On 5/15/2022 1:34 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 May 2022 at 01:14:09 UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:56 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>>>>> GoogleNews is throwing me this WaPo headline:
>>
>>>>>> "Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court leak has eroded trust in
>>>>>> institution."
>>
>>>>>> The great legal mind is right, of course, but not like he thinks...
>>
>>>>> What exactly does he discuss with his wife about cases the court is
>>>>> working on, eh?
>>
>>>> moviePig is being a moron. No one will be surprised by Thomas's eventual
>>>> opinion or concurrence in part.
>>> How is he being a moron,
>> My statement is quoted above. It's not my fault you have a comprehension
>> problem.
>>> he inferred Thomas was being a grade A hypocrite with his "erosion of
>>> trust" statement which is what he is.
>> Thomas isn't hypocritical here. It just doesn't matter to the American
>> people that the Supreme Court is yet another Washington institution that
>> leaks like a sieve. Thomas thinks what affects him personally matters to
>> anyone outside the Court generally. That he's wrong doesn't make him a
>> hypcrite.
>>>> Alito is behaving as predicted. The only one who pretends he's changed
>>>> over time is Roberts, yet Roberts is the one who wrote all those
>>>> "gerrymandering is politics that federal courts must not interfere with"
>>>> deliberately intended to allow certain states to have legislatures with
>>>> Republican supermajorities that allowed extreme abortion restrictions to
>>>> be passed into law. One might say Roberts is having his cake and eating it
>>>> to for giving lip service to preserving the Supreme Court as an institution
>>>> whilst truly being an activist judge and hurting voters.
>>> Most of them are prima donnas who become more so as time passes,
>>> including Ginsberg who refused to retire in her late '80s and after
>>> umpteen cancer scares. She actually had hope today's Republican party
>>> wouldn't act in a hyper-partisan manner to fill her vacancy (then bend
>>> their own "rule" to appoint another Heritage Foundation-approved
>>> nominee).
>>
>> Yeah. Mitch McConnell really wouldn't have stalled filling her seat for
>> political reasons whilst Obama was president. Do you hear yourself? We
>> have actual evidence of McConnell's actions. Obama still got to make two
>> appointments during his first term. He wasn't going to get any others
>> during his second term.
>
> If and when the day ever comes and the Democrats do the same thing, all this will be forgotten, won't it?

This is 'whataboutism' taking out a loan against future earnings...