Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Subhumanoids Beware the Double Edged Sword (Part I)

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message allen finkelstein       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   2 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 3/24/18

Author 28987
Become a Fan
  (4 fans)
- Advertisement -

From flickr.com: Justice Clarence Thomas {MID-269891}
Justice Clarence Thomas
(Image by Cknight70)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

One of the many problems with the gross lack of experience and morality in the Trump presidency is the unfamiliarity with the concept of the double edged sword. So many of the president's craven and hare brained ideas would quickly backfire if there were an opposing party to actually contest them. In his enumeration of the reasons for demanding the firing of Andrew McCabe, Mr. Trump keeps bringing up the hundreds of thousands of dollars donated to his wife's political campaign by supporters of Hillary Clinton. Of course this is somehow relevant, but would have been far more relevant had McCabe's behavior in failing to recuse himself from Hillary's email scandal not hurt her campaign as it did. Besides, neither McCabe nor his wife received even a penny of the donations for their personal use, in which case McCabe's actions may have constituted an actual crime as opposed to an ill advised political "Misstep."

- Advertisement -

On the other hand, Clarence Thomas's wife was personally paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by various special interests to lobby on their behalf regarding the very issues on which her husband was voting. Justice Thomas was asked more than once to recuse himself, but adamantly refused as he voted just as his wife's employers wished. The payments to Mrs. Thomas were essentially paid directly to her husband as part of their joint income, payments which the Judge conveniently failed to report to the Court until he was called out for the omission and forced to admit it.

Typically, the ethical system involving the U.S. Supreme Court Justices as a group can best be described as "the foxes guarding the henhouse." Their ethical standards seem to be significantly lower than those of our Congress, believe it or not, and under normal circumstances even lower than those of the office of the president. I mean even presidents have been impeached, if not convicted, in the last hundred and fifty years or so while no one seems to take the suggestion of impeaching a supreme court judge very seriously no matter how egregious his or her behavior may seem. It's as if our dysfunctional Congress doesn't even seem to realize that it has the power to impeach or at least censure supreme court judges. To me it is quite simple. At the very least, Mr. Thomas needs to return the money, all of it, or be forced to resign from the court without his pension and be prosecuted for a clear violation of the Honest Services Statute.

While we're at it, where the hell is the "Democratic Party of Stu...," excuse me, "Silence" on this issue? I certainly have no idea. As for those apologists praising the office of Inspector General Horowitz for taking time off from its favorite pastime, "turf wars" with other departments to supposedly do its job, I feel compelled to ask: is Mr. Horowitz doing his job or saving his job? From my personal observations of his office's work or lack thereof in monitoring of fraud in the health maintenance organization arena, his record is none too impressive to say the least. Inspector General, do you ever plan on officially investigating Mr. Thomas or, more importantly, those people who paid the Thomases those hundreds of thousands of dollars as well as those who continue to shower the "Justices" with free vacations and other lavish gifts? And, despite what certain members of confused juries may have ruled in the case of elected "politicians," I believe that appointed judges are not supposed to accept expensive gifts from rich political donors. You can discuss it with the president first. It really wouldn't hurt the president or his drones to lose Justice Thomas. They could replace him with any of the multitude of incompetent but properly biased candidates Mr Trump chose from the lottery to fill judgeships, the ones who failed to be confirmed by the Senate. Republicans can muster fifty votes for a ham sandwich if they feel it's important enough as long as they do it before the midterm elections. Oh, and don't cut yourself on that sword you're wielding, it's double edged you know.

- Advertisement -

Al Finkelstein, D.O., 3/17/18


 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Dr. Allen Finkelstein, writing since 2006 under the penname “O’finky,” was born in New York, where he attended the Hebrew Academy of Nassau County as a boy. He continued his religious training in South Florida until his family, (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Ayn Rand and Ron Paul: Will the Real Libertarian Please Stand Up?

Down and Dirty- The Republican Assault on Our Postal Service

The Evolving Business of Education: Perfecting Failure

Democrats vs Republicans

Let's See--Have Evangelicals Become the Unwitting New Soldiers of Satan?

Constitutional Issues: Part II or Justice, Really Expensive Free Speech and the Deadly Battle