke insurgency lawlessly hacked two repukes in there who are not qualified to be on SCOTUS for numerous felonious reasons why. This in order to carry out tRump and his repuke mob war efforts against Democracy, society and humanity. The other repuke and Thomas were already there as a terrible problem before tRump and his gutter mob were lawlessly hacked in 2017:

The Nation justice correspondent Elie Mystal insisted on MSNBC's The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross on Saturday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the "most corrupt justices in American history."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...sedgntp&cvid=a501d971230842459616724036bf1ae6

 

[RB 60]

Well it would have been great for Faux propaganda network to not lay all the focus of a corrupt repuke SCOTUS influence on Thomas, considering tRump and his seditious repuke insurgency lawlessly hacked two repukes in there who are not qualified to be on SCOTUS for numerous felonious reasons why. This in order to carry out tRump and his repuke mob war efforts against Democracy, society and humanity. The other repuke and Thomas were already there as a terrible problem before tRump and his gutter mob were lawlessly hacked in 2017:

The Nation justice correspondent Elie Mystal insisted on MSNBC's The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross on Saturday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the "most corrupt justices in American history."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...sedgntp&cvid=a501d971230842459616724036bf1ae6

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Even a horribly biased, radical Leftist site like Think Progress can only get Thomas to fifth place...

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/t...ices-in-american-history-ranked-f725000b59e8/

More reasoned sites, like Find Law, don't even mention Thomas.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/...the-worst-supreme-court-justices-of-all-time/

Even this Leftist writing for the Huffington Post can't manage to put Thomas in that position:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/three-worst-supreme-court_b_9261632

I would say that Thomas isn't a very good justice. He seems to be a mediocre legal mind (as if that's saying much about anyone), and generally has been an ineffective and sort of 'also present' justice in his time on the bench.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Well it would have been great for Faux propaganda network to not lay all the focus of a corrupt repuke SCOTUS influence on Thomas, considering tRump and his seditious repuke insurgency lawlessly hacked two repukes in there who are not qualified to be on SCOTUS for numerous felonious reasons why. This in order to carry out tRump and his repuke mob war efforts against Democracy, society and humanity. The other repuke and Thomas were already there as a terrible problem before tRump and his gutter mob were lawlessly hacked in 2017:

The Nation justice correspondent Elie Mystal insisted on MSNBC's The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross on Saturday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the "most corrupt justices in American history."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...sedgntp&cvid=a501d971230842459616724036bf1ae6

You're the stupidest poster here now. Here's your sign.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Mina]

Even a horribly biased, radical Leftist site like Think Progress can only get Thomas to fifth place...

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/t...ices-in-american-history-ranked-f725000b59e8/

More reasoned sites, like Find Law, don't even mention Thomas.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/...the-worst-supreme-court-justices-of-all-time/

Even this Leftist writing for the Huffington Post can't manage to put Thomas in that position:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/three-worst-supreme-court_b_9261632

I would say that Thomas isn't a very good justice. He seems to be a mediocre legal mind (as if that's saying much about anyone), and generally has been an ineffective and sort of 'also present' justice in his time on the bench.

That Findlaw article is from 2014 -- long before Thomas failed to recuse himself from insurrection-related matters that his wife was involved in.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That Findlaw article is from 2014 -- long before Thomas failed to recuse himself from insurrection-related matters that his wife was involved in.

 

[volsrock]

Well it would have been great for Faux propaganda network to not lay all the focus of a corrupt repuke SCOTUS influence on Thomas, considering tRump and his seditious repuke insurgency lawlessly hacked two repukes in there who are not qualified to be on SCOTUS for numerous felonious reasons why. This in order to carry out tRump and his repuke mob war efforts against Democracy, society and humanity. The other repuke and Thomas were already there as a terrible problem before tRump and his gutter mob were lawlessly hacked in 2017:

The Nation justice correspondent Elie Mystal insisted on MSNBC's The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross on Saturday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the "most corrupt justices in American history."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...sedgntp&cvid=a501d971230842459616724036bf1ae6

Racist

 

[Earl]

The OP is raaaacist (sic).

 

[Mina]

That's not a strawman. Try rereading. Good luck.

 

[zymurgy]

That Findlaw article is from 2014 -- long before Thomas failed to recuse himself from insurrection-related matters that his wife was involved in.

the hive echo chamber at it again

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That's not a strawman. Try rereading. Good luck.

It is a strawman. You cherry picked one item out of my post and then turned it into an argument I wasn't making about Jan 6. My argument was that Thomas is not one of "the most corrupt" Justices in history as gemini claims. That argument doesn't have a date stamp on it but rather covers Thomas' whole career as a Justice.

You made a strawman reply.

Gemini's position: Thomas is one of the most corrupt Justices in history

My rebuttal: No, he's not, here's three proofs of that (Note, just for the record, I don't consider Thomas a very good Justice in any case)

You jump in: One of your sources is dated to 2014 and has nothing to do with Thomas' actions with regard to Jan 6. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

You cherry picked, then mischaracterized my rebuttal, then injected a complete non sequitur as a reason I'm wrong. Classic strawman.

 

[Mina]

the hive echo chamber at it again

Who, exactly, do you think previously made that point about the Findlaw article being from 2014? If this is an echo-chamber thing, surely you can point to who, exactly, I'm echoing.

 

[Phantasmal]

Well it would have been great for Faux propaganda network to not lay all the focus of a corrupt repuke SCOTUS influence on Thomas, considering tRump and his seditious repuke insurgency lawlessly hacked two repukes in there who are not qualified to be on SCOTUS for numerous felonious reasons why. This in order to carry out tRump and his repuke mob war efforts against Democracy, society and humanity. The other repuke and Thomas were already there as a terrible problem before tRump and his gutter mob were lawlessly hacked in 2017:

The Nation justice correspondent Elie Mystal insisted on MSNBC's The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross on Saturday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the "most corrupt justices in American history."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...sedgntp&cvid=a501d971230842459616724036bf1ae6

Without a single doubt, bad to the bone.

 

[zymurgy]

Who, exactly, do you think previously made that point about the Findlaw article being from 2014? If this is an echo-chamber thing, surely you can point to who, exactly, I'm echoing.

you seem annoyed that I point out how you are like the borg - whatever Democrats believe, You do to. amazing coincidence - not. you are a partisan douche

Few legal scholars would side with your recusal claims - this is a DNC platform - not a legal one with any real legal basis behind it

 

[Mina]

It is a strawman.

It isn't. A strawman would be if I attacked a point you hadn't made while pretending it was a point you made. For example, if I responded by saying "you're wrong to claim he's the most ethical Supreme Court justice ever -- what about Oliver Wendell Holmes or Thurgood Marshall?!" That would be a strawman argument, since you never claimed he was the most ethical, so it would be a position I was trying to assign you just so I'd have something to attack. A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. It's easier to argue against the idea that he's the most ethical justice ever than it is to take on your actual arguments, and so pretending that was the proposition you'd forwarded would be a straw man.

That isn't the case here, as you can see. I directly addressed an actual point you had made. My argument, obviously, is that citing Thomas's absence from a 2014 article as support for the idea he's not terribly corrupt doesn't make a lot of sense in 2022, when the foremost examples of corruption post-date that article. "Strawman" doesn't mean merely declining to take on each and every point someone offered, and focusing on one specific point.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It isn't. A strawman would be if I attacked a point you hadn't made while pretending it was a point you made. For example, if I responded by saying "you're wrong to claim he's the most ethical Supreme Court justice ever -- what about Oliver Wendell Holmes or Thurgood Marshall?!" That would be a strawman argument, since you never claimed he was the most ethical, so it would be a position I was trying to assign you just so I'd have something to attack. A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. It's easier to argue against the idea that he's the most ethical justice ever than it is to take on your actual arguments, and so pretending that was the proposition you'd forwarded would be a straw man.

That isn't the case here, as you can see. I directly addressed an actual point you had made. My argument, obviously, is that citing Thomas's absence from a 2014 article as support for the idea he's not terribly corrupt doesn't make a lot of sense in 2022, when the foremost examples of corruption post-date that article. "Strawman" doesn't mean merely declining to take on each and every point someone offered, and focusing on one specific point.

Most corrupt in HISTORY. Which part of "history" aren't you getting? The argument isn't about most corrupt today but in HISTORY. Your argument is a strawman.

 

[zymurgy]

wow Mina - everyone is kicking your ass in debates.

 

[Mina]

you seem annoyed...

Nah. Merely amused. I find it funny when the right-wingers project that way.

Few legal scholars would side with your recusal claims

What makes you think that? While certainly you can find some pet lawyers working within the Rupert Murdoch tabloid empire who argue against recusal, there are a great many legal scholars who have taken the other position:

https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/03/30...tice-thomas-must-recuse-in-insurrection-cases

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...shocked-by-ginni-thomass-stop-the-steal-texts

That's also a position supported by the majority of Americans:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/06/poll-clarence-thomas-2020-election-cases-00023377

We're not dealing with a situation where maybe his wife's prestige is on the line, such as a situation where a judge doesn't recuse himself from a case where a spouse had some sort of advocacy role in a partisan issue. In this case, his wife is suspected of involvement in a deadly and criminal attack on our nation, and the issues coming up include access to documents that might establish criminal liability for her. She could literally wind up in jail depending on how the cases come out and what the facts are, and yet Clarence is insisting on running interference for her. That's corrupt.

 

[Mina]

It is a strawman. You cherry picked one item out of my post and then turned it into an argument I wasn't making about Jan 6. My argument was that Thomas is not one of "the most corrupt" Justices in history as gemini claims. That argument doesn't have a date stamp on it but rather covers Thomas' whole career as a Justice.

You made a strawman reply.

Gemini's position: Thomas is one of the most corrupt Justices in history

My rebuttal: No, he's not, here's three proofs of that (Note, just for the record, I don't consider Thomas a very good Justice in any case)

You jump in: One of your sources is dated to 2014 and has nothing to do with Thomas' actions with regard to Jan 6. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

You cherry picked, then mischaracterized my rebuttal, then injected a complete non sequitur as a reason I'm wrong. Classic strawman.

No, it was not a strawman, since I did not mischaracterize your point in any way. Face it: You didn't have a clue what the term meant, and now that you've been called out on it, you're desperately trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't fit. Learn from your error and try to use the term correctly next time. Good luck!