Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by All-American View Post

    Who actually cited the statute.
    Not to go back and forth on this, but I think discounting journalistic articles that fail to cite a statute leads to discounting nearly all journalism. Surprisingly, non lawyers couldn’t be more bored with statutory language!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Applejack View Post

      Not to go back and forth on this, but I think discounting journalistic articles that fail to cite a statute leads to discounting nearly all journalism. Surprisingly, non lawyers couldn’t be more bored with statutory language!
      Lawyers aren't the only ones out there dealing with statutory language.
      "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
      - Goatnapper'96

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Applejack View Post

        Not to go back and forth on this, but I think discounting journalistic articles that fail to cite a statute leads to discounting nearly all journalism. Surprisingly, non lawyers couldn’t be more bored with statutory language!
        If you argue that a guy broke the law, it helps to actually say what law he supposedly broke. Agreed that is probably more boring and not likely to generate as many clicks.

        As for discounting nearly all journalism, well….
        τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post

          I think he knew he could get away with it. It'll all blow over soon enough.
          Excusing shenanigans is a problem for both the GOP and Dems and has been for a while. Of course nothing will come from this. The GOP movement has the most to lose having Thomas leave the court so they will point to the Dems acting poorly and shrug it off. And the cycle continues.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by All-American View Post

            If you argue that a guy broke the law, it helps to actually say what law he supposedly broke. Agreed that is probably more boring and not likely to generate as many clicks.

            As for discounting nearly all journalism, well….
            Let's just rely on tweets and Facebook posts instead! Journalism matters. It's not the enemy, and quality journalism isn't the problem.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by frank ryan View Post

              Let's just rely on tweets and Facebook posts instead! Journalism matters. It's not the enemy, and quality journalism isn't the problem.
              No, quality journalism is not the problem.
              τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

              Comment


              • Reporting ‘rental’ income of ~50-100K/year from a defunct LLC. That’s how Harlan Crow funneled money to Thomas, isn’t it?

                https://apple.news/AehCY-7S5QlCj8g6oQhVEYg

                I’m half joking about the Crow thing, but this is getting suspicious.
                "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                - SeattleUte

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                  Reporting ‘rental’ income of ~50-100K/year from a defunct LLC. That’s how Harlan Crow funneled money to Thomas, isn’t it?

                  https://apple.news/AehCY-7S5QlCj8g6oQhVEYg

                  I’m half joking about the Crow thing, but this is getting suspicious.
                  Each state can be a bit different, but it's actually really easy for a company in Idaho to be administratively dissolved - all you have to do is fail to file the annual report. That happens with a lot of operating companies.

                  Whether or not they intended to dissolve the original entity, it sounds like it was named similar enough that he still associated his wife's family's rental activity with the old name. None of that concerns me.

                  I would be interested to look at the financial statements of the activity, though, to see if there are any peculiarities related to the rental income. That said, im not surprised that the rental income and valuation is a lot more now than it was in the 1980s. But it would be troubling if he didn’t disclose the income or proper valuation.
                  "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
                  - Goatnapper'96

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Pelado View Post

                    Each state can be a bit different, but it's actually really easy for a company in Idaho to be administratively dissolved - all you have to do is fail to file the annual report. That happens with a lot of operating companies.

                    Whether or not they intended to dissolve the original entity, it sounds like it was named similar enough that he still associated his wife's family's rental activity with the old name. None of that concerns me.

                    I would be interested to look at the financial statements of the activity, though, to see if there are any peculiarities related to the rental income. That said, im not surprised that the rental income and valuation is a lot more now than it was in the 1980s. But it would be troubling if he didn’t disclose the income or proper valuation.
                    This is the second time today that I’ve been humbled by an accountant. Not sure I can take another one today.
                    "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                    "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                    - SeattleUte

                    Comment


                    • https://mobile.twitter.com/frankthor...90085336784896

                      lol Mitt weighs in, he should have a discussion with AA how this isn’t really that concerning because Ginnis the crazy one and Clarence is constant.

                      Every day it’s stepping the rakes with you conservatives.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by fusnik View Post
                        https://mobile.twitter.com/frankthor...90085336784896

                        lol Mitt weighs in, he should have a discussion with AA how this isn’t really that concerning because Ginnis the crazy one and Clarence is constant.

                        Every day it’s stepping the rakes with you conservatives.
                        So how strong of a response would be sufficient?

                        Comment


                        • lol Justice Clarence Thomas, of the U.S. Supreme Court, has a rough time with filing instructions. Apparently he uses Turbo Tax or something? GTFOH. Maybe let's not have a guy this 'forgetful' be in charge of complex, country-changing legal analysis, huh? (or maybe let's not have a dishonest guy like this on the Court. Is that too hard to admit?)

                          "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bo Diddley View Post

                            So how strong of a response would be sufficient?
                            I loved Mitts response.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by fusnik View Post
                              https://mobile.twitter.com/frankthor...90085336784896

                              lol Mitt weighs in, he should have a discussion with AA how this isn’t really that concerning because Ginnis the crazy one and Clarence is constant.

                              Every day it’s stepping the rakes with you conservatives.
                              My exact words were: "If he didn’t follow disclosure rules, that’s troubling."

                              It sounds like Mitt agrees with me.
                              τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by All-American View Post

                                My exact words were: "If he didn’t follow disclosure rules, that’s troubling."

                                It sounds like Mitt agrees with me.
                                Yeah but did you say it with enough ideological purity to gain Fusnik’s approval?

                                didn’t think so.
                                "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                                "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                                - SeattleUte

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X