Oliver made the proposal on Sunday’s episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight, saying the supreme court justice had 30 days to accept or it would expire.
The British-born comedian’s offer came after a steady drumbeat of media investigations in the previous several months established that Thomas failed to disclose that political benefactors bought him lavish vacation travel and real estate for his mother. Thomas also failed to disclose – as required – that he allowed school fees for a family member to be paid off and had been provided a loan to buy a luxury motor coach, all after openly complaining about the need to raise supreme court justices’ salaries.
As a result, Thomas’s impartiality came into question after he sided with the contentious ruling that eliminated the federal abortion rights once provided by the Roe v Wade case.
He also recently listened to arguments over whether Donald Trump can be removed from states’ ballots in the presidential election after the former president’s supporters – whom he told to “fight like hell” – staged the January 6 attack at the US Capitol in Washington DC. Thomas resisted pressure to recuse himself from such matters, even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, is a conservative political activist who has endorsed false claims from Trump and his supporters that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen from him.
Stockholm syndrome isnt real my guy, some cops made it up to hand wave why captives called them out for risking their lives more than the kidnappers had.
Kinda like how youre hand waving people clearly telling you that a shit service still fulfills a service, and not having alternative examples to pivot to means people who need the service filled will use shit service over no service.
ROFL!
Read up… “my guy…”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
You didnt read your own link, huh
“and in fact it is a “contested illness” due to doubts about the legitimacy of the condition”
Literally in the opening blurb
Contested…. “My dude”, doesn’t mean non existent. It just means someone disagrees with it.
As in-
Your dumb point is contested by me. Does that invalidate it? Do I automatically win now?
Still didnt read the article, where it has an entire section explaining that the contest is between psychologists saying its fake, and media outlets and cops saying its real.
Youre hammering my point home my guy, and hitting every finger you have on the way there
You’re pursuing the wrong point- my guy….
Made up or not, my point remains that people constantly bitch about YouTube, and then cry and complain when someone suggests they leave the platform.
Whether we name or after some contested psychological label, or just call them ignorant children, whining and hating on a thing only to defend it when someone suggest you stop using it if you hate it so much is incredibly stupid.
Not going to argue this any further.