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.
Leaving the tea partiers alone, Clarence Thomas as a justice on the Supreme Court has an obligation to maintain at least an appearance of non-partisanship. We all know that the justices have sympathies in one direction or another, but when those same justices abandon the effort to appear unbiased, then they cast the court's credibility and integrity away.
It doesn't matter about his race, or even his politics. His professional ethics are involved in this.
Personally, I tend to think that Justice Thomas is cognizant of this, he chose to accompany his wife to a political event, and his photograph was taken there. His image in an ad for that political event may have been inadvertent, but he owes it to the Supreme Court as the symbol of justice in this country, and he owes to his colleagues on the court to take steps to have his image removed from such ads.
Okay, now this is a valid point, and I agree with you on all of this.
Exactly! Are the folks on the left that afraid of the Tea Party movement? So afraid that they (some of them) would be willing to infiltrate events causing trouble, potentially take away the Constitutional rights of the event goers or label them terrorist or traitor. Quite the sad state of affairs
Yeah sure...we're afraid of a bunch of old Faux News worshiping white racists in lawn chairs..
Just like we were afraid of the Wasilla hillbilly in 2008..
Btw, the Teabagger attempt to insulate themselves from charges of racism by blaming it on outside agitators doesn't fly. It's clearly an act of desperation. All it does is serve to highlight the movement's overt racial hostility and the inability of the 'bagger leaders to control it.
I can't speak to Mrs Thomas, but you brought up Mrs Clinton, and impugned her reputation for no good reason. I was familiar with Hillary Rodham before she changed her name to Clinton, and she worked hard to build a respected career and reputation separate from her husband's.
Sorry if I offended you. It was a quick reponse to make a point about a previous post about Mrs. Thomas. It was meant more to draw a comparison of the two to show the inaccuracy of the first post than to impugn Clinton. I could have provided more context.
Leaving the tea partiers alone, Clarence Thomas as a justice on the Supreme Court has an obligation to maintain at least an appearance of non-partisanship. We all know that the justices have sympathies in one direction or another, but when those same justices abandon the effort to appear unbiased, then they cast the court's credibility and integrity away.
It doesn't matter about his race, or even his politics. His professional ethics are involved in this.
Personally, I tend to think that Justice Thomas is cognizant of this, he chose to accompany his wife to a political event, and his photograph was taken there. His image in an ad for that political event may have been inadvertent, but he owes it to the Supreme Court as the symbol of justice in this country, and he owes to his colleagues on the court to take steps to have his image removed from such ads.
No he doesn't. Why in the world would anyone think the Supreme Court is ever going to hear a case about Tea Party people? Even if by some off chance they do he is allowed to step down from the case. Judges do that all the time.
I'm sure there is some rule or law somewhere that says what a Supreme can and can't do. And I'm sure the judge is knowledgeable of said rules.
No he doesn't. Why in the world would anyone think the Supreme Court is ever going to hear a case about Tea Party people? Even if by some off chance they do he is allowed to step down from the case. Judges do that all the time.
I'm sure there is some rule or law somewhere that says what a Supreme can and can't do. And I'm sure the judge is knowledgeable of said rules.
Yes, he does. As a person serving on the highest court in the land, he doesn't just represent himself when he makes political statements. He has to live by a higher standard because he has accepted a position in the government that requires those higher standards. We all expect our judges to maintain some level of objectivity. If Thomas willingly participates in advertising for a political movement, he compromises that objectivity. It doesn't matter if the Supreme Court ever hears a case about the Tea Party movement. Any issue that the Tea Partiers has raised, Thomas, if he willingly advertises for the Tea Party movement, creates doubt that he can objectively judge those issues. And that doubt casts a pall over the entire court.
And judges may step down from cases, but how often do Supreme Court Justices recuse themselves?
maybe if you'd stop fantasizing about teabagging your boyfriend for a moment, you'd realize the "source" of your information is crap. However, if you're ignorant enough to actually believe something from cbs and the nyt, you're too far gone.
The main point of the Tea Party is to stir things up....to raise awareness of their point of view.....to get people's attention.
Since you moonbats get your panties in a bunch several times a day each and every day due to the Tea Party I'd say that they're doing a pretty good job.
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.
Exactly! Are the folks on the left that afraid of the Tea Party movement? So afraid that they (some of them) would be willing to infiltrate events causing trouble, potentially take away the Constitutional rights of the event goers or label them terrorist or traitor. Quite the sad state of affairs
