Super-lib Justice Sotomayor took $3 MILLION in bribes! USUAL MEDIA BLACKOUT!!!

T

Text Drivers are Killers

Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
The press makes a front page story of the clarence thomas scandal but this is censored!!!

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/04/...t-recuse-herself-from-cases/?utm_medium=email

may 4 2023 Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a left-wing justice nominated by Barack Obama, repeatedly refused to recuse herself from cases involving the publishing company that paid her millions to publish her own books.

According to the Daily Wire, Sotomayor was paid $3.1 million by Penguin Random House over the course of two years; in 2010, she was paid $1.2 million by Knopf Doubleday Group, part of Random House’s conglomerate, and then received two separate advance payments in 2012, which amounted to $1.9 million when combined. These payments have made Penguin Random House her single largest source of income.

Despite this, Sotomayor did not recuse herself when making a decision in the 2013 case of Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. In the case, Greenspan – an author who was classmates with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg while at Harvard – alleged that his proposed book about the founding of Facebook was rejected by Random House, only for the company to then grant a book deal to another author who copied his idea and then turned it into the successful movie “The Social Network” in 2010.

During that case, then-Justice Stephen Breyer, a fellow left-wing justice, did ultimately recuse himself due to receiving payments from the publisher in the past. Sotomayor, however, did not recuse herself despite doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
 
Builshit

Did she declare the payments, not keep them off the books, yea, she didn’t hide them like Thomas did. Your shit source, which is Tucker via another shit source, is saying, without any proof, that this supposedly effected her decision in one case that remotely touches her relationship with the book publishers

Post is shit, as are your sources
 
archives said:
Builshit

Did she declare the payments, not keep them off the books, yea, she didn’t hide them like Thomas did. Your shit source, which is Tucker via another shit source, is saying, without any proof, that this supposedly effected her decision in one case that remotely touches her relationship with the book publishers

Post is shit, as are your sources
Click to expand...

Here's the point you obviously missed, in your desperation to cover for the racist Sotomayer:


"...Despite this, Sotomayor did not recuse herself when making a decision in the 2013 case of Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. "


DIRECTLY INVOLVED HER PUBLISHER, NOT "REMOTELY".

Nice try.
 
All federal judges and all federal congressmen take bribes all the time. America is so corrupt. Sotzy should be hung by her thumbs for a week.
 
Grokmaster said:
Here's the point you obviously missed, in your desperation to cover for the racist Sotomayer:


"...Despite this, Sotomayor did not recuse herself when making a decision in the 2013 case of Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. "


DIRECTLY INVOLVED HER PUBLISHER, NOT "REMOTELY".

Nice try.
Click to expand...

And she was suppose to cause Tucker says so? She declared the relationship as required, the other clowns didn’t
 
Sotzy is of course an afffirmative action hire and should not be on the court. Same is true of ketanji . Hell - Child Molester in Chief Pedo Joe Biden flat out said he would not even consider a white or a male for that vacancy!!! Have to say thomas is also an AA hire.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The press makes a front page story of the clarence thomas scandal but this is censored!!!
Click to expand...

Yep, which is why the fascists are so busy slinging mud at everyone else - hoping to distract from the real problems.

Oh, and just to tweak Anchovies...

{
[h=1]Alito says he has a ‘pretty good idea’ who leaked draft of abortion opinion[/h][COLOR=var(--article-dek--color)][FONT=var(--article-dek--font-family)]Justice Samuel Alito said the leaker shared his draft opinion that indicated the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade as part of a "campaign to try to intimidate the court.”[/FONT][/COLOR]
}

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...-idea-leaked-draft-abortion-opinion-rcna82095

Spoiler Alert: It was Kagan.
[h=1]Alito says he has a ‘pretty good idea’ who leaked draft of abortion opinion[/h][COLOR=var(--article-dek--color)][FONT=var(--article-dek--font-family)]Justice Samuel Alito said the leaker shared his draft opinion that indicated the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade as part of a "campaign to try to intimidate the court.”[/FONT][/COLOR]
 
archives said:
Builshit

Did she declare the payments, not keep them off the books, yea, she didn’t hide them like Thomas did. Your shit source, which is Tucker via another shit source, is saying, without any proof, that this supposedly effected her decision in one case that remotely touches her relationship with the book publishers

Post is shit, as are your sources
Click to expand...

ROFL

You'll tell ANY lie to cover for your Reich.

Sotomayor failed to recuse herself in a case involving a company that paid her directly. Which DOES violate the ethical standards of the court.

Looks like you Nazis once again, stepped on a rake.

iu
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The press makes a front page story of the clarence thomas scandal but this is censored!!!
Click to expand...

How did Sotomayor vote on the case?
Oh.. that's right, the court didn't even agree to hear the case.

How did Sotomayor vote on whether to hear the case?
Oh.. that's right, you have no clue as to her vote.

I call bullshit on this story and simply an attempt to muddy the waters by false equivalence.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
ROFL

You'll tell ANY lie to cover for your Reich.

Sotomayor failed to recuse herself in a case involving a company that paid her directly. Which DOES violate the ethical standards of the court.

Looks like you Nazis once again, stepped on a rake.

iu
Click to expand...

When did the USSC rule on the case?

They didn't even agree to hear the case.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
When did the USSC rule on the case?

They didn't even agree to hear the case.
Click to expand...

{On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court voted not to hear the case, denying the “writ of certiorari” and meaning that the case would remain where it left off — with a circuit court having found in the publisher’s favor.}

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2023/05/04/it-turns-out-liberal-justices-are-caught-up-in-their-own-ethics-concerns-n2622839

I guess buying Sotomayor was a good purchase for Random House.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
{On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court voted not to hear the case, denying the “writ of certiorari” and meaning that the case would remain where it left off — with a circuit court having found in the publisher’s favor.}

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2023/05/04/it-turns-out-liberal-justices-are-caught-up-in-their-own-ethics-concerns-n2622839

I guess buying Sotomayor was a good purchase for Random House.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The press makes a front page story of the clarence thomas scandal but this is censored!!!
Click to expand...

Both she and Gorsuch did the same thing. They both should have recused themselves.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/poli...h-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.html

"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court in 2017 and also has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in book deals with the publisher, declined to disqualify himself from the more recent case when it came before the court for consideration.
 
archives said:
Builshit

Did she declare the payments, not keep them off the books, yea, she didn’t hide them like Thomas did. Your shit source, which is Tucker via another shit source, is saying, without any proof, that this supposedly effected her decision in one case that remotely touches her relationship with the book publishers

Post is shit, as are your sources
Click to expand...

CNN reported the same thing, but Textie failed to report that Gorsuch did the same thing.

I agree that they didn't try to hide their perks like Thomas has.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The press makes a front page story of the clarence thomas scandal but this is censored!!!
Click to expand...

Just to make it clear..
This case was dismissed by the lower court because Greenspan failed to make a claim on which relief could be granted in his lawsuit.
The appeals court in a unanimous ruling agreed with the lower court ruling that Greenspan failed to make a claim.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4134567/00106444406/greenspan-v-random-house-inc/

The USSC refused to take up the case. I am guessing that the decision to not take it up was unanimous because there is nothing in the case worthy of being ruled on.

The only thing the case would have resulted in would have been allowing Greenspan to refile his case. But the lower court had already said there wasn't evidence of similarity between Greenspan's work and the one he claimed was written using his work.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Just to make it clear..
This case was dismissed by the lower court because Greenspan failed to make a claim on which relief could be granted in his lawsuit.
The appeals court in a unanimous ruling agreed with the lower court ruling that Greenspan failed to make a claim.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4134567/00106444406/greenspan-v-random-house-inc/

The USSC refused to take up the case. I am guessing that the decision to not take it up was unanimous because there is nothing in the case worthy of being ruled on.

The only thing the case would have resulted in would have been allowing Greenspan to refile his case. But the lower court had already said there wasn't evidence of similarity between Greenspan's work and the one he claimed was written using his work.
Click to expand...
To be clear Sotomayor voted not to allow the case to be heard by the SC.
 
ExpressLane said:
There you go. Greenspan didn't get his case against Random House heard in part because Sotomayor voted it down.
Click to expand...

Nope. Greenspan didn't get his case heard because he had no case.

This is the appeals court ruling which was unanimous.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4134567/00106444406/greenspan-v-random-house-inc/

There is no constitutional question in the case. All there is is Greenspan whining that the appeals court should read a newspaper story and assume the article contains facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top