Sotomayor Ruled on Cases Directly Involving Publisher Who Paid Her $3 million+

Grokmaster said:
Can't read? Stupidfuck.


In 2013 and 2020, while receiving these payments, Sotomayor presided over two copyright infringement cases involving Penguin Random House, Rosiak reported.

Sotomayor voted on the 2013 case, Aaron Greenspan v. Random House, even though her colleague Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer had recused himself after also receiving money from the book publisher. In February 2020, the Supreme Court voted not to hear a case against Penguin Random House, which meant the ruling over the case was deferred to the next lower court, which had ruled in the book publisher's favor, Rosiak reported.


"Sotomayor's failure to recuse after taking millions from Random House is a lot more consequential than someone paying for a relative of Clarence Thomas to go to private school (which was not required to be reported)," GOP political strategist Matt Whitlock
Click to expand...

Neil Gorsuch also received at least $655,000 from the same publisher, and neglected to recuse himself in the very same ruling!

Would Sotomayor have to recuse herself from a case involving Ford if she had ever owned a Ford? What about Pepsi or MacDonalds or Amazon? Taking massive bribes and hiding that information from the public is different than using a company to publish a best-selling book.

So, if Gorsuck didn't recuse himself in the same SC cases, why are we here today discussing Sotomayer not recusing herself?

And Sotomayer reported her earnings from Random House, SHE WAS ACTUALLY OWED BY RANDOM HOUSE, BUT YET THOMAS covered up taking, what turned out to be bribes in exchange for his votes on the SC, NOT MONEY HE EARNED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OF FORM, from a HEAVY REPUBLICAN Campaign donor, and did not report them according to the rules- and this has been going on over the last 20 years. Has Clarence Thomas ever recused himself in any case he ruled on over the last 20 years, where his votes on the SC ended up favoring the Companies owned by the same people that GIFTED HIM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BRIBERY MONEY OVER A PERIOD OF OVER 20 YEARS? SORRY BUT I HAD TO :laugh: at this insane HYPOCRISY!

And the fact is, there are rules for reporting money received by all sources, and there isn't even a rule on Justices recusing themselves from cases.

So Sotomayer, clearly went by the rules, BUT THOMAS TRIED TO COVER UP HIS BRIBE MONEY, and that is a direct violation of the rules.

Might it just be, that OPey Dopey and his EXTREME RIGHT WING accusers are the biggest whiners and hypocrites on the planet?

And if this is a WHATABOUTISM- and this is all he's got- it's like comparing HORSE APPLES- TO HORSE SHIT!

NEXT!

barni-vs-dinosaur.gif
 
Last edited:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You seem to be confused about what being bought means.
Clearly Sotomayor is not the only justice that got paid for a book.

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


Gorsuch and Sotomayor both disclosed the payments on their disclosure forms.
Amy Coney Barrett is writing a book that she hopes to sell to those same publishers.

I am curious how this supposedly benefited Random House.
In Greenspan v Random House, the lower court threw out the suit by Greenspan because he had not made a proper claim of relief. When the court rejected his attempt to amend the complaint, he appealed. The appeals court agreed with the lower court and went so far as to say Greenspan hadn't presented any evidence in support of his claim. Greenspan then tried to appeal to the USSC. They rejected his claim. The only possible ruling for Greenspan would have been to tell the court to look at his case again. If the case was that weak, the lower court would have just rejected it again.
Click to expand...

Oh look, another straw man.

Did Gorsuch rule in a case before the court that his benefactor was a defendant in? In fact, he recused himself on the lower court when his publisher was involved - as is legal and ethical - unlike Sotomayor.

Sotomayor ensured that the case would not be heard, hence the lower court ruling for her client would remain in effect.

No doubt Penguin Publishing views the $3 million as well invested.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Neil Gorsuch also received at least $655,000 from the same publisher, and neglected to recuse himself in the very same ruling!

Would Sotomayor have to recuse herself from a case involving Ford if she had ever owned a Ford? What about Pepsi or MacDonalds or Amazon? Taking massive bribes and hiding that information from the public is different than using a company to publish a best-selling book.

So, if Gorsuck didn't recuse himself in the same SC cases, why are we here today discussing Sotomayer not recusing herself?

Might it just be, that OPey Dopey and his EXTREME RIGHT WING accusers are the biggest whiners and hypocrites on the planet?

NEXT!
Click to expand...

Nope.

Now YOU explain why I said "nope."

It's a central fact that you failed to find out...

Standard Disclaimer: WHO was the publisher of Gorsuch book?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Nope.

Now YOU explain why I said "nope."

It's a central fact that you failed to find out...

Standard Disclaimer: WHO was the publisher of Gorsuch book?
Click to expand...

NOPE?

Which book DOPE?

Gorsuch has written two books: The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, published in 2009 by Princeton University Press, and A Republic, If You Can Keep It, a 2020 book published by Penguin Random House. It's a central fact that you failed to find out...

I was happy to help you out!

And I was happy to explain why I called you DOPE!

NEXT!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
NOPE?

Which book DOPE?

Gorsuch has written two books: The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, published in 2009 by Princeton University Press, and A Republic, If You Can Keep It, a 2020 book published by Penguin Random House. It's a central fact that you failed to find out...

I was happy to help you out!

And I was happy to explain why I called you DOPE!

NEXT!
Click to expand...

You realize dont you that if you pond scum leftists saw the court as "liberal" you wouldn't give two shits about any of this, right?
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
NO, but I do realize, that if anyone is POND SCUM around here- it's you!
Click to expand...

Doesnt change the fact that if you leftist nitwits thought this was "liberal" court you wouldn't be flapping your lips about any of this. Normal people can see how you leftists behave. We all know you are whining in the hopes of unseating justices so you can make this a "liberal" court. If you did we wouldn't hear another word about "ethics" from you weasels.
 
Yakuda said:
Doesnt change the fact that if you leftist nitwits thought this was "liberal" court you wouldn't be flapping your lips about any of this. Normal people can see how you leftists behave. We all know you are whining in the hopes of unseating justices so you can make this a "liberal" court. If you did we wouldn't hear another word about "ethics" from you weasels.
Click to expand...

Did someone say something? Test 1 2 3- are these things working?

GEICO_cinderella_2.png
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Did someone say something? Test 1 2 3- are these things working?

GEICO_cinderella_2.png
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point. Anyone with a working brain can see leftists do t give a shit about anything they claim to care about. Blacks are one of the best example. You leftist pieces of shit love black people until they are conservative. I knew you people were stupid I just didn't realize exactly how stupid you are.
 
Yakuda said:
Thanks for making my point. Anyone with a working brain can see leftists do t give a shit about anything they claim to care about. Blacks are one of the best example. You leftist pieces of shit love black people until they are conservative. I knew you people were stupid I just didn't realize exactly how stupid you are.
Click to expand...

It's all about power, there is only power, there is no such thing as truth in the WOKE suicide cult.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It all about power, there is only power, there is no such thing as truth in the WOKE suicide cult.
Click to expand...

What I find fascinating is they actually seem to think normal people believe leftists care about things like ethics and democracy. Anyone with a connected brain stem knows leftists only give a shit about their narrative and the power that can be stolen with it.
 
Yakuda said:
Doesnt change the fact that if you leftist nitwits thought this was "liberal" court you wouldn't be flapping your lips about any of this. Normal people can see how you leftists behave. We all know you are whining in the hopes of unseating justices so you can make this a "liberal" court. If you did we wouldn't hear another word about "ethics" from you weasels.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to take this call!

funny-pictures-love-geico-Allstate-5428484.jpeg
 
Yakuda said:
What I find fascinating is they actually seem to think normal people believe leftists care about things like ethics and democracy. Anyone with a connected brain stem knows leftists only give a shit about their narrative and the power that can be stolen with it.
Click to expand...

We are looking at garden variety brain washing....it is a cult....a suicide cult.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
NOPE?

Which book DOPE?

Gorsuch has written two books: The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, published in 2009 by Princeton University Press, and A Republic, If You Can Keep It, a 2020 book published by Penguin Random House. It's a central fact that you failed to find out...

I was happy to help you out!

And I was happy to explain why I called you DOPE!

NEXT!
Click to expand...

Well shit, you just had to go and lie.

https://www.amazon.com/Republic-If-You-Can-Keep/dp/0525576789

The publisher is ACTUALLY Forum Books, NOT Penguin.

I call you a LIAR.

So desperate to further the agenda of your filthy Reich you'll tell any lie.
 
Yakuda said:
You realize dont you that if you pond scum leftists saw the court as "liberal" you wouldn't give two shits about any of this, right?
Click to expand...

The book is published by Forum Books - the lefty is doing what lefties do - lying his fool head off.
 
Grokmaster said:
Your silliass "word dance" doesn't change the facts: she ruled favorably in case where her publisher (paying her at the time) was the defendant. She covered for them, more than once, instead of recusing herself.

The DEFINITION OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION.

They got their $3 million+ worth.
Click to expand...

Where can I find this ruling that you think she ruled favorably on? Did she sign onto a ruling?

grok >>> STUPID!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top