‘She’s (Ginny Thomas is) an independent, adult woman, it just seems a little strange to me all of these calls for her husband to be what, like, minding her better? Frankly, I think it’s kind of misogynistic. ‘She’s a private individual. He’s a justice on the US Supreme Court, but I think this idea that he is somehow automatically responsible for everything he says – what does that mean? Does she have to get his permission?’
Sugar tits Hawley (see pic below) must have skipped the ethics course at law school. Judges should recuse if there is even the appearance of a conflict of interest, which there obviously is in this case. The purpose is to encourage public confidence in the integrity of the courts.
Screw Halloween, today should have been called Christmas considering that Herman Cain made it s day of multiple gift giving by first giving no comment and then self-righteously denying that he knew about anything about a settlement that was reached after the claims of sexual harassment were made against him in the late 90’s.
Well it seems that Herman Cain DOES remember after all. And after a day of histrionics and gospel singing has finally admitted it.
“My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement…I don’t remember a number…But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement,” Cain said in the interview, as reported by the Washington Examiner. “Maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”
BUT YOU WERE ACCUSED AND YOU DID SETTLE.
Maybe this is why Herman Cain admires Clarence Thomas so much?
In a surprise ruling of 8 -1 The Supreme Court has ruled that Protect Marriage Washington, which organized the signature drive to get Ref 71 on the ballot Washington State’s residents who lent their names to put Referendum 71 on the ballot, which let voters choose to uphold the state’s “everything but marriage” law, must let their identities be know. Disclosing them does not violate the 138,000 petitioners’ First Amendment rights, the justices ruled, updating their decision to stay the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to make the names public. (Only Clarence Thomas voted to keep the names secret. He says a citizen’s privacy rights trump transparency in politics and was probably trying to find the cheapest way to just side with anti – gay Protect Marriage on this.)
The consequences of the ruling; it “could have far-reaching impacts, not just on the state’s initiative and referendum process, but also for other “open government” laws like the disclosure of who contributes to political campaigns, and how much they give and knocks down the silly and irresponsible arguments from opponents of gay marriage, who say democracy should happen in secret. No longer will these individuals be able to deny rights to Americans without being held publicly accountable
The National Organization For Marriage and the Mormon Church must be terriffied. (GOOD!)