Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 40

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

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    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.

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    37,801
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,805 Times in 13,108 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 825 Times in 784 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    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.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    10,511
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 3,512 Times in 2,601 Posts
    Groans
    181
    Groaned 216 Times in 211 Posts

    Default

    wow Mina - everyone is kicking your ass in debates.

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zymurgy View Post
    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/...rrection-cases

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...he-steal-texts

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

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...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.

  5. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    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!

  6. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    10,511
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 3,512 Times in 2,601 Posts
    Groans
    181
    Groaned 216 Times in 211 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    What makes you think that?
    precedent. the bar you have to cross is this

    “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

    actual legal scholars - not the partisan doucebags you will line up - understand interests don't mean a rooting interest

    in your own words - explain Ginny's interest in Bognet v. Boockvar

    we will do this case by case - and like all our debates, I will kick your ass because you are a retard

  7. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    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.
    If your argument was "Clarence Thomas was not yet the most corrupt Supreme Court justice as of 2014," a 2014 article that declined to mention him among the worst justices would be decent support for that. But since the corruption he is most often called out for post-dates that article, it isn't a very strong argument for saying Thomas, today, isn't the most corrupt. That's the point I was making.

    I see you're struggling here with basic reasoning skills. Let's change the context a bit, to one where your partisan political blindness won't hurt your brain so much. Let's say someone argued that Steph Curry was the greatest three-point shooter ever and you responded with a link to an article that listed four players in contention for that honor, but made no mention of Curry. Say you imagined that bolstered your argument he wasn't the greatest ever.... but say that article was from 2014. Now, obviously, the reasonable response would be to point out that in 2014 he hadn't yet done much of what now gets him listed as the greatest 3-pointer ever. These days, he's pretty much the consensus pick.

  8. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,599
    Thanks
    26,633
    Thanked 19,845 Times in 14,483 Posts
    Groans
    1,416
    Groaned 940 Times in 924 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gemini104104 View Post
    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 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/opini...16724036bf1ae6
    IMPEACH 46 FOR TREASON
    Biden/Harris 2024
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!


  9. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zymurgy View Post
    precedent. the bar you have to cross is this

    “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
    She has an interest in remaining out of prison, and that could be substantially affected by the matters being litigated.


    in your own words - explain Ginny's interest in Bognet v. Boockvar
    It's Trump v. Thompson that I'm talking about. But nice try attempting to assign a position to me. I'd imagine that when someone's debate skills are as weak as yours, it's extremely important to be allowed to assign positions to potential opponents.

  10. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    10,511
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 3,512 Times in 2,601 Posts
    Groans
    181
    Groaned 216 Times in 211 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    She has an interest in remaining out of prison, and that could be substantially affected by the matters being litigated.
    cuckoo. cuckoo. she is not on trial and never will be

    It's Trump v. Thompson that I'm talking about. But nice try attempting to assign a position to me. I'd imagine that when someone's debate skills are as weak as yours, it's extremely important to be allowed to assign positions to potential opponents.
    ok - focus on that one tardo. How does Trump’s claims of executive privilege over records from his presidency impact Ginny's texts?

    She is not seeking executive privilege or attorney-client confidentiality. Nothing in her texts relate to any of these cases or issues.

    You just proved you don't understand the interest provision that would require his recusal.

  11. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zymurgy View Post
    cuckoo. cuckoo. she is not on trial and never will be
    With her corrupt husband running interference, I'm assuming you're right. But an ethical judge doesn't just recuse himself from trials where spouses are actual charged in a crime.

    How does Trump’s claims of executive privilege over records from his presidency impact Ginny's texts?
    I didn't say they impacted her texts. Again, you're attempting to assign a position to me. Have you not picked up on the fact I don't fall for that bullshit? I get that you're a coward, but do you have to call such attention to it?

  12. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    10,511
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 3,512 Times in 2,601 Posts
    Groans
    181
    Groaned 216 Times in 211 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    With her corrupt husband running interference, I'm assuming you're right. But an ethical judge doesn't just recuse himself from trials where spouses are actual charged in a crime.
    No charges have been filed against her - and even the biggest shit stains are just saying he should be recused. to claim a criminal element here shows how far on a limb you extremists are. you are crazier than Trump's attorneys at this point

    I didn't say they impacted her texts. Again, you're attempting to assign a position to me.
    You refuse to actually say anything of relevance. in your own words - explain how that case interests her in a manner that goes beyond what she wants to happen (rooting interest)

  13. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zymurgy View Post
    No charges have been filed against her....
    ... and with hubby running interference on document requests, it's unlikely that will change.

    in your own words - explain how that case interests her in a manner that goes beyond what she wants to happen (rooting interest)
    Sure. The case involves whether or not discovery can be thwarted -- discovery related to a deadly criminal attack on our nation, where we know the justice's wife, at minimum, had a planning role in setting the stage for the day's events. If she did anything illegal or even just unethical or subject to civil liability, she has an interest in keeping those communications secret. So does Justice Thomas, so he'll make sure he stays in a position to influence that for his wife.

  14. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    10,511
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 3,512 Times in 2,601 Posts
    Groans
    181
    Groaned 216 Times in 211 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mina View Post
    ... and with hubby running interference on document requests, it's unlikely that will change.
    again - the trial he refused to recused himself for has zero to do with her texts. so retarded strike 1

    Sure. The case involves whether or not discovery can be thwarted -- discovery related to a deadly criminal attack on our nation, where we know the justice's wife, at minimum, had a planning role in setting the stage for the day's events. If she did anything illegal or even just unethical or subject to civil liability, she has an interest in keeping those communications secret. So does Justice Thomas, so he'll make sure he stays in a position to influence that for his wife.
    again - the trial he refused to recused himself for has zero to do with her texts. the discovery is related to executive executive privilege between the president and his lawyer. she is not his lawyer, and her texts have nothing to do with that case so retarded strike 2
    Last edited by zymurgy; 05-18-2022 at 03:36 PM.

  15. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2022
    Posts
    1,452
    Thanks
    258
    Thanked 551 Times in 355 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 62 Times in 55 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zymurgy View Post
    again - the trial he refused to recused himself for has zero to do with her texts. so retarded strike 1



    again - the trial he refused to recused himself for has zero to do with her texts. so retarded strike 2
    I didn't say a thing about her texts. I know you'd love to assign positions to me, but as you can see, you're really bad at trying to slip that by me. Do you have any smarter friends you could run this stuff by before posting?

Similar Threads

  1. Clarence Thomas - Covid
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 225
    Last Post: 03-27-2022, 11:28 PM
  2. The Clarence Thomas story
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-10-2021, 01:28 PM
  3. The Clarence Thomas Follies!
    By Taichiliberal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-30-2011, 11:04 AM
  4. Yes or no, should Clarence Thomas stay, or go?
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 05:36 AM
  5. Obama on Clarence Thomas
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 05:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •