Thom, read this brief IKEA piece and see if a line jumps out at you:

Highly successful IKEA has a point-of-view not shared by many struggling American Companies.

Best, Patrick Roden

aginginplace.com

Not a chance. Justice Thomas seems more arrogant even than Justice Scalea. But it is an arrogance fed by a horrible sense that he is a fraud. So he plays the fraud's game of compensating for ineptness with arbitrary applications of power. What really gives him a kick is that, like the type of the religious prohibitionist that H L Mencken describes, he knows he is wrong but he knows he can do it anyway because there is no one to control him. Except his ventriloquists.

Congress show some nerve by impeaching a Supreme? Congress doesn't have the nerve to impeach its own shadow.

Around Red Square

…, remember, you must turn right onto Ethics Blvd, because its' a one way.

Drive carefully, because traffic enforcement cameras are everywhere.

I've heard, their motion sensors were spectrally tuned during the Clinton era, to see only shades of blue and therefore, only infractions by blue cars are captured and cited.

When turning right, use extreme caution, because red vehicles fly around Red Square as if it were the Autobahn.

Eventually, you must again turn right onto a one way, and like the previous stretch, it has those "cameras".

If you continue around Red Square, you will encountered two more, must turn right onto one ways and find yourself back on Ethics Blvd.

If you haven't seen the flash of an enforcement camera during the drive around, consider yourself lucky.

Again, give wide berth to the maniacs in the red cars using Red Square like the own personal Autobahn.

Hope to see your blue car pulling up in the driveway soon, or maybe not.

DITTO to that sentiment. I just hope these letter writers will bring a charge. He would be the first SC Justice to be successfully impeached.

I believe he can be impeached. I also believe that no one is above the law. His wife is selling his vote - all you have to do is prove that he and she have colluded to rake in some money being given to his wife who is influencing him and buying his vote. President Nixon resigned when he was caught in a lie - Justice Thomas can be impeached or resign because he is corrupting the system of law he is suppose to be upholding. Again, no one in this country is above the law and he needs to be investigated and ultimately impeached. If the Prisident of the United States can be questioned by Congress, then a Supreme Court justice can be likewise.

The arrogance of these Justices is really beginning to STINK!!!

Soros Funded Group ,

"At issue here is the well-known liberal group, Common Cause, heavily funded by liberal Billionaire George Soros group Open Society Institute and the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation doesn’t like that they lost the case last year that stripped some elements of McCain-Feingold, allowing corporations to become more involved in political campaigns.

Common Cause is now “asking the Department of Justice to investigate Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in relation to the Citizens United Supreme Court case, arguing that their decision in the case raised ‘serious questions about the impartiality of’ both justices.”

According to Common Cause President and CEO Bob Edgar, “It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” as contends that the justices should have recused themselves from the case and adding that the decision should be vacated.

I agree that Justice Thomas needs to go, however, until we make some serious adjustments in all parts of the mass media in this country, nothing can happen. What is needed here is a mass protest against the media on a scale we are seeing in Egypt. That can only happen by a raising of the collective consciousness throughout the country. One at a time, we need to begin protesting against each of the major networks.

I disagree in part w/ New #8 and 13, if they mean that the whole of the Union is a single “nation” and under Washington, D.C., the de facto, as opposed to possibly 50 countries or nations, then I descent.

I must agree w/ New #6 the U.S. cesspool is too corrupt and broken. Hence the original cause for the tea party as formed by Ron Paul. And somebody, you know who, wants the people rendered armsless. How do you suppose the people exercise the mandate contained in the last phrases of the Declaration of Independence?

J. Clarence Thomas belongs, bought and paid for, (there is no difference between him and the fella Bush III) to the shadow power elite that runs the de facto fascist national security corprotocracy police state. Who said there is no conspiracy?

Any justice must recuse itself even if there is only the appearance of partiality or impropriety. When the justice is involved in abuse of discretion, including Scalia, he should be impeached. Fat chance that’ll happen. They can’t even investigate the Bushwhacker for torture. You’ll only see more arrogance as high crimes go on being ignored and tolerated by the people.

I fully agree w/ New #13 that the people must physically demonstrate enmass in the streets as the “lowly towelheads” in Cairo and elsewhere has shown us. All of these infractions against the public trust cannot go unrewarded. We must go around the established and owned media and bolster independent media like this one to rally the people under one banner.

I’m sorry that I’ve been remiss in this vain, attempting to support Wikileaks, Manning & CCR w/ what meager funds I can muster after arming myself.

I hope he is impeached. Why do the Supreme Court Justices have life-time appointments? Many people think this is wrong. Is there anyway to change this law? They should all be independent justices, not conservative and/or liberal.

Quite frankly, I don't think the congress has the "balls" or the fortitude it requires to remove a judge from his seat. Just look at W's war crimes and how it was stated "impeachment is off the table".

Check out this great website that shows how the wealth of our country is shared:

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/pages/interactive#/?start=1917&end=1918

I understand from the Hartmann program that Sanders is to appear at a forum to strategize for the citizens United case implications.

I have found no other way of communicating with the Honorable Bernie Sanders hence this piece in this venue.

I just wanted to comment on the term 'person' or 'personage'.

As we all know the common colloquial term 'person' means living breathing human being.

What if I said we living souls of mankind are not persons?

However, this common meaning is not so in the legal sense. The legal term, 'person', means something entirely different.

The legal meaning comes from the Greek drama, where the 'person' is the mask, status or character of the actor in the drama. It is the face or Façade of the stage actor. It is entirely distinct and different from the living soul of the actual actor behind the mask. They are not the same. I know that this is deep and difficult to wrap one's mind around the concept, but fundamental inlaw. Therefore the legal definition for the term, 'person' means the office of the person, character or status of the individual referred to. Further, the legal person is an inanimate entity, created by the state and subject to the state. The same way the state is subject to the people.

Ask yourself, are you a creature of the state or were you made by the state? Are you subject to the state? Look up Bovier’s original law dictionary, I believe 1854.

The usual legal definition for the legal term, 'person' is a natural 'person', firm, partnership, or corporation.

In common Amerikan-English and reason dictates that one does not define a term with the same term being defined. However, the term 'person' here in the definition means that status or political entity of the individual associated with that status.

Additionally, a principle inlaw states when a thing is defined by a certain class of things it excludes other classes of things. In other words, if one is describing a thing as a fruit & lists other fruits along w/ it, then it excludes the other classes such as vegetables. Therefore, in our subject definition, we see that all described entities are legal fictions, creatures of the state or made by the state & therefore, excludes everything else, including living souls of mankind.

One of our strategies ought to be to disavow the term, ‘person’ & by gosh call ourselves of all things, ‘man’ or perhaps even, ‘woman’. Only people have these absolute fundamental rights, if you’ll agree. The singular for people is not ‘person’ but ‘man’.

Just think of this as a usurpation of the term 'person' the same way the term, 'gay' was corrupted and high-jacked by a segment of the population.

So the only people who should be on the supreme court are the ones that agree 100"% with a certain politcial partys view? If not they should be replaced? That's very fair? Idiots!