Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Lurch]

Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire episode list:

Pilot: I Need A Hill
Silence in Court
Recusal Refusal
My Wife, The Traitor
Supremature Ejaculation
Billionaire Bedfellows
Abortion Contortion
Mo' Money, Less Problems
Civil Wrongs
The New Justice Is Blind Drunk
Hollaback Girl Xmas Special

Clever titles!

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Which one is the beach episode?

 

[ZiprHead]

I want to see the episode where Thomas's wife drunk dials Anita Hill.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Which one is the beach episode?

And the Very Special Episode!

 

[shemp]

And the Very Special Episode!

The one in which he claims that, as a young lad, he was sexually assaulted by drag queens.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yep, rich people gonna rich, no matter who they are or what their job is. I think it's hilarious that he mentions RV-ing in the Walmart parking lot, like he has to quickly come up with something he thinks ordinary people do. You don't have to read too much into some of the Supreme Court's decisions to conclude that they have no idea how ordinary people in the United States actually live their lives. Their baseline seems to be Lifestyle of Affluent, Well-Connected White People.

But yeah, because rich people gonna rich, that's why we have the disclosure rules. We don't stop them from doing what they are naturally going to do. And power attracts money. Harlan Crow protests, "He's been my personal friend for 25 years." Well, yeah, but he's been a Supreme Court justice for 32, and that's more likely to be why you're friends with him. Currying favor for a long time doesn't make less suspicious. People with lots of money are going to try to influence people with lots of power. That's just human nature. But do it out in the open instead of under the table, so we can decide for ourselves whether to have faith in some particular decision or action. It's the hypocrisy of requiring everyone else at that level in government to disclose what they receive from their rich friends, but somehow the nine most individually powerful people in the United States get to keep it a secret. That's the part I'm not okay with.

If those numbers were reversed, the disclaimer would have much more validity.

 

[newyorkguy]

I want to see the episode where Thomas's wife drunk dials Anita Hill.

Can you shoot us a message when that episode is scheduled? Sounds like a 'don't-miss!'

 

[Beelzebuddy]

And thanks for making Joe Manchin the top of your list.

It's interesting how often the argument flips from "we're as frustrated with Manchin's obstruction as everyone else" to "Joe Manchin is a model Democrat and has nothing to answer for."

As far as I'm concerned, any metric that puts him in any sort of "okay" bucket is a bad one. Manchin is more properly described as a Republican who votes for Democratic appointees and obstructs on everything of import. Like, say, impeaching Clarence Thomas for flagrant bribery. You can dig up all the dirt you want, it's never going to affect ol' Uncle Tom because that "88% agreement" Democrat wants him in that seat.

 

[Norman Alexander]

It's not the 88% that Manhcin votes FOR that matter. It's the 12% he votes AGAINST.

 

[tyr_13]

Thomas has been claiming $50-100k in rental income for decades from a rental company that has not existed since 2006. This is likely a mistake as another company was formed, but how can such a mistake go unchallenged for almost two decades from a Supreme Court Justice?

He votes with them 88% of the time...as I already quoted and cited.

This is pure survivor bias. It isn't taking into account the many items that never come to a vote specifically because they know he is not on side. While I understand with and agree with your argument that it's better to have him than not as he does vote for judicial nominees and the like, it's not valid to conclude he hasn't massively obstructed the mainstream and progressive Democratic agenda in the last few years specifically. And it's more than just some details; he wouldn't let the agenda advance for abjectly false or nonsense objections that were often contradictory to each other.

In many ways, he isn't principled and just ends up in the 'center'; he seeks positions seemingly specifically because they are in the 'middle'. The man insisted on $4 billion for coal from green energy projects.

 

[Norman Alexander]

If Manchin votes for 88% of the routine unremarkable procedural bills nobody argues about, and then votes against nationally critically necessary bills put up by the Democrats that make up the other 12%, does that mean he is still an "88% Democrat supporter"? Take one wheel off a car and it is still "75% drivable" - is that how it is figured?

The 88/12% split is counting only the number of bills supported, not the individual bills' import.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is pure survivor bias.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

It isn't taking into account the many items that never come to a vote specifically because they know he is not on side.

Like? It's general claims like this with no evidence provided that I tend to question. What I can see is that he votes with Biden/Dems 88% of the time. What I can't see are how many items never come to a vote specifically because they know he is not on side.

While I understand with and agree with your argument that it's better to have him than not as he does vote for judicial nominees and the like, it's not valid to conclude he hasn't massively obstructed the mainstream and progressive Democratic agenda in the last few years specifically. And it's more than just some details; he wouldn't let the agenda advance for abjectly false or nonsense objections that were often contradictory to each other.

I think it's quite valid and I've already addressed Donal's claims about BBB and the Infrastructure bills which he signed after some negotiating. Donal was also incorrect about Manchin not supporting codifying R v W and about his record for supporting unions. As I said, he's fiscally conservative which is the main sticking point for him with some Dem bills.

Can you give me examples with citations for the highlighted? I repeat: these are the kind of claims that I tend to question.

In many ways, he isn't principled and just ends up in the 'center'; he seeks positions seemingly specifically because they are in the 'middle'.

Personal opinion.

The man insisted on $4 billion for coal from green energy projects.

No, it didn't. The $4 billion isn't "for coal" but for investing in communities where coal mines closed or with retired coal-fired power plants including creating green energy sources:

The IRA required that at least $4 billion of the $10 billion 48C Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit be reserved for projects in coal communities. The program provides incentives for clean energy property manufacturing and recycling, industrial decarbonization, and critical minerals processing, refining and recycling.

The program provides incentives for clean energy property manufacturing and recycling, industrial decarbonization, and critical materials processing, refining, and recycling. The notice provides a broad range of examples of projects eligible to apply for an investment tax credit of up to 30 percent, including manufacturing of fuel cells and components for geothermal electricity and hydropower, equipment for carbon capture, and critical minerals processing facilities.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided $10 billion in new funding for the Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit program. In the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress required that at least $4 billion be reserved for projects in communities with closed coal mines or retired coal-fired power plants.

The initial funding round outlined today will include $4 billion, with about $1.6 billion reserved for projects in coal communities.

https://www.energy.senate.gov/2023/...eduction-act-tax-credits-for-coal-communities

 

[Stacyhs]

If Manchin votes for 88% of the routine unremarkable procedural bills nobody argues about, and then votes against nationally critically necessary bills put up by the Democrats that make up the other 12%, does that mean he is still an "88% Democrat supporter"? Take one wheel off a car and it is still "75% drivable" - is that how it is figured?

The 88/12% split is counting only the number of bills supported, not the individual bills' import.

The highlighted is just made up; you have no idea if the 88% he voted for are "routine unremarkable procedural bills nobody argues about" and that the "other 12%" are votes against "nationally critically necessary bills." I've already corrected Donal's erroneous claims about the BBB, Infrastructure bill, and the codifying R v W. I've also corrected tyr_13's claim about Manchin taking $4 billion "for coal" and "from green energy projects".

I'm no big fan of Manchin's but I believe in being truthful about his record.

 

[The Don]

Then again there are initiatives that never come to a vote because the Democratic Party leaders know that Manchin will oppose them.

 

[Donal]

Then again there are initiatives that never come to a vote because the Democratic Party leaders know that Manchin will oppose them.

Ya, that was a source of constant drama. His going on TV, including FOX News, and openly bashing his fellow Democrats didn't help.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You're confusing codifying R v W with the bill he voted against, the Women's Health Protection Act. Manchin believed the WHPS 'expanded abortion', which is why he said "It's just disappointing that we're going to be voting on a piece of legislation which I would not vote for today," Manchin told reporters. "But I would vote for Roe v. Wade codification if it was today."

Manchin tore into the proposal, saying it "expands abortion." He told reporters he had been "pro-life all of my life" but did believe in some exceptions to abortion bans."
https://www.businessinsider.com/manchin-vote-against-democrats-bill-to-codify-roe-v-wade-2022-5

Hasn't Susan Collins run this act into the ground already?

 

[Beerina]

One thing can, and eventually will, be done to break this volksgerichtshof's stranglehold on the application of injustice on your nation. All it will take is for one state governor to declare a ruling to be illegitimate and that would be ignored within their jurisdiction. What would Roberts do if Governor Newsom declared his next illegal ruling is to be ignored in California.

The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement in the final analysis.

The president would have to send in the National Guard, I guess.

I wonder if there is precedence for governors claiming the Supreme Court decision is void and they ain't gonna do it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Centrists support the status quo and so are fundamentally conservative.

Like being against gay marriage is centrist because it isnicely in the center between homosexual relationships are valid and homosexuals should be put to death.

 

[Agatha]

Return to talking about Clarence Thomas, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[bruto]

The president would have to send in the National Guard, I guess.

I wonder if there is precedence for governors claiming the Supreme Court decision is void and they ain't gonna do it.

Maybe Dred Scott?