Is there no LEGAL conduct which could make any judge/justice unsuited to continue to serve on the bench? There sure are for lowly lawyers. I'd be curios to see an argument which excludes judges.
There are ethical rules for lawyers and ethical rules for judges, separately, at least in my state (and they are state rules; I don't know about SCOTUS except that it doesn't have any; I assume federal courts beneath SCOTUS do have them but I don't know if they follow state rules or have separate ones. In any case, it seems the days of self-regulation should come to a close for all with authority over us.
There's a lot of Mona-hating in the Bulwark comments as a whole, and I can't say I understand it. In this case specifically, though, I don't think it's warranted. She didn't endorse his behavior; in fact, it's the opposite. She simply observed the realities that A) in general, each political group has more favorable views of "our guys" than they do of "their guys", and B) that though his behavior doesn't look good and certainly warrants attention, it's simply not illegal. And that's because there is very little legally required. How we feel about these facts shouldn't have any influence on how we feel about the messenger.
So hereтАЩs just one thing that Harlan Crow did to enrich the Clarence Thomas family, & itтАЩs difficult for me to understand why people like Mona Charon, lawyer or no lawyer, donтАЩt find it unethical, if not illegal:
Pro Publica reported that in 2011 Harlan Crow donated $500,000 to Ginni ThomasтАЩs Liberty Central non profit, which in turn paid Ginni Thomas a salary of $120,000 per year. Then Clarence Thomas failed to disclose his wifeтАЩs income from that non profit that same year!
IтАЩm neither a CPA nor a lawyer, isnтАЩt that income tax evasion?
The minute saw that she had written some twisted justification, my mind said SKIP IT. I have never appreciated her, and while I am glad that she is a never Trumper, I still don't like what she thinks about anything.
I don't think Trump has any preconditions to justify his behavior, nor do I think he's remotely concerned with ethics. The Trump Doctrine would be a step beyond Nixon's presidential perspective: If Trump does it, it's not illegal.
The Supreme Court used to be held in high regard as men of great wisdom and fairness, so no ethics laws were thought necessary. Then the Court became the target of a move to put people on it to advance the political agenda of reversing Roe v Wade. This mission is now accomplished, with the cost that the Supreme Court has reached the nadir of respect and esteem. Now that is off the lofty mountaintop and down in the streets with the rest of us, it might be a good time to formally enact ethics laws for them. No more relying on their own judgement of what looks bad.
Yes, tRump and his repub trumpoons like McConnell, IMHO, have a mountain of responsibility when it comes to the current court and respect. And, once cocaine mitch(sorry I don't want to help myself) and the federalists slammed through The Three, then Alito and Thomas saw their chance.
The Roberts Court has certainly sunk to a new low, thanks in large part to Mitch McConnell's machinations (unconstitutional imo).
But the problem started with Marbury v Madison when that SCOTUS decided it would take to itself powers it was never given by the Constitution and never intended to have. It has been downhill since then. (Possibly analogous to the White House expansion of use of Executive Orders to bypass obstruction and legislation. And the Congress' use of arcane "rules" which have no force of law -- like the filibuster.) Power corrupts!
My bright idea is that if I ever get pulled over, I would say I thought speed limit referred to a minimum, not maximum speed. I don't think it will work out, but I think it should.
Yep. Remember when we thought those ideas were "fringe"?
Now, one of our two candidates last year openly proclaimed that as county sheriff he would refuse to enforce laws he believed were unconstitutional. The other candidate said "As sheriff, I don't get to pick and choose the laws which we enforce. It's my job to enforce all the laws equally."
Fortunately, the "constitutional sheriff" candidate was defeated, and the one who believed he should uphold the law, not interpret it, was returned to office. But not by much.
Good to know the constiutional sherrif was defeated, cause I've heard about them but not any election results. Not by much you say? Take the win, I say. It tells me Independents made the difference. That's where elections are won in our highly polarized electorate.
That is, I think, the motif of our time...we need to codify in law all the things that for years we just knew were wrong.
Now we need specific statutes with specific consequences so that people will know that being a Supreme Court Justice ( or the President) isn't actually a licence for graft.
For years we knew things in our legal code were wrong, but we counted on the archaic concept of personal honor in public figures to bridge the voids. Trump blew that mindset out of the water.
Agree. Just want to point out a recent Ezra Klein interview with David French. The loss of personal honor - he calls it moral fortitude. We've had a breakdown in moral norms, he says, but Trump didn't do it alone. It was led by the elected Rs who failed to exercise the moral fortitude to stop Trump from breaking American norms.
And why did they? Cause they wanted to maintain their power position. To do that, they had to placate the base. That's the source of it all. Our fellow Americans . . .
Thanks for that reminder - I need to listen to that one. Ezra Klein is so smart! I try to wait until I can concentrate, to listen to his pods, and then I get way too behind on keeping up with him. ItтАЩs like going to college.
You are most welcome. I listen to pods after I've checked the morning emails, planned my day, and do a little clean up and getting dressed for work. When I hear good ones, I make a note to myself to find the podcast. The good thing about pods is you can listen to them in pieces.
BTW, GG was my late sister's name for her grandchildren, from her initials, SGG. She was my best friend and I miss her everyday. I thought it was a great name for grandmother.
Thanks for reading it so I didnтАЩt have to. ThatтАЩs not totally a slam on Mona Charen. ThereтАЩs enough other news IтАЩve kinda skirted the Thomas story.
As I posted separately, there is definitely a lot of Mona-hating in Bulwark commentary. From what I've seen, she's the least popular of Bulwark contributors. I just don't feel this is justifiable, though it's just my opinion and someone has to be the least liked.
As you say, in this particular case, all she said was that he didn't break a law because what little law their is is quite squishy, which she believes is a concern. She definitely thinks what he's done is not good and that we need better accountability for SCOTUS justices.
Thanks for adding to what she said. Also, I am not a Mona-hater. I don't read all of her stuff like I do Charlie's and JVL's, but when I do, I find her arguments are backed up with facts and mostly persuasive. Every time she's on Thurs Night Bulwark, I find her commentary to be measured and thoughtful. So I don't understand the hating.
Agreed, Sandy. I feel like many commentors just can't quit with the flippant responses altogether, even at The Bulwark. They appear to have settled on Mona as their target. It's lame and I dislike it intensely. Even the ones who are clearly intelligent become instantly stupid in their meanness.
It seems like a lot of the more lefty women here just have a hard time figuring out why a Mona exists. She's like some kind of exotic creature they don't know how to deal with.
Mona didn't say all is good. She said no laws were broken, and she's correct. But she also noted the impropriety of Thomas' action, which she is of course right there as well. His is a blatant case, made worse by the fact that he is entrusted in a lifelong constitutional position, and he is betraying that trust with complete disregard of its position. As these people continue to overreach from their positions, they only magnify the electoral, constitutional backlash to come. There is only one remedy to it all. Vote. Increase margins in Congress. Exert oversight and governance. It won't happen overnight
It won't happen to SCOTUS for 50 years unless the court is expanded or a few of them are impeached and removed. They will continue to do enormous damage to the Rule of Law.
Except the friends and gifts exception doesnтАЩt cover the private jet. It also implies that a reasonable person in his position would see the problem in accepting such largesse. So the question really boils down to is Thomas stupid or unreasonable?
An individual entrusted with a role on the Supreme Court should have absolutely known the problem of accepting this kind of largesse. I vote for unethical.
This was always my take on the Hillary Clinton email server. It's not that she intentionally mishandled records or that she was explicitly trying to evade oversight, it's that she made a substantial departure from the norm and either A) knew this was the case but proceeded without concern or proper vetting, or B) didn't even understand how that was such a departure and therefore, to me, is too incompetent to be Secretary of State or President. That said, I would take her over Trump in a heartbeat if I could.
I don't know that she made a "substantial departure from the norm" as both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell had similar private email servers in their homes during their stints as Sec of State. Not that it makes any of it ok, but definitely points at the double-standard she faced.
Did it occur to you that A. she was a boomer with limited understanding of technology despite her brilliance, or B. she was so sick and tired of every aspect of her life being sensenationalized and exploited by nasty enemies, she thought she had found a way to avoid that?
IтАЩm a Boomer. IтАЩve always enjoyed taking new tech for a spin. I absolutely understood that what Hilary did was a basic no-no. She doesnтАЩt get a pass on that from me. I really wish sheтАЩd have become our first woman president though.
It's also the same for Bill Clinton's perjury. He may very well have thought that the line of questioning was inappropriate and that he shouldn't have to answer personal questions about his sex life (assuming he's not sleeping with a spy or other compromised asset that very well may be of national interest), but when giving sworn testimony in a legal proceeding, the President, like all of us, doesn't get to lie. That was wrong, plain a simple.
Just because someone's behavior is understandable doesn't mean that it's excusable.
There are boomers who understand technology, so I don't think it's a blanket pass. Also, when the government already provides you with the infrastructure you need, but you decide to spend money to set up your own within your private home, I certainly think the question of, "Hey, is this cool?", is not too much to expect someone who would be President to ask.
I'm sure she was annoyed, frustrated, exhausted, etc.; however, as someone who was our top diplomat and wanted to be President, she should be held to the HIGHEST standard of any one individual in this country. I'm sure Clarence Thomas was tired of having to justify himself when he was first called out for these gifts 20 years ago, so he decided instead to just stop reporting them. That's not (or at least certainly shouldn't be) his prerogative. We should expect better of the 9 unelected, serving-for-life SCOTUS justices. We should expect even more from the single-person that is the POTUS.
I also completely agree with Dems voting to fix the damage, but it's gonna take a LONG time. But a question: Is this the part on Mona that you disagree with: "Mona didn't say all is good. She said no laws were broken, and she's correct. But she also noted the impropriety of Thomas' action, which she is of course right there as well"?
It doesn't matter if he broke the law. He will have no consequences. He is among those definitely-unworthy who are above the law under this SCOTUS and this US House and Mitch McConnell (who shoved several unfit judges down our throats).
To me, the impeachment point is that he broke one of the very few ethical rules of conduct imposed on itself by SCOTUS and thumbs his nose at that too. (The other reason to impeach him is that his wife runs the judiciary now apparently.) Thomas has never been a good jurist or an honest one. And like all Republicans nowadays he thumbs his nose in public at his many many perfidies (if no felonies...yet).
I am not a lawyer, however, there is an ethical question about right, about honor about integrity in question. Clarence has never had any concept of right, honor nor ethics
Something bad happened to Dahlia Lithwick early in the Trump Administration. For years, she was my favorite legal commentator, but she lost all objectivity then, and never got it back, as far as I'm concerned.
Do we really need to call her names? Some of us like her a lot. She was one of the reasons that I joined Bulwark+. Now I like Sarah Longwell every bit as much and JVL and Charlie and and and... but Mona first.
MonaтАЩs not forgiven for her tasteless opinion on President Carter as he was ill and dying! What kind of person writes this. I didnтАЩt care for Reagan at all, but when he died I focused on the fact he and his wife loved each other,and she stayed and cared for him to the end. Some people are capable of compassion,some not.
I like Mona. I don't agree with her take on all things, or many, but I am GLAD she is on the never trump bandwagon. I am not in favor of a purity test here.
I worked in financial services for decades and we have disclosure forms, a gift log etc. I had to confirm that no family members were supervised by me. I even have to get pre-approval if I give to local campaigns (because my employer was a govt contractor). So Clarence Thomas had to know that his behavior was at least an outlier is term of what public official should do.
And if Thomas "relied" on someone READING him the rules and TELLING him he could ignore them, that alone is cause for impeachment and removal, as it indicates his single-digit IQ.
Yeah, but Mona didn't think he broke any laws, so it's all good.
Besides, who needs judicial ethics?
Is there no LEGAL conduct which could make any judge/justice unsuited to continue to serve on the bench? There sure are for lowly lawyers. I'd be curios to see an argument which excludes judges.
There are ethical rules for lawyers and ethical rules for judges, separately, at least in my state (and they are state rules; I don't know about SCOTUS except that it doesn't have any; I assume federal courts beneath SCOTUS do have them but I don't know if they follow state rules or have separate ones. In any case, it seems the days of self-regulation should come to a close for all with authority over us.
That's an opinion, just like yours, except Mona's a lawyer. I think many will come to her conclusion and it's worth hearing.
Now, continue to whine without offering an actual point other than bullying Mona.
There's a lot of Mona-hating in the Bulwark comments as a whole, and I can't say I understand it. In this case specifically, though, I don't think it's warranted. She didn't endorse his behavior; in fact, it's the opposite. She simply observed the realities that A) in general, each political group has more favorable views of "our guys" than they do of "their guys", and B) that though his behavior doesn't look good and certainly warrants attention, it's simply not illegal. And that's because there is very little legally required. How we feel about these facts shouldn't have any influence on how we feel about the messenger.
Agree. We need to save the nasty for LYING FUCKERS like Tucker, Trump, Jordan etc.
Thanks, Walter.
Completely agree.
"It's all good" is NOT what Mona said. She said specifically, "ItтАЩs not a crisis, but itтАЩs not good." The exact opposite of what you asserted.
So hereтАЩs just one thing that Harlan Crow did to enrich the Clarence Thomas family, & itтАЩs difficult for me to understand why people like Mona Charon, lawyer or no lawyer, donтАЩt find it unethical, if not illegal:
Pro Publica reported that in 2011 Harlan Crow donated $500,000 to Ginni ThomasтАЩs Liberty Central non profit, which in turn paid Ginni Thomas a salary of $120,000 per year. Then Clarence Thomas failed to disclose his wifeтАЩs income from that non profit that same year!
IтАЩm neither a CPA nor a lawyer, isnтАЩt that income tax evasion?
I don't know why she doesn't find that illegal, and I don't know tax law. I'm certainly open to any arguments that it's illegal.
The minute saw that she had written some twisted justification, my mind said SKIP IT. I have never appreciated her, and while I am glad that she is a never Trumper, I still don't like what she thinks about anything.
Trump Doctrine:
Unless indicted, it's ethical.
I don't think Trump has any preconditions to justify his behavior, nor do I think he's remotely concerned with ethics. The Trump Doctrine would be a step beyond Nixon's presidential perspective: If Trump does it, it's not illegal.
You mean convicted and not pardoned. Indictments seem irrelevant to the Trump doctrine.
The Supreme Court used to be held in high regard as men of great wisdom and fairness, so no ethics laws were thought necessary. Then the Court became the target of a move to put people on it to advance the political agenda of reversing Roe v Wade. This mission is now accomplished, with the cost that the Supreme Court has reached the nadir of respect and esteem. Now that is off the lofty mountaintop and down in the streets with the rest of us, it might be a good time to formally enact ethics laws for them. No more relying on their own judgement of what looks bad.
Yes, tRump and his repub trumpoons like McConnell, IMHO, have a mountain of responsibility when it comes to the current court and respect. And, once cocaine mitch(sorry I don't want to help myself) and the federalists slammed through The Three, then Alito and Thomas saw their chance.
Ask a random person about Dredd Scott or Plessey vs Ferguson and you will get a blank stare.
they should know. its a very important part of American history.
The Roberts Court has certainly sunk to a new low, thanks in large part to Mitch McConnell's machinations (unconstitutional imo).
But the problem started with Marbury v Madison when that SCOTUS decided it would take to itself powers it was never given by the Constitution and never intended to have. It has been downhill since then. (Possibly analogous to the White House expansion of use of Executive Orders to bypass obstruction and legislation. And the Congress' use of arcane "rules" which have no force of law -- like the filibuster.) Power corrupts!
exactly!!!
So next time I get stopped for speeding, IтАЩll tell the officer that based on my interpretation I was fully complying with the posted speed limit.
My bright idea is that if I ever get pulled over, I would say I thought speed limit referred to a minimum, not maximum speed. I don't think it will work out, but I think it should.
Probably as good a chance as my approach, which plead ignorance.
You could try the sovereign citizen thing.
That only works if you're a high-profile GOPer.
Or a GOP sheriff, with the "authority" to interpret the Constitution...
Any of you old enough to remember Gordon Kahl? He had joined a group that insisted ONLY sheriffs could enforce the law.
Yep. Remember when we thought those ideas were "fringe"?
Now, one of our two candidates last year openly proclaimed that as county sheriff he would refuse to enforce laws he believed were unconstitutional. The other candidate said "As sheriff, I don't get to pick and choose the laws which we enforce. It's my job to enforce all the laws equally."
Fortunately, the "constitutional sheriff" candidate was defeated, and the one who believed he should uphold the law, not interpret it, was returned to office. But not by much.
Good to know the constiutional sherrif was defeated, cause I've heard about them but not any election results. Not by much you say? Take the win, I say. It tells me Independents made the difference. That's where elections are won in our highly polarized electorate.
Extra тЭдтЭдтЭдтЭдs for this comment.
The laws need to be changed then.
That is, I think, the motif of our time...we need to codify in law all the things that for years we just knew were wrong.
Now we need specific statutes with specific consequences so that people will know that being a Supreme Court Justice ( or the President) isn't actually a licence for graft.
For years we knew things in our legal code were wrong, but we counted on the archaic concept of personal honor in public figures to bridge the voids. Trump blew that mindset out of the water.
Agree. Just want to point out a recent Ezra Klein interview with David French. The loss of personal honor - he calls it moral fortitude. We've had a breakdown in moral norms, he says, but Trump didn't do it alone. It was led by the elected Rs who failed to exercise the moral fortitude to stop Trump from breaking American norms.
And why did they? Cause they wanted to maintain their power position. To do that, they had to placate the base. That's the source of it all. Our fellow Americans . . .
Thanks for that reminder - I need to listen to that one. Ezra Klein is so smart! I try to wait until I can concentrate, to listen to his pods, and then I get way too behind on keeping up with him. ItтАЩs like going to college.
You are most welcome. I listen to pods after I've checked the morning emails, planned my day, and do a little clean up and getting dressed for work. When I hear good ones, I make a note to myself to find the podcast. The good thing about pods is you can listen to them in pieces.
BTW, GG was my late sister's name for her grandchildren, from her initials, SGG. She was my best friend and I miss her everyday. I thought it was a great name for grandmother.
Thanks for reading it so I didnтАЩt have to. ThatтАЩs not totally a slam on Mona Charen. ThereтАЩs enough other news IтАЩve kinda skirted the Thomas story.
IтАЩm approaching information overload.
Understood, but Mr. Lewandowski implied "it's all good" is what Mona said. She said the opposite.
As I posted separately, there is definitely a lot of Mona-hating in Bulwark commentary. From what I've seen, she's the least popular of Bulwark contributors. I just don't feel this is justifiable, though it's just my opinion and someone has to be the least liked.
As you say, in this particular case, all she said was that he didn't break a law because what little law their is is quite squishy, which she believes is a concern. She definitely thinks what he's done is not good and that we need better accountability for SCOTUS justices.
Thanks for adding to what she said. Also, I am not a Mona-hater. I don't read all of her stuff like I do Charlie's and JVL's, but when I do, I find her arguments are backed up with facts and mostly persuasive. Every time she's on Thurs Night Bulwark, I find her commentary to be measured and thoughtful. So I don't understand the hating.
Agreed, Sandy. I feel like many commentors just can't quit with the flippant responses altogether, even at The Bulwark. They appear to have settled on Mona as their target. It's lame and I dislike it intensely. Even the ones who are clearly intelligent become instantly stupid in their meanness.
It seems like a lot of the more lefty women here just have a hard time figuring out why a Mona exists. She's like some kind of exotic creature they don't know how to deal with.
Agree they are mostly flippant responses. (Good word. Synonyms for flippant are superficial and thoughtless.) So not worth my time to respond to.
Mona didn't say all is good. She said no laws were broken, and she's correct. But she also noted the impropriety of Thomas' action, which she is of course right there as well. His is a blatant case, made worse by the fact that he is entrusted in a lifelong constitutional position, and he is betraying that trust with complete disregard of its position. As these people continue to overreach from their positions, they only magnify the electoral, constitutional backlash to come. There is only one remedy to it all. Vote. Increase margins in Congress. Exert oversight and governance. It won't happen overnight
It won't happen to SCOTUS for 50 years unless the court is expanded or a few of them are impeached and removed. They will continue to do enormous damage to the Rule of Law.
But the problem with Mona is that she framed the piece as about partisan outrage as if the left was only being partisan. It was a timid piece at best.
I never read her. I've got too much other stuff to lose my temper over!
I worry about MonaтАЩs joints failing as she straddles wide political divides with the unstable glue of whataboutism.
Except the friends and gifts exception doesnтАЩt cover the private jet. It also implies that a reasonable person in his position would see the problem in accepting such largesse. So the question really boils down to is Thomas stupid or unreasonable?
I must have both.
An individual entrusted with a role on the Supreme Court should have absolutely known the problem of accepting this kind of largesse. I vote for unethical.
This was always my take on the Hillary Clinton email server. It's not that she intentionally mishandled records or that she was explicitly trying to evade oversight, it's that she made a substantial departure from the norm and either A) knew this was the case but proceeded without concern or proper vetting, or B) didn't even understand how that was such a departure and therefore, to me, is too incompetent to be Secretary of State or President. That said, I would take her over Trump in a heartbeat if I could.
I don't know that she made a "substantial departure from the norm" as both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell had similar private email servers in their homes during their stints as Sec of State. Not that it makes any of it ok, but definitely points at the double-standard she faced.
Legit. Nobody should have gotten a pass on it. I wouldnтАЩt have.
Did it occur to you that A. she was a boomer with limited understanding of technology despite her brilliance, or B. she was so sick and tired of every aspect of her life being sensenationalized and exploited by nasty enemies, she thought she had found a way to avoid that?
IтАЩm a Boomer. IтАЩve always enjoyed taking new tech for a spin. I absolutely understood that what Hilary did was a basic no-no. She doesnтАЩt get a pass on that from me. I really wish sheтАЩd have become our first woman president though.
It's also the same for Bill Clinton's perjury. He may very well have thought that the line of questioning was inappropriate and that he shouldn't have to answer personal questions about his sex life (assuming he's not sleeping with a spy or other compromised asset that very well may be of national interest), but when giving sworn testimony in a legal proceeding, the President, like all of us, doesn't get to lie. That was wrong, plain a simple.
Just because someone's behavior is understandable doesn't mean that it's excusable.
There are boomers who understand technology, so I don't think it's a blanket pass. Also, when the government already provides you with the infrastructure you need, but you decide to spend money to set up your own within your private home, I certainly think the question of, "Hey, is this cool?", is not too much to expect someone who would be President to ask.
I'm sure she was annoyed, frustrated, exhausted, etc.; however, as someone who was our top diplomat and wanted to be President, she should be held to the HIGHEST standard of any one individual in this country. I'm sure Clarence Thomas was tired of having to justify himself when he was first called out for these gifts 20 years ago, so he decided instead to just stop reporting them. That's not (or at least certainly shouldn't be) his prerogative. We should expect better of the 9 unelected, serving-for-life SCOTUS justices. We should expect even more from the single-person that is the POTUS.
Why can't I vote for both?
Stupidly unreasonable and unreasonably stupid.
Ooof, fair. I should have included that. Bad qualities to have in a person anointed to a lifetime position free of accountability.
And a lifetime position where he has power over the lives and fates of other people. He hasn't been given a lifetime position as a garbage collector.
But given that he has said he prefers to hang out in the Walmart parking lot, wouldn't that have been a more appropriate appointment?
CheersЁЯН║
I also completely agree with Dems voting to fix the damage, but it's gonna take a LONG time. But a question: Is this the part on Mona that you disagree with: "Mona didn't say all is good. She said no laws were broken, and she's correct. But she also noted the impropriety of Thomas' action, which she is of course right there as well"?
Ah, at the level of state governments, you are right. But I thought we were talking about the SCOTUS. To tip the balance there will take a long time.
Thx for the Fortune article. Will read.
Dahlia lithwick, in slate, completely disagrees with Mona and believes it's absolutely the case Thomas broke the law.
It doesn't matter if he broke the law. He will have no consequences. He is among those definitely-unworthy who are above the law under this SCOTUS and this US House and Mitch McConnell (who shoved several unfit judges down our throats).
To me, the impeachment point is that he broke one of the very few ethical rules of conduct imposed on itself by SCOTUS and thumbs his nose at that too. (The other reason to impeach him is that his wife runs the judiciary now apparently.) Thomas has never been a good jurist or an honest one. And like all Republicans nowadays he thumbs his nose in public at his many many perfidies (if no felonies...yet).
I am not a lawyer, however, there is an ethical question about right, about honor about integrity in question. Clarence has never had any concept of right, honor nor ethics
Something bad happened to Dahlia Lithwick early in the Trump Administration. For years, she was my favorite legal commentator, but she lost all objectivity then, and never got it back, as far as I'm concerned.
well, we're just going to have to disagree on this.
Nevertheless, I think Thomas may have broken the law.
I see that I am not alone in my opinion of Peggums Nooner.
Do we really need to call her names? Some of us like her a lot. She was one of the reasons that I joined Bulwark+. Now I like Sarah Longwell every bit as much and JVL and Charlie and and and... but Mona first.
MonaтАЩs not forgiven for her tasteless opinion on President Carter as he was ill and dying! What kind of person writes this. I didnтАЩt care for Reagan at all, but when he died I focused on the fact he and his wife loved each other,and she stayed and cared for him to the end. Some people are capable of compassion,some not.
I like Mona. I don't agree with her take on all things, or many, but I am GLAD she is on the never trump bandwagon. I am not in favor of a purity test here.
Ha,ha!
She is a lawyer.
No, Mona went to law school. She is not a practicing attorney.
No, she's not a practicing attorney, but an attorney she is nonetheless.
And lots of lawyers out there squeaked by with "D" grades.
The crime is whatтАЩs legal. And the fact that on ethics issues we as a country have deferred to the SCOTUS for far too long.
"The crime is what's legal " AMEN!
gotta love Mona - when you think never Trumpers are sane people, there is Mona to show you how naive you are....
I worked in financial services for decades and we have disclosure forms, a gift log etc. I had to confirm that no family members were supervised by me. I even have to get pre-approval if I give to local campaigns (because my employer was a govt contractor). So Clarence Thomas had to know that his behavior was at least an outlier is term of what public official should do.
And if Thomas "relied" on someone READING him the rules and TELLING him he could ignore them, that alone is cause for impeachment and removal, as it indicates his single-digit IQ.