That's it: Uncle Clerance has got to go!

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (181 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image77
    Credence2posted 12 months ago

    Background, let me know if for some reason you cannot access this

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … velations/

    I go back to 1969 when Abe Fortas was forced to step down as a Supreme Court Justice for accepting 20k from a donor, who was charged with financial impropriety. The demand for his ouster came from both parities in Congress, where even Democrats were prepared to lose a liberal court justice in order to maintain the integrity of the court.
    So, much has changed, in 2023 we have a man on the bench guilty of far more egregious violations than those that sank Fortas.

    As a apprentice federal purchasing agent some 40 years ago, I had to turn down that bottle of sipping whiskey to help with cold Montana nights offered from a vendor that wanted preferential treatment in the bidding process. I ran a clean shop and I am reasonable in expecting more from the top judicial officials of the land.
    ---------------------
    Cases in point: Courtesy-Forbes Magazine

    Harlan Crow Trips: ProPublica first reported Thomas has for years accepted trips from GOP megadonor and developer Harlan Crow, including on his private jet and superyacht, without disclosing them on financial disclosures as federal law requires.
    Harlan Crow Tuition: ProPublica reported Thursday Crow also paid two years of tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew Mark Martin, whom the justice has custody of, to attend two private schools in the 2000s, which cost $6,000 per month at one of the schools and were similarly not disclosed—even as Thomas did disclose a tuition payment a different friend made years earlier.

    Harlan Crow Real Estate: Thomas and his family also sold a string of properties in Savannah, Georgia, to Crow in 2014 without disclosing that as required, ProPublica reports—including the home where his mother still lives—which Crow told the publication he purchased so he could eventually build a museum dedicated to the justice.

    Ginni Thomas Conservative Activism: Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, is a right-wing activist, which has raised considerable ethics concerns about overlap between her and her husband’s work—particularly as the New Yorker reported groups she’s been involved with have submitted briefs before the Supreme Court, including a group that has weighed in on the court’s pending case about affirmative action in university admissions.

    Ginni Thomas Leonard Leo: Leo, a conservative judicial activist who’s spent billions on efforts to reshape the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, told then-conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway to give Ginni Thomas “another $25k” through a nonprofit group he advises—which then filed a brief with the Supreme Court—but conceal that the payment was for her, the Post reports, telling Conway, “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

    Ginni Thomas 2020 Election: Thomas pushed efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as her husband was hearing cases on it, including sending text messages to then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, which fueled calls for Thomas to resign or face impeachment over the perceived conflict of interest.

    January 6: Ginni Thomas has also confirmed she briefly attended the rally on January 6 that preceded the attack on the Capitol building and publicly criticized the House January 6 Committee, and the justice has come under fire for failing to recuse himself in a case concerning former President Donald Trump’s records being turned over to the committee—in which he was the only justice to dissent and believe the records should have been withheld.

    Ginni Thomas Funding: The Post reported in March that a conservative group Ginni Thomas formed in 2019 had raised nearly $600,000 from anonymous donors funneled through a right-wing think tank that filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court during the same time, and ethics experts said Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from that case if his wife was paid by the group.

    --------------

    We obviously need a code of conduct, reminding justices that while the Constitution shields them from the sort of accountability applied to elected officials, they can and will be held accountable for misconduct. Republicans have consistently resisted the idea, I wonder why?

    Is the man stupid enough to believe that these fat cats are plying him with wealth because they like him? Plutocrats know how to manipulate the system to get what they want outside of acceptable channels and Thomas played into it? He deserves to be dismissed in disgrace.

    1. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Just shooting from the hip . . . the justices certainly are not saints nor should they be treated that way. They are being treated that way . . . all of them maybe more so for the right. That is left to be determined.

      To not be subject to a code of ethics is ludicrous IMO!! What about no one is above the law, which ethics is its base in theory. If there is no reasonable law (Ethics) then there is anarchy, right?

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        They are in a position where they are hard to remove. It takes overwhelming numbers in Congress to dismiss a justice. Thomas and Roberts know that, yet still some sort of restraint needs to be in place to prevent any of them from just robbing the store.

        Bipartisan Respect for the institution allowed the removal or resignation of Fortas in 1969. The same applied to Nixon in 1974. But with hyperparrisanship displayed by the GOP in this case how many more ethical outrages could we be asked to tolerate?

        In my world, there are no sacred cows and no one should be free to break rules with impunity.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          It is a problem, and I agree that those exhibiting poor behavior need to be "fired".

          Problem is that same hyperpartisanship, by both GOP and Democrats.  I can just see Democrats firing every conservative justice every time they get the chance - they've already made their feelings on such activity crystal clear with two faux attempts on Trump.

          And the GOP is no better - they have learned very quickly from the Democrats how to use the law to gain political advantage.

          So...every time a new party is in power we would have a new court.  Why bother - just let Congress make all the decisions based on the ideology currently in power.

          Which leaves us with how to reasonably remove a sitting justice for poor behavior (as opposed to decisions unpopular to the "reigning" party)?  Perhaps a 3/4 vote?

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "  I can just see Democrats firing every conservative justice every time they get the chance - they've already made their feelings on such activity crystal clear with two faux attempts on Trump."

            I don't see that, but I do see excuses from the Right covering up clear ethics violations in Justice Thomas' conduct by blaming Democrats for attacking Thomas for partisan or ideological reasons. We lived with conservative justices before, so that is not the issue. But isn't just like Republicans? Their ruse is quite transparent. Why no code of conduct, that standard applies to all lower court judges, why should it not apply to the highest court in the land?

            Any of the Justices can be as corrupt as they please, as it appears virtually impossible to hold them accountable.

            This is not partisan but about ethics from the one branch of government where it is probably the most important.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              You don't see Democrats using fake law enforcement to kick out a political opponent?  Then you desperately need to examine both your feelings and the party.

              I haven't seen anyone at all, let alone a Republican, "covering up clear ethics violations in Justice Thomas' conduct".  Can you be more specific?

              Why don't Democrats enforce the code of conduct for SCOTUS members?  You put all the blame on Republicans, but Democrats are doing no more than Republicans.  Why?

              Absolutely it is partisan, and if you don't realize that then you once more need to stand back and take a hard look at what our vaunted "leaders" are doing...on both sides of the aisle.

          2. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Sigh, "faux" attempts indeed.  Why do you keep overlooking that the MAJORITY of the Senate voted to kick Trump out???  To make it simpler, the MAJORITY of the Senate thought Trump guilty, even some that voted to save his butt anyway (McConnell, for example).  Faux indeed!  To me, that attitude is a red flag of hyperpartisanship.

            I also noticed you ignored Credence's lead in about Abe Fortes.

            Isn't that what is done today?  Hyperpartisan presidents nominate extreme Justices and partisan presidents nominate Justices more toward the middle (like Garland where McConnell decided to become president and not let a vote come up on him)

        2. Ken Burgess profile image77
          Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          When they clean out Biden for all his crimes, let me know.

          Till then, this list of wrongdoings is not even a drop in a bucket full of water compared to how deeply corrupt Biden and his extended friends and family (including former SoS Kerry and his son who was partnered with Hunter in gettting billions from China) are.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            When they clean out Biden for all his crimes, let me know.

            As soon as we nail Trump for all of his.........

            Excuses, excuses.... distractions, misdirection, so you give Uncle Clearance a free pass? It is easy to see where you usually stand simply with the positions you take. Right and Left can not mix, we recognize each other when we see it.....

            The point is that the Supreme Court is supposed to be above the fray but now is soiled with corruption and partisanship. And with today's Republican Party, I fear that it will never been corrected anytime soon.

            BTW, why are the Republicans opposed to an code of ethics for members of the Court?

            1. Ken Burgess profile image77
              Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Trump is no longer in office, he is no longer impacting policy, so he is irrelevant to this.

              Biden on the other hand has been far more damaging to America and Americans, has been responsible in part for hundreds of thousands of deaths so far, how many more hundreds of thousands are added who knows, he has plenty of time left on his term.

              Biden's crimes are far more damaging and criminal, constituting the laundering of billions of dollars.  Thomas had someone pay for a kids education?

              Are you kidding me?

              You bring this up at a time when we have a President that we know has had funds to the tune of billions of dollars from China... that has a long history and millions if not billions of dollars funneled through Ukraine, where we happen to be flying planes full of money to... actual pallets of money for "support" in their war against Russia.

              You support the most criminal and corrupt President to ever sit in the Oval Office, which is saying a lot considering who has come before him... and you want to rant about a kid getting an education paid for?

              Hah!

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "Trump is no longer in office, he is no longer impacting policy, so he is irrelevant to this."

                But he was and you were all for him and his approach.

                It is more than a kid getting his education paid for, you are clearly on the other side of this issue, completely disregarding the ethics involved. Did you bother to even look into the truth?

                While you keep trying to convince me that the political Right is not my enemy? Right.....

                If Biden is guilty, let the appropriate investigations reveal this. That is the  same thing that I say about Trump and his legal woes.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image77
                  Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  You have every right to believe that there is reason for concern.

                  But those reasons for concern are being prayed upon, they are being used for you to support programs that will ultimately be just as harmful.

                  I will not say more harmful, the very concerns I have for my freedoms and independence and privacy are not more significant than yours... we are merely identifying the threat coming from a different source.

                  I can't identify, Tulsi Gabbard or Robert Kennedy or even Trump as a more serious threat.  If I attempt to put myself in your shoes, I still cannot do it, because I have seen nothing from any of them, even Trump, that I consider more offensive or more racist than what Biden has done or said.

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    "You have every right to believe that there is reason for concern."

                    "But those reasons for concern are being prayed upon, they are being used for you to support programs that will ultimately be just as harmful."

                    That remains to be seen...
                    -----
                    "I will not say more harmful, the very concerns I have for my freedoms and independence and privacy are not more significant than yours... we are merely identifying the threat coming from a different source."

                    This is as true a statement as ever been said..
                    ---------

                    I have plenty of examples of Trump being far more egregious in his race baiting than Biden, do I have to make a list? I am certainly not going to accept egregious race baiting from any candidate that expect me to vote for him or her.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image85
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Talk about being blind to the Truth - and without evidence as usual.

              2. Miebakagh57 profile image68
                Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Ken, your comment makes much sense to me.                                                        I read in the link that the rich donor paid $5,000 a month for 2 years for the Justice kid. Summing up, its just $120,000. What comparision can that make with the billions biden took?                                         But I'm having problem understanding the disclosure question.

                1. My Esoteric profile image85
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  What billions, why wasn't Joe prosecuted - or even investigated by the Republicans?

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
                    Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Do the Republicans ever witch-hunt the Democrates? Why d' you think Narcy Pelosi was not targeted? Why not  or should biden now?                                          Your suggestion seems odd and absurd.                                           You're also forget biden's business deals with Russia?

              3. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Biden has been a boon to America and we need four more years.  His only mistake was in not reversing Trump's policy on Afghanistan and making a measured, safe withdrawal.

                "You support the most criminal and corrupt President to ever sit in the Oval Office" - You are speaking of Trump, right?  He beats all other presidents in corruptness AND ineptitude.

          2. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Nobody will be letting you know anything since Biden has committed no crimes like Trump has.

        3. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I was sorely disappointed when the liberal justices signed on to the Roberts memo stating we don't need no ethics on this Court.  Actually, I am surprised  any of them did save for Kavanaugh and Thomas.

  2. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 12 months ago

    I have made a return simply to say Amen and Hear, Hear Ken....oh and to quote Grace. smile +10000000000

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      It is always good to see you regardless of the side you come down on.

  3. Readmikenow profile image93
    Readmikenowposted 12 months ago

    Attacking Clarence Thomas  is nothing but the left's next political attack on a free-thinking black conservative who does not follow their liberal agenda.  The left has two standards of justice.  One for them and one for those on the right.

    Ted Cruz has answered these allegations.

    Sen. Cruz:

    “In 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before this committee in one of the most disgraceful performances by the Senate Judiciary Committee in our nation's history. Justice Thomas rightly described the treatment he got from then chairman Joe Biden, and Senate Democrats as a quote, ‘high-tech lynching.’

    “It is sad to see 30 years later, this committee is again, engaged in the same despicable tactics.

    “Senate Democrats and their lap dogs in the media are engaged in a two-fold political campaign, number one to delegitimize the Supreme Court of the United States because they are angry that there are a majority of constitutionalists on the court. But number two, very directly, this is a political campaign designed to smear Justice Clarence Thomas, and the reason is simple. The Left despises Clarence Thomas, and they do not despise him because he's a conservative. The Left despises Clarence Thomas because he is a conservative African American. Here's what Clarence Thomas said at that confirmation hearing. He said, ‘if you are a free thinking, African American,’ quote, ‘you will be lynched, destroyed and caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate.’

    “Well, in three decades, that hasn't changed. It's gotten worse. And to be clear, here's the left's view. I point to one article, just three weeks ago: ‘The Democrats need to destroy Clarence Thomas's reputation. They'll never successfully impeach him.’

    “But so what? Make him a metaphor for every insidious thing, the far right has done to this country? That's what the Left is trying to do. And I will tell you, if you look at the next that next poster board, the Left has repeatedly attacked Clarence Thomas with a racism. This is a magazine cover that showed Justice Scalia, every bit as conservative as Clarence Thomas, but he's portrayed as the master and Clarence Thomas in a bigoted attack is portrayed as shining his shoes. I'll show you another one. To give you a sense of the racist vitriol from the Left. Here's a racist caricature of Clarence Thomas, ‘Lawn Jockey for the Far Right.’ This is the bigoted contempt the Left has. I'll show you another magazine cover.

    “This is how the left views Clarence Thomas. Now it's important for people at home to understand this is not about judicial ethics, you can take those down. This is not about judicial ethics. This is not about rules that should apply to judges across the board, we could have a reasonable discussion about that. This is about applying a double standard to Clarence Thomas, and only Clarence Thomas. The attack that my Democrat colleagues breathlessly repeat is that Clarence Thomas stayed at the vacation home of a very close friend of his a successful Texas businessman, flew on his plane and went on his yacht.

    “Well, if that's the standard, going and traveling and being paid for by others, then guess what just about every Supreme Court Justice has done so and done so in much greater numbers. Justice Thomas was appointed in 1991. And the time since then, he's taken 109 reported trips, five international trips.

    “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed in 1993. Two years later in the time she was on the court. She took 157 trips, including 28 international trips.

    “Mr. Payne, yes or no. Do you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg was corrupt?”

    Mr. Payne:

    “No.”

    Sen. Cruz:

    “No? Nor do I.

    “Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not alone. Justice Stephen Breyer appointed the year later in 1994, took 233 reported trips, including 63 international trips again, yes or no, Mr. Payne, do you think Stephen Breyer was corrupt?

    Mr. Payne:

    “No.”

    Sen. Cruz:

    “Nor do I. I would point out Justice Kagan has done the same thing. Justice Sotomayor has done the same thing. And yet, none of my Democrat colleagues care, because this is a political attack directed at a justice they hate. And by the way, let's spend a moment focusing on Justice Stephen Breyer, a delightful human being, someone I know personally, someone who served decades on the Court. Justice Stephen Breyer repeatedly traveled on the penny of a prominent democratic billionaire, the Pritzker Family. Now, JB Pritzker is the Democrat governor of the state of Illinois, from which our chairman hails, I would be shocked if the chairman of this committee has not had multiple meals with the Pritzker Family.

    “Justice Breyer was a longtime member of the board that awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize. But what did that mean? That meant Justice Breyer traveled on the dime of these Democrat billionaires in 2019, Justice Breyer traveled to New York City to Vancouver in Paris in 2018 Justice Breyer traveled to Ireland and Spain and 2016 he traveled to New York, Spain and France. In 2013. He traveled to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, in 2012. He traveled to Beijing and to London.

    “All of this paid for by the Pritzker foundation. Now, none of my Democrat colleagues are mad about this. And let me be clear, I'm not suggesting Justice Breyer is corrupt. What I'm suggesting is this committee is corrupt because this is a kangaroo circuit circus. And I will note, we had 15 Senate Democrats, including six members of this committee send a letter to the Appropriations Committee threatening to cut off the funding for security at the Supreme Court. The left is willing to threaten the lives of the justices. Justice Samuel Alito, this weekend in the Wall Street Journal said that the attacks directed at the justices are making them targets of assassination.

    “This is disgraceful.

    “Every senator who signed this letter should be embarrassed. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be admitted into the record and also that the interview with Justice Alito from this weekend be entered into the record.

    “Democrats can have disagreements based on law, but this attempt to delegitimize the court this attempt to personally smear Clarence Thomas is dishonest. And everyone in the media echoing it is participating in a shameful reprise of 1991’s high-tech lynching.”

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      This is what I say, the need for ethics standards should apply to all justices, otherwise we have just a cabal of political hacks. Why are Republicans so opposed to the idea? The answer revealed is just another one of the reasons why Republicans suck in my opinion. In my world, NO ONE is exempted from being held accountable for misconduct.

      Excerpt, courtesy of the New York Times, the Grey Lady.

      WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers reiterated calls on Thursday to tighten ethics rules for the Supreme Court after a report revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted luxury gifts from a major conservative donor without disclosing them.

      An investigation by ProPublica described how Justice Thomas accompanied the donor, Harlan Crow, a real estate billionaire, on a series of vacations for nearly two decades. The trips included extended stays on Mr. Crow’s yacht, flights on Mr. Crow’s private jet and visits to Mr. Crow’s all-male private retreat in Monte Rio, Calif.

      The disclosure early Thursday renewed scrutiny of Justice Thomas, who has long faced questions over conflicts of interest in part because of the political activities of his wife, Virginia Thomas.

      No formal code of conduct on the Supreme Court specifically bars the justice from taking the trips mentioned in ProPublica’s reporting. But under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, justices, like federal judges, must file a financial disclosure each year that lists gifts of more than $415 in avoidance of even an “appearance of impropriety.” The cost of one of the trips with Mr. Crow may have exceeded $500,000, according to ProPublica.

      Lawmakers have seized on the lack of enforceable ethics code governing Supreme Court justices, urging that they be held to standards similar to those in place for members of the executive and legislative branches.

      The Senate is considering a bill that would codify that practice, in line with past legislation. And new rules adopted in March now require the justices to report travel by private jet and extended stays at commercial properties including hotels, resorts and hunting lodges.

      On Thursday, lawmakers emphasized that stricter standards were necessary.

      “In every other place in government, there is an ethics rule that applies,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat of Rhode Island who sits on the Judiciary Committee’s panel that oversees federal courts, said in an interview. “The only place in the United States government where that is not true is the United States Supreme Court, where the nine justices have exempted themselves from this very basic process.”

      Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, who oversees the Senate Judiciary Committee, echoed that sentiment.

      “The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards,” Mr. Durbin said in a statement, adding that Justice Thomas’s conduct was “simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a justice on the Supreme Court.”

      1. Readmikenow profile image93
        Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        If the left believes as you do, they wouldn't just focus of the black conservative justice, they would focus on all of the justices.  That focus on the only black conservative on the court is one of the many reasons I believe the left truly sucks.  It's called selective outrage.

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
          Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Agreed. But let the law or bill be stanardized. So that every Justice of the  Supreme Court knows his/her limit.                                       Every American is a conservative to a limited extend. America was found on Christian conservative rule. Subsequent settlers or groups develop various conservative philosophies, that is detrimental to the country at large.                                      Critically, the. Republican and Democrate conservatism differs greatly. This is where the problem arise, the R and D parties signficantly disagreed in many respect.                                       I had an uncle (now late) who was a Justice of a Federal Revenue Court in Nigeria. You may present him with any gift you like, and he may tell that he wouldn't perverted justice if you take the law into your hands.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            You need a refresher in American civics if you actually believe the statement that you have just posted....

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
              Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Very well said... But would you tell me when was the American Constitution was ractified without looking into one of the basic civic lesson books or digital media?                                      I was open to such a challenge by your fellow  American some 4 years ago. I was the only one that got the answer. I think I'm telling you this for the second and final time. America, God's own country is wonderful and fruitful. But you Americans are with the habit or doctrine of conservatism making things hard politically, if not socially.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I admire your knowledge and understanding of the American political system, particularely since you live in Nigeria. I confess, I could not come close to having anywhere near a similar understanding or your country or it politics. However, I would expect that most high school graduates would know when the Constitution was ratified.

                There is no religious establishment in the United States.

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
                  Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Thank you. As for your last paragraph, I have my doubt.

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    As for my last paragraph, why so?

        2. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Are saying the other Justices are being as unethical as Thomas is?

      2. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        If the information Mike presented (concerning Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) is true, what names would you give them to go along with 'Uncle Clarence'?

        Or, is your condemnation of Thomas a matter of degrees? Maybe they all took the trips and accommodations but Justice Thomas deserves the pejorative because he is the only one who had a kid's tuition paid . . . and that's a step too far?

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          If the information Mike presented (concerning Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) is true, what names would you give them to go along with 'Uncle Clarence'?

          Good progressive and liberal jurists....

          I'll get back with you on the rest.....

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … ou-realize

          As for the rest, this article expresses my opinion. Giving Thomas the benifit of the doubt does not excuse him for being stupid and careless in not understanding this basic principle for as long as he has been on the bench. Thomas may well have been brought under the magnifying glass for the egregious nature and the very extent of the appearance of impropriety while on the bench. I did not find any of other justices outside of Gorsuch who has so obvious a case, can you?

          So, yes, you can stop parroting conservatives who say this is only about his kid's schooling paid for by a billionaire. It is far more involved....

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            First, I addressed the tuition because, from the presented information, it seemed to be the only difference in the actions of the other judges. They all accepted big trips and accommodations on some rich person's dime. The point wasn't parroting anyone. It was the logical consideration for why you would condemn Thomas as a traitorous 'Uncle Tom,' and the others as "Good progressive and liberal jurists."

            If the tuition thing isn't what made the difference for you, was it dollar-to-dollar comparisons? Are you finding degrees of wrong that you could claim are okay and ones that are definitely Uncle Tom scale. A $100K ethics-violating trip is okay for a good progressive jurist to accept, but a $250K trip is a corruption of ethics that deserves the condemnation of being labeled a white man's conservative Toadie?

            "Parroting . . . " You know better.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Thomas' rulings have been contrary to the interests of the black community, always supporting mere caprice of police power over civil rights and liberties. So, from our viewpoint THAT is what he is. He is no Thurgood Marshall.

              I still have not been able to identify any other Justices among the nine that has offended so egregiously and fail to report such largesse from others on his or her behalf and not considered the appearance of impropriety because of it.

              Any and all the Justices on the bench are required or should be required to report gifts which has been defined as substantial value for any number of reasons

              Did you read the article, you just did not dismiss it out of hand?

              Who, if any, are they?

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
                Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Credence2, is Justice Clarence Thomas being used by the whites against the African-Americans?

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  I would not want to go so far as to say that.

                  But, his judicial rulings are consistently conservative and conservatism as practiced in America has been to the disadvantage of minority groups, by its very definition.

                  Do a little research, and ask why Jews, Asians, indigenous people (American Indians), Hispanics, Blacks and younger voters generally do not support conservative candidates politically and consequentially will not support Justice  Thomas from a judicial standpoint. The only overwhelming supporter of all this are the conservative whites. So, it is more than just a Black against white thing....

                  1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
                    Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Well noted and thank you. I'll do a research as suggested.

              2. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I didn't read your link. Not because I dismissed it out of hand, but because my entrance was based on the information in Mike's post. My point was only about the stark difference in your rationalizations for condemning and bashing Justice Thomas as an 'Uncle Tom."

                The information provided was that Thomas accepted free trips on a conservative billionaire's dime. 109 trips, 5 being international.
                And for that, you criticize him for ethics violations and call him an Uncle Tom.

                But, it appears Justice Breyer accepted 233 trips, including 63 international trips on a liberal billionaires dime and you call him a good progressive jurist.

                What difference do you see in these two examples that make one a white man's Toadie and the other a good progressive jurist?

                That you have issues with Justice Thomas' ideology and rulings is not the point (the explanation in your link?), the point is that you say he is an unethical jurist that should be investigated because he did something that your good progressive jurists did. By your standards, he's an Uncle Tom for doing what Breyer and Ginsberg did.

                Once again, for you, if something is done by a Democrat it's not wrong, but if a Republican does it it is wrong. That's as hypocritical as you say Republicans are.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  That term "Uncle Tom" speaks of Thomas' rulings and jurisprudence in general from the standpoint of the African-American community  and is separate from his ethics issues. When you speak of "toadies" and such, that is my explanation.

                  Perhaps before you criticize me, You might read my link instead of just reading Mike's?

                  I am going to check on the Justice Breyer reference comparison and if his case is similar to Thomas', I will gladly back off. But, I will not fall for the
                  Time honored conservative ruse of taking two totally different and disparate circumstances and putting them both in the same pot. So, I will check with a critical eye, and it had better be good.

                  Clerance,  from the standpoint and view of the preponderance  of OUR community is an "Uncle Tom" independent of Breyer or Ginsberg.

                  So, there is no "cherry picking" to be found in my arguments.

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I stand corrected GA, it appears upon my initial investigation is that they ALL do it, and that you conservatives have been right, I am guilty if picking on Thomas for things that each and every juror has been guilty of to a varied extent. From, that standpoint, I stand corrected, this time....

                    It does point to the fact that there needs to be a code of ethics to which Supreme Court Justices must adhere. Otherwise, the conflicts of interests when they should clearly recuse themselves from ruling on a case, would, in actually, never arise. What we end up with are 9 totally corrupt, political hacks. Without rules and regulations having teeth, what is to prevent that?

                    Despite all of that, Uncle Clerance is still an Uncle Tom....

            2. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I finally saw where the claim was made that Breyer's trips were on a billionaires dime.  What was not mentioned was whether Breyer reported it on his disclosures.  Why wasn't this brought up?

        2. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I suspect it is true - but the main point is overlooked here - there was no indication that that anyone paid for the liberal Justice's trips.  Why not?  If a Justice takes an overseas trip which they paid for (and I don't know if they did or not - because that nifty piece of information was omitted) then they don't need to report it.  If, however, like in Thomas' case it was paid for by a political donor, it does and he didn't.

    2. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Obviously you approve (or at least find no fault with) of his lying on his disclosure records since 2011, at least.

    3. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Of course, Cruz doesn't give a damn about the woman, that Thomas sexually harassed, Anita Hill.   I have  noticed over the years that when a Democrat steps over the line in this regard, Democrats are the first to condemn and punish him.  Republicans, on the other hand, go to the mat to protect their own.  I guess the two sides view the subject differently.

  4. Miebakagh57 profile image68
    Miebakagh57posted 12 months ago

    As an outsider, I find it hateful to coutribute in such an issue.                                     But I've had some good time visiting Justice Clarence Thomas online. From a very low background, to the Superior Bench, the man seems determined and focussed.                                       I'm glad that the Ragean, Bush, and even Trump had the right hand of Clarence Thomas.                                           The question I see here is politics left and right. It has to be balanced or neutral as regards every ethnics of the Bench.                                      Senators, politicians, law makers should leave uncle Clardnce alone. He's a blessing from God to America. Others had throd that path. Why pick on Clarence?

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Lack of ethics included, eh?

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
        Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        What ethnics?

        1. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          That's my point.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
            Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            No doubt. But can't you enumerate them logically?

  5. Credence2 profile image77
    Credence2posted 12 months ago

    Article excerpt...

    Corey Robin States,

    "Thomas assumes that racism and white supremacy is ineradicable in America. It’s a permanent feature of the American condition. And the problem for him with contemporary liberal America, which he thinks really begins with the New Deal, is that white supremacy to a certain degree changed its spots but not nearly as much as most people think."

    Could I have been wrong about this man? I have often come to similar conclusions myself, more often than I would like.. but, I would not want to be THAT pessimistic.

    Most interesting article, check it out...

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … orey-robin

    1. Ken Burgess profile image77
      Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Corey Robin states... that Thomas assumes...
      WTF does Corey know about what is in the mind of Thomas?
      Not a damned thing... that is just BS.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        As the scholar in biographing Thomas, who else is qualified to take issue with it? Where is your substantiated rebuttal?

        BS? Not much different than the revelations that Thomas made in his two books from what I can see after reading their synopses.

        https://www.amazon.com/My-Grandfathers- … 0060565551

        https://www.amazon.com/Created-Equal-Cl … &psc=1

  6. Miebakagh57 profile image68
    Miebakagh57posted 12 months ago

    White conservativism and black conservatism are the same mindset? Otherwise how can  Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump agreed with Clearance Thomas?                                        Curiously, I'm yet to read where among the 8 Associated Justices, where Thomas de-concurred with his fekow  Justices.                                      Otherwise, the system or establishment seems to be the problem.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      So, did you find out why so many diverse groups in America have issues with conservative candidates and policies, as I asked you about earlier?

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
        Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Sorry I'm late to this post. But your suggestion is still ever my priority.                                  I've noted that the conservative question is rooted along side the formation of the  USA. The divers ethnics make conservatism to a complexion, instead of a simple role.  Conservatism not as the  Europans or the British held it is a thorny flesh in America.                                      Although it came with a religious (christianity) tune, and how the two main political parties- R and D are making political issues out of it beats my mind.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image77
        Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I came across a movie I think you are going to appreciate if you haven't seen it.

        Anarchy USA (1966) a film by G. Edward Griffin
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2wk6svKExk

        It really is compelling and I do feel much of what we see occurring now and in recent years reflects the occurrences of those times.

        Ultimately, unlike the revolutions noted in China, Cuba and Algeria, I think what we are seeing today is a different kind of revolution:



        https://hubstatic.com/16512256.jpg


        BTW did you know that the WEF joined with the UN in 2019?

        https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/w … framework/

        https://www.tni.org/en/article/end-the- … -agreement

        So much has been accomplished since then, so much has been tested and prepared for the next phase.  You thought 2020 was bad... give it a little more time.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          "George Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist. Griffin's writings promote a number of right-wing views and conspiracy theories regarding political, defense and health care."
          -------
          Ken, you ought to know that I can never give any credibility to this man or his film. He was saying in 1966 the same thing that George Wallace and Lester Maddox was saying at the same time.

          But it is as Malcolm X said during the period was that "patience by the blacks was something far beyond anything that whites had any right to expect, or Dr. King's "fierce urgency of now".

          And what were blacks to do, continue to wait on "good will" that meant absolutely nothing?  The situation was no different in 1966 than it was in 1866 and there was no reason to believe that it would be any better by 2066. The Civil Rights movement was vital and necessary and I don't care if it was Communist inspired or not, quite frankly. What was the alternative, what were we to be waiting for to correct grievous civil and social rights violations within American society? If it took rattling cages to get attention brought to it, then I say so much the better.

          The film was just an abhorrent right wing propaganda piece, to which I can no credibility. I would have though by this point that you would know better...

          I may well have issue with the WEF and the UN, I will have to study it further to determine my position on this issue, that seems to be shrouded from the public eye. From what I see so far, my initial impression of this WEF is far from positive.

          1. My Esoteric profile image85
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Remember, it was Griffen's ancestors, along with many evangelical-types that said blacks liked to be slaves.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              And the sins of the father are visited onto the son.  If your ancestors kept slaves you are evil, racist and disgusting.

              Your very woke attitudes are showing through.

              1. My Esoteric profile image85
                My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                If I espoused the same things that Griffin's does, then yes, I would be as evil, racist, and disgusting as he is.

                I am proud to have my "woke" attitudes showing through because they are what is necessary to nudge America off its racist path.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  A lot of people are proud to be "woke", and rejoice in the built-in, institutional racism inherent in it.

                  Personally I prefer the concept of color blind and do not demonize any race for anything, especially for what someone of the same color did 200 years ago.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image85
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    "Color Blind" has been used by Conservatives as a way to not pass laws to get rid of past sins.    Until we actually have a non-racist society, "color-blindness" just maintains the status quo.  That is why being "woke" is so necessary.

              2. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                But if the son is the mirror image of their father, why should I see this individual any differently?

                Woke is just another "excuse" word.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image77
            Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            That is why I like to discuss these matters with you, that you are firm in your position is based on a foundation of experience... I can respect that.

            I am willing to accept criticism and re-consider my position when it is challenged by someone who has lived through and experienced what I have not.

            It is impossible to have a rational discussion with the well educated, well off, white progressives that love to explain what is racist and why... they can be the definition of words like arrogance and self-righteousness, with an impressive amount of disdain and disregard for anyone that challenges their position. 

            However, the point I was seeing in those movies/documentaries was not that racism didn't exist in 1966... but that it was/is used as a tool to get Americans to fight one another based on these differences.

            One of my major questions has been, how did we go from a time in the 90s when racism was at an all time low... when the biggest stars in American culture were the likes of Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Will Smith, Oprah... to today's racial tensions?

            What is the purpose of the MSM and politicians stirring up racial divide every chance they get?

            Obviously they are not focusing on that alone, they have put everything into question today, what is a woman, 72 different sexes, etc. etc. its a long list of which to divide people into... the era of victimhood.

            Ultimately it is for a reason... Agenda 2030... the Great Reset... the UN & WEF and the majority of politicians in DC (the Uniparty) that support those agendas.

            How do you get Americans to accept open borders (open society) endless warfare overseas (Democracy building), and ultimately CBDC, Social Credit and Carbon Taxes?

            You get them to fight one another, and you label all those that attempt to protect the Nation, the Constitution, and the integrity of Freedoms and Liberty by labeling them racists, rapists, terrorists... or whatever else works, like Russian collusion.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I appreciate your desire to challenge me to address the appropriate questions, and to return honest answers.

              "I am willing to accept criticism and re-consider my position when it is challenged by someone who has lived through and experienced what I have not"

              Don't let me off that easily, I still need to make my case and do not want to fall back solely on experience, to give me any advantage that I have not otherwise earned in a rational debate/discussion.
              ----------
              We did not need a "tool" nor have to be agitated from outside influences. This was as American an initiative as Apple pie. Increasing impatience with the pace of change during the 20th century constituted the fuel, and riots and continued agitation were the ignition. The civil rights movement was coming to fruition during the 1950s to full revolt. By the time the 1960s arrived, Kennedy and Johnson both realized that the discontent could no longer be ignored or contained. It well had the potential to tear the nation apart and in a time of Cold War rivalry, hypocrisy was a trait that we dared not present to the world. Now, there is television with the new Telstar communications satellite that can send moving images across the globe.

              We have had successful symbols but the symbol is not always the same as the substance. You can probably ask any of these successful people you listed, do you think that they would say that America's racial issue problem has gone away because of their success? Blacks tend be a Democratic Party constituency, regardless of social class. That would tend to support my point. The nineties went pretty well, as Bill Clinton presided over a booming American economy and larger percentages of our group were enjoying it more than had previously.

              We are currently seeing a backlash with Trumpism and the conservatives regarding civil rights issues. Movement to minimize our existence and influence in the American story is going full tilt. I am seeing the appearance of racial hostility from rightwing sects that are not always firmly discredited by the Republican Party. We did not have that during the 1990s, after getting over Reagan, I believed that things were improving. So, we currently are reacting to the increased presence of reactionaries in our society today and what appears to be their ever greater influence.

              I would like to see more of the structural disadvantages go away in many areas, even though there will always be a handful that can successfully negotiate the minefield. Life itself is full of land mines, let's just remove the ones that unfairly put certain people at a disadvantage at the start.

              The mislabel of genders and sex is misunderstood by me. But I don't  have to understand it to afford anyone and everyone with equal rights, regardless of who they say they are or what they may look like.
              I don't accept open borders as that is a different issue than civil rights for American citizens. But, The process of immigration needs to be both fair and orderly. I question our military involvement abroad and the sheer magnitude and extent of it, I always have. I am not in favor of the United States giving up its prerogative to be a sovereign nation and become part of a one world government. But, there is a need for balance, cooperation with other nations in certain areas may well be necessary to ensure our mutual survival.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image77
                Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Perception is reality, this is the problem.

                The MSM works with extreme prejudice to paint the likes of DeSantis and Trump as racist, while excusing everything Biden says or does/did that could be construed as such.

                That they go on to attack Larry Elder, Tulsi Gabbard, and others as being racist, when that flies in the face of reality, is where it is clear the effort to label, smear, and dismiss these voices becomes overly obvious.

                This is why I say racism and divide is being generated... instigated... propagated for a purpose that is not to benefit America or Americans, regardless of race.



                I have never argued against that.  Opportunity should be presented to all.

                I don't think we are seeing policy put in place that allows true opportunity, I see it as the disintegration of Law, Order and social cohesion.

                Allowing for Mob looting, allowing for crimes to go without punishment, again much of this is politicized and allowed for a purpose.

                Can you point out the clear benefits you have seen for the inner cities and disenfranchised of America since Biden has been elected?

                I have seen a lot of EOs and rhetoric on behalf of transgenders, child sex change, religious intolerance, and even immigrants... but not a whole lot on behalf of bringing something that positively affects the communities you are most concerned about.

                Perhaps I am unaware of them.

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  I believe that the reality accurately reflect the perception. Democrats are not expunging our existence in history and burning books from our most renown authors. Exposing a bad tendency done100 times over it being done once or twice matters and they are not equivalent. There is such an idea as magnitude and extent as there are no absolutes.

                  Neither Elder or Gabbard are racists, but if they throw their lot in with conservative politicians and Trump then they advocate policy positions not appealing to me nor much of the black community, who tends to vote Democratic for a reason.

                  Racism and the divide has always been here, only conservatives seem to believe that it is being manufactured, as if it were unnatural for a citizen to want equal rights. This is the first time where it appears that society is backsliding in regards to this issue. These rise of racial strife from white supremacist groups over the last 20 years is well documented. Excuse me if I give statistics provided by the FBI more credibility than what is presented by Breitbart or OAN.

                  I haven't seen any progress during Trumps term either, despite his boasts. Poverty and disadvantage are and always have been difficult to correct regardless who is in power. It is just that the Republicans have consistently presented themselves as an impediment unlike the Democrats. With a interminable flinty over representative Republican Congress, right now, we are trying to keep Republicans from taking away those gains that we have thought that we have secured.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image77
                    Ken Burgessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Credence,

                    From the position from which you are arguing, as I understand it, I agree fully with you.

                    Do you not recognize my argument... that there is something larger going on, that at this time, the divisiveness between races, sexes, etc. is being stirred to levels that we have not seen in decades, for a reason?

                    That the extremists, their groups, their worst actions, are being exposed and exploited by the MSM to help foster those divisions?

                    If I am wrong, it doesn't matter much.  But if I am right, if the WEF gets its way, what will become of America's Freedoms, Liberty and Opportunity?

                    https://plandemicseries.com/

                    An interesting three minute clip to make you think.

  7. My Esoteric profile image85
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    Here is an interesting potential result of Crow's gifts to Thomas -

    "Wyden has raised the possibility that the hospitality may have required disclosure on federal tax filings, which generally require taxpayers to report gifts in excess of a certain amount. The letter also indicated an interest in examining whether the travel was recorded on tax records as a business expense."

    While Crow may have to have reported some of the things he gave Thomas, Thomas doesn't have to report receiving them to the IRS.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics … index.html

  8. Ken Burgess profile image77
    Ken Burgessposted 12 months ago

    Credence this is some material I really want your feedback on.  Your perspective on these opinions and issues.

    Making Black America @PBS - REACTION by @ChadOJackson
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W-sqDp6MdM

    Uncle Tom II - A Review by @JerichoGreen1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30kwIgFHy14

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Ok, Ken, i will have a look and let you know....

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Without going into detail the moderator is a "kid" by my standards and is as wrong and as misguided as it possibly to be.

      I have heard it all before.....

      I will challenge anything that he says point by point and rebut and reject  his accomodationism...

  9. Miebakagh57 profile image68
    Miebakagh57posted 12 months ago

    I think we've began to digress from the main thread?

  10. Miebakagh57 profile image68
    Miebakagh57posted 12 months ago

    Bring back Trump. He make America great again!

    1. My Esoteric profile image85
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      You must really hate America to wish that on us.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
        Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Nope! Those 51% that prefers Trump over Ron, Biden, and the others, are they fools?                                             And what about lady Sherry and her discourse...? In spite of her daily hardship, she still prefers Trump?                                         The best move is that Americans must bring back Trump. He'll make  America great again. Run Trump. Run.

        1. My Esoteric profile image85
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Your funny.

          1. Miebakagh57 profile image68
            Miebakagh57posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Fun aside. My comment is reality. Thanks.

            1. My Esoteric profile image85
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Sorry, it is not.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)