@jackhutton

Yeah stonewalling, here the idea that private matters should be private, and the legislature branch should not violate judicial independence at the same time as they want to engage in political grandstanding over private matters.

Really the guy just called out congresspeople for going off the rails.

@politico

@volkris @politico Harlan Crow bought himself a Supreme Court justice. He should at least pay taxes on his purchase.

@jackhutton

There are so many reasons that is a stupid thing to say.

Bought a Supreme Court Justice? As if that makes any sense at all, one of many justices, with the checks and balances in place already to make sure that no justice can be bought and impact the rest of the legal system? Not to mention the role of the judicial branch in the US system of government?

No. That doesn't make any sense at all. It is idiotic to even suggest such a thing, and I'm not mincing words here because, seriously, that is an idiotic thing to say.

That conspiracy theory makes no sense considering the design of the US government, and anybody who believes such a thing does not know how the US government functions.

And I'm just sad for you that you would buy into such a idiotic theory.

@politico

@volkris @politico he bought his mothers house & the houses nearby - Harlan Crow spent millions to buy the Thomases. Thomas needs to resign. — there are no checks and balances. The justices police themselves. And they aren’t. Vacations. We need to know what else bought for them. Harlan Crow owns Clarence Thomas—he bought himself Supreme Court decisions. It was worth it to him. Paid off handsomely.

@jackhutton

I mean you can say there are no checks and balances until your face goes blue, but it cannot change the fact that there are checks and balances.

You are spouting conspiracy theories here. And it does no good.

@politico

@volkris @politico as you say — applies. You do not address the money Harlan Crow gave to the Thomases.

Justice Thomas is being bribed. Bought. To what extent? We will find out.

@jackhutton

Because this is a rush to judgment based on a factually screwy narrative put out by an organization with a history of sensationalized reporting that gets debunked farther down the line.

That's hardly a good basis on which to threaten judicial independence.

I honestly don't care what Thomas did in his personal life. I only care about what he did in the job that he was hired to do, and there's amazingly little actual criticism of his work in office.

This isn't a legislator. He doesn't get to just vote yes or no, subject to bribery. His opinions are published and only count to the extent that they are logically coherent and factually correct.

So yeah, not only do I think these accusations are generally false, but it wouldn't even matter if they were true, because that's not the role Thomas plays in the US system of government.

@politico

@volkris @politico Clarence Thomas’s decisions have been benefiting wealthy donors like Harlan Crow — for decades https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/clarence-thomass-decisions-have-been-benefiting-wealthy-donors-like-harlan-crow-for-decades/

@jackhutton

So?

Correct decisions benefit a lot of people, and that has absolutely nothing to do with their correctness.

It's such a stretch to try to say that simply because this guy indirectly benefited, therefore let's ignore all of the checks and balances and protections and systems of governance surrounding the place of the Supreme Court in the US system of government, and just draw the sensationalized, politically spun drama into the center of it all.

It's really naive.

@politico

@volkris @politico thomas is corrupt. Thomas has been bought. Thomas is not transparent. You have no argument. its tedious. Moreover, you're a false engagement bot. Time waster.

@jackhutton

Fun fact: Supreme Court opinions are posted publicly!

We are all free to read them, and I encourage everybody to read them.

The main work product of the court is entirely transparent.

@politico

@volkris cameras need to be in the court.

@jackhutton

Why? It's the opinion that matters, not the hairstyle worn during the hearing.

The logic laid out to all of us in the opinion they release is the only thing that matters in the work of the Supreme Court. That's what lower courts would be bound to as they apply the logic to the other cases before them.

It doesn't matter one bit what the justices look like as they are hearing the presentations from council.