The list of gifts and hospitality Justice Clarence Thomas has received from wealthy friends is more extensive than previously known, according to a new ProPublica report.
I wonder how the whole thing works on a practical level, and is Thomas the only one in on it? Do these people just constantly lavish Thomas (others) with gifts with a sort of unspoken expectation that he’ll rule the way they want whenever things come up? Maybe somebody just gives an opinion to Thomas during one of these outings and that’s his direction he’s supposed to take.
“That thing is so silly, don’t you think? I can’t imagine why anybody would go along with that.” Maybe something small like that, but the implication is there, “You need to go against that thing”, whatever the thing happens to be for that court case. And it’s just the understood arrangement that if Thomas wants to keep these benefits coming and not disappoint his friends, he should rule the way he’d expect they’d want him to rule.
Or is it more explicit than that and they have a list of all the cases coming up and they just tell Thomas how they’d like him to rule, then just leave the specifics of how he’s supposed interpret the law up to Thomas to figure out? He’s told out to rule first, then sort of works backwards from there to figure out his actual legal arguments for it.
I mean, I don’t think there’s any doubt about which way any conservative justice is expected to rule on most cases, and especially not the big ones. Nothing needs to be said.
I wonder how the whole thing works on a practical level, and is Thomas the only one in on it? Do these people just constantly lavish Thomas (others) with gifts with a sort of unspoken expectation that he’ll rule the way they want whenever things come up? Maybe somebody just gives an opinion to Thomas during one of these outings and that’s his direction he’s supposed to take.
“That thing is so silly, don’t you think? I can’t imagine why anybody would go along with that.” Maybe something small like that, but the implication is there, “You need to go against that thing”, whatever the thing happens to be for that court case. And it’s just the understood arrangement that if Thomas wants to keep these benefits coming and not disappoint his friends, he should rule the way he’d expect they’d want him to rule.
Or is it more explicit than that and they have a list of all the cases coming up and they just tell Thomas how they’d like him to rule, then just leave the specifics of how he’s supposed interpret the law up to Thomas to figure out? He’s told out to rule first, then sort of works backwards from there to figure out his actual legal arguments for it.
I mean, I don’t think there’s any doubt about which way any conservative justice is expected to rule on most cases, and especially not the big ones. Nothing needs to be said.
Look up how the Federalist Society works, and Leonard Leo.
It’s right out in the open.
The Supreme Court ruled 100% in favor of corporations in every labor rights and wage theft case. There is your answer.