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 get your point and the buck stops at the resolute desk but to be fair the job, when done (unlike 45), is far too big to monitor and know about every detail and whole areas like IT are no doubt mostly left to their "experts"; I have always thought Hillary's biggest problem (and I see the same to some extent with Biden) was having unfit or unqualified people as her closest advisors. I've always thought Terry McAuliffe cost her the first run.
I have to disagree, if only because of people like Troy Maxson in August Wilson's play "Fences." Troy had his human failings, but he also had courage and dignity and a sense of honor that Clarence Thomas could never be credited with.
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"?
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.
I get your point and the buck stops at the resolute desk but to be fair the job, when done (unlike 45), is far too big to monitor and know about every detail and whole areas like IT are no doubt mostly left to their "experts"; I have always thought Hillary's biggest problem (and I see the same to some extent with Biden) was having unfit or unqualified people as her closest advisors. I've always thought Terry McAuliffe cost her the first run.
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?
I have to disagree, if only because of people like Troy Maxson in August Wilson's play "Fences." Troy had his human failings, but he also had courage and dignity and a sense of honor that Clarence Thomas could never be credited with.
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.
No I am not playing a game. I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Question: How will the Dem majority in both chambers fix SCOTUS?