Sotomayor Ruled on Cases Directly Involving Publisher Who Paid Her $3 million+
- Thread starter Grokmaster
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
Yep, and the Reich press is doing everything they can to suppress this scandal.
None of the Reich media sources have reported the story.
evince
Truthmatters
All the right has left to defend their constant idiocy is fucking lies
They are at maximum lie factor
evince
Truthmatters
Ruling on a writ of certiorari is ruling, moron.
Sauders > > > dishonest hack.
Sotomayor protected her income by ruling against a writ of certiorari for the plaintiff, a ruling in favor of Random House who paid her for a book no one ever read. (As if Sotomayor could even write her own name.)
Where your "objective" standards are "democrat good - American bad - BAHHH, BAHHH, BAHHHH"
Yakuda
Verified User
I notice you don't answer the question though do you? Am I supposed to believe that if you precieved this as a " liberal" court you'd be talking about this? ????? Not everyone is as stupid as a leftist.
The entire court votes on a writ of certiorari. Individual judges don't make a ruling on it. Denials of a writ of certiorari are not signed and we don't know how judges ruled unless someone writes a dissent.
If you want to call someone a moron maybe you should understand the topic.
If you are determined to prove yourself as stupid as grok, be my guest.
How did it protect her income? She had already been paid. Any royalties from book sales would not be hurt by a single suit against Random House that had no chance of Greenspan winning.
Would you care to provide evidence of how Sotomayor voted on the writ that was denied by the court? At this point you are claiming she did something you can't even provide evidence for. Based on the court case itself, the denial of the writ was going to happen since there was nothing really for the USSC to rule on.
When someone files a document that is supposed to show their outside income and gifts then is should include the outside income and gifts. It doesn't matter whether it is Trump, Thomas, Biden, or Sotomayor.
People make mistakes and don't include items. I don't have a problem with people correcting their filings if they missed something. In the case of Thomas, it is the repeated failure even after being told.
How exciting.
But the entire court didn't take $3 million from the defendant, now did they?
Only Sotomayor took a large bribe, er pay out from them.
Clumsy attempt at building a straw man. I never said Sotomayor alone ruled, I merely pointed out the fact that she was bought.
I'm sure the promise of further riches for ruling the right way strongly guided corrupt Sonja.
And don't be a retard, that corrupt Sotomayor ruled against certiorari along with 4 other justices on the then 8 person court.
I get it, you're a hack and need to defend your party - you have no integrity and no ethics - only your party.
When someone takes $3 million from a party in a case before them, they have a moral and legal duty to recuse themselves from involvement.
Sotomayor did not do so. This isn't going on a friends yacht - which in fact has very little value - the friend was going with or without Thomas - the extra expense was in a few more chicken breasts for dinner.
But $3 million cash and then ruling on a case that involves those who paid you, ruling in their favor - that's unethical and illegal.
But you don't care - party above all - party IS all.
Last edited:
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.
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.
It's the very definition of Judicial Corruption.