Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I'd like to add, that a case in point is the Arizona case that SCOTUS ruled on in 2009, about the 13-yr-old girl who was strip-searched in school because another student said she had 2 ibuprofen tablets. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter on the court who felt that the school's actions were appropriate.
Oh, please. And so you believe OJ Simpson is innocent, too, because he wasn't convicted? Every person who ever got away with something was innocent because they weren't convicted. It's been thirty years, there won't be any charges brought because the statute of limitations has expired regarding any wrongdoing Justice Thomas may have been involved in. And in the early 1980's, even if Ms Hill had filed a complaint, Justice Thomas may not have been found guilty of sexual harrassment because the laws have changed in the past three decades considerably in this area. Men could rape their wives legally in New Jersey in the early 1980's. They can't now. And bosses could lear and make sexual jokes in the 1980's. They can't now.
The fact is that several credible organizations, including the Wall Street Journal-a bastion of conservatism if ever there was one, conducted investigations of Ms Hill's allegations after Justice Thomas was confirmed, and the Wall Street Journal, among others, concluded that there was a preponderance of evidence that supported Ms Hill's story. At the time, was what Justice Thomas accused of doing considered to be criminal or even legally actionable? Possibly. But taking legal action would most certainly have ruined the careers of both Ms Hill and Justice Thomas and to what purpose? She chose not to take action, AS MANY WOMEN DO.
The fact that no complaint was ever made against Justice Thomas is not a ringing endorsement of his innocence. The fact that colleagues of Justice Thomas and Ms Hill did affirm that she did complain at the time of his treatment, the fact that several other women have stated that he did behave inappropriately towards co-workers suggests that either Justice Thomas does not recognize when behavior is inappropriate, or that he lied about his own behavior.
And it does matter, because as a sitting judge Justice Thomas does weigh in on such cases.
OJ was judged innocent, there fore he is innocnet of all those charges of murder. It matters not what I believe.
You can sit around all day here rub eachs others opinions all you want, but it makes no sense to assume guilt when you have no proof. He passed the Senate inquiries and was confirmed by the Seante. Case closed.
Are you willing to condemn Obama as a cocaine addict because he admitted to using the drug before he became CIC / POTUS. Under your logic he is a drug addict. Right? Sure.....
Yes he was, but what does that matter in terms of crime? The people here aren't discussing civil cases, they are dicussing criminal charges, therefore your point is irrelevant.
How about Obama's admission of breaking the law by using Cocaine? He is in charge now of drug enforcement. IS this not the same conflict of interest you people are pointing about about Thomas.
BO was never convicted of using Cocaine, but he ADMITTED to it. so wouldn't that disqualify him from the office according to your logic? He admitted to breaking the law. He admitted to being a law breaker. How do you square that with your Justice Thomas argument? Should BO recuse himself on every drug related legislation? Please...
Please, take the accusatory bs and ignore it since it is only partisan bull...and petty as well, proven by the fact that BO was given a pass on his Cocaine use.
And I'd like to add, that a case in point is the Arizona case that SCOTUS ruled on in 2009, about the 13-yr-old girl who was strip-searched in school because another student said she had 2 ibuprofen tablets. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter on the court who felt that the school's actions were appropriate.
BO was never convicted of using Cocaine, but he ADMITTED to it. So, wouldn't that disqualify him from the office according to your logic?
He admitted to breaking the law and to being a law breaker. How do you square that with your Justice Thomas argument?
Should BO recuse himself on every drug related legislation? Please...
OJ was judged innocent, there fore he is innocnet of all those charges of murder. It matters not what I believe.
You can sit around all day here rub eachs others opinions all you want, but it makes no sense to assume guilt when you have no proof. He passed the Senate inquiries and was confirmed by the Seante. Case closed.
Are you willing to condemn Obama as a cocaine addict because he admitted to using the drug before he became CIC / POTUS. Under your logic he is a drug addict. Right? Sure.....
Your Obama argument is a straw man argument. It has nothing to do with the discussion.
What is at issue is that in an earlier post you said that another poster was spreading lies and baseless charges. And that's untrue. Everyone posting on this thread is discussing the merit of the statements made against Justice Thomas, both in the forthcoming book, and also during his confirmation hearings. You are asserting that Justice Thomas's word, against not just one other person, or two other persons, but agains several others', is the only word that matters. While your loyalty to Justice Thomas is laudable, I think most people would consider that when you are saying that Justice Thomas is not lying, you are also saying that all these other people ARE lying. And yet you have no evidence of that. Do you?
BO was never convicted of using Cocaine, but he ADMITTED to it. So, wouldn't that disqualify him from the office according to your logic?
He admitted to breaking the law and to being a law breaker. How do you square that with your Justice Thomas argument?
Should BO recuse himself on every drug related legislation? Please...
You seem to be reading a lot into my posts. Did I say that Justice Thomas wasn't qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? No. Did I say that he should be impeached? No. I simply said that his behavior and attitudes then are not separate from his attitudes and judgments today. And that matters. And I provided a reference to a legal case to show why it matters.
He is a dude!!! Do you not understand a heterosexual males mind and sex drive?
Your never going to be able to manage, correct, or change the way the male mind thinks. Never!
This goes for all species on earth.
He is not Gay!
I say big deal, the guy is normal.
When the story breaks he forced himself on a female, then we can talk.
Your Obama argument is a straw man argument. It has nothing to do with the discussion.
What is at issue is that in an earlier post you said that another poster was spreading lies and baseless charges. And that's untrue. Everyone posting on this thread is discussing the merit of the statements made against Justice Thomas, both in the forthcoming book, and also during his confirmation hearings. You are asserting that Justice Thomas's word, against not just one other person, or two other persons, but agains several others', is the only word that matters. While your loyalty to Justice Thomas is laudable, I think most people would consider that when you are saying that Justice Thomas is not lying, you are also saying that all these other people ARE lying. And yet you have no evidence of that. Do you?
I never accused anyone of lying So you are lying when you write this. Show me where I wrote someone was lying...unless retract your lie.
I am not saying anyone is lying. All I am asking is for proof and substaniation of the charges. No tickee no shirtee. No proof, no conviction(not in terms of justice) of the charges. Anyone in politics can line up a few shills to make baseless charges.
Obama is not a strwwman You just have no answer for it. It is the same exact thing you are trying to put over here. You people are trying to say since there are charges he must be guilty and therefore not quallified for the office he holds.
Well, I say the same thihg about Obama using YOUR logic, but take it one step further since Obama ADMITTED to breaking the law. He was given a pass yet you ignore the situation and call it a strawman. BS You have no answer to it because it deflates your ENTIRE argument.
My loyalty is to Justice, not to Thomas
I am not that narrowminded to support charges made up by people who have a partisan political axe to grind. If I were, I could push the Obama cocaine argument and declare him unqualified for the office he holds since he admitted to breaking the law. But I don't. I give him the pass for somethng he did using poor judgement by his own admission.
You people have no credible charges such as Obama admitting to cocaine use, yet you condemn a Justice on even less evidence. What's wrong with you people? Where is your logic? Oh, yes it is apparently hidden in your partisan pocket.
I never accused anyone of lying So you are lying when you write this. Show me where I wrote someone was lying...unless retract your lie.
I am not saying anyone is lying. All I am asking is for proof and substaniation of the charges. No tickee no shirtee. No proof, no conviction(not in terms of justice) of the charges. Anyone in politics can line up a few shills to make baseless charges.
Obama is not a strwwman You just have no answer for it. It is the same exact thing you are trying to put over here. You people are trying to say since there are charges he must be guilty and therefore not quallified for the office he holds.
Well, I say the same thihg about Obama using YOUR logic, but take it one step further since Obama ADMITTED to breaking the law. He was given a pass yet you ignore the situation and call it a strawman. BS You have no answer to it because it deflates your ENTIRE argument.
My loyalty is to Justice, not to Thomas
I am not that narrowminded to support charges made up by people who have a partisan political axe to grind. If I were, I could push the Obama cocaine argument and declare him unqualified for the office he holds since he admitted to breaking the law. But I don't. I give him the pass for somethng he did using poor judgement by his own admission.
You people have no credible charges such as Obama admitting to cocaine use, yet you condemn a Justice on even less evidence. What's wrong with you people? Where is your logic? Oh, yes it is apparently hidden in your partisan pocket.
Your post, #23 on this thread.
You say:
"You are spreading false and baseless accusations "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
