Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh boy, where shall I even begin. From the top, I guess. >How is trying to overthrow a democracy an improvement for your country? Largely a farce narrative, both from the outset and slowly but surely as the courts work their way through all the quagmire. >Instead we from the outside see people like you, defending and voting for a person who is ostensibly and almost transparently against what are your supposed core va…
> >How is trying to overthrow a democracy an improvement for your country? > Largely a farce narrative, both from the outset and slowly but surely as the courts work their way through all the quagmire. I simply cannot continue a conversation when you can't adhere to a basic reality where a sitting president attempted to overthrow your democracy, playing it down as a "farce narrative" while a mob inflamed by the perso…
He accepted expensive non-monetary gifts from friends, and failed to disclose them. I agree it isn't a good look, but I don't think it is as bad as you are painting it.
Can anyone point to a case in which (1) Thomas voted in an unexpected way (given his track record) and (2) in a way which directly benefited any of these friends?
I don't think anyone can. I think, if it was as blatant as "I know your ultra-conservative ideology tells you to vote one way on this case, but here's a suitcase containing a million dollars for you to side with the liberals instead" – he'd be gone very quickly, even the GOP would be voting for articles of impeachment. But it wasn't anything like that.
Rich friends were gifting him expensive vacations, but he'd vote the way they wanted even without that. And he wasn't hearing any cases to which those friends were parties. At most, he was reading amicus briefs signed by conservative lobby groups for whom one of these generous rich friends was a board member. But, given how conservative he is, it is very likely he would have ruled the way they wanted even if his benefactor was not on their board. The real purpose of those briefs is not to convince Thomas which way to vote (everybody already knows), it is to give him ideas for justifications, and to try to convince some of the more moderate conservatives (especially Roberts) which way to vote.
And I can understand how federal bureaucrats, who would lose their job (or even go to prison) for a lot less, must feel upset at the double standard. But there have always been different standards for judges, and especially for those at the top of the judicial ladder. And I don't think the US is unique in that regard, many other countries it is the same thing.
> When calling people "vermins", even if illegally immigrating to a country, is normalised you are not on a Left-shift of the Overton window.
Australia has, in many ways, a harsher immigration policy than the US had, even under Trump. Yes, our politicians are much more careful and measured in their language. But Australia has bipartisan support for harsh immigration enforcement measurements which Republicans could only dream of implementing in the US. If we focus on style, Trump may sound like someone from the far far far right; if we focus on substance, in practice his administration was (in some ways at least) to the left of Australia's current (on paper socialist) government.