Should Clarence Thomas resign or be Impeached for unethical behavior?
A brand new report just came out that shows Thomas was investigated in 2011 for exactly the same type of unethical behavior we see today.. Then, of course, you have the Brett Kavanaugh-type inquiry into claims of Thomas' sexual abuse.
Should this man of questionable integrity be sitting on the Supreme Court?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics … index.htmlESO, I had a thread starting on this very topic, I would appreciate your imput and comments there and see if where the discussion has been leading to make sense to you?
Investigated in 2011. And to be investigated is the same as guilt, right?
Here is an interesting potential result of Crow's gifts to Thomas -
"Wyden has raised the possibility that the hospitality may have required disclosure on federal tax filings, which generally require taxpayers to report gifts in excess of a certain amount. The letter also indicated an interest in examining whether the travel was recorded on tax records as a business expense."
While Crow may have to have reported some of the things he gave Thomas, Thomas doesn't have to report receiving them to the IRS.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics … index.htmlThe biggest problem I have over this is the fact that the Republicans r sist the idea of a code of conduct for the court justices. All of the justices have a lot of latitude, beyond that of employees of the Executive branch. We have been in the same line of work and we knew what happened if you are caught playing fast and lose with ethic rules.
Why are Republicans so against the idea for any and all of justices? What are they trying to protect and conceal this time?Why didn't Democrats do something while they had all the power? Why did they put it off - what did they have to hide?
Was it because (say it softly) any real code of ethics for the SCOTUS would require jurists to vote the law rather than liberal politics?When was the last time Democrats had a supermajority in both Houses? That is the only time they had ALL the power, as you characterize it. Seems to me, Supreme Court ethics wasn't a thing back in the early Obama days. Maybe THAT is why Democrats "didn't do something".
We should have, now that the scale of this has been revealed with the Thomas case, perhaps now is the time to address it. So, it is being brought to the table to apply to all justices, do Republicans have a problem with that?
Thr REAL CODE of ETHICS would puts restraints on receiving gifts and being influenced by such where there is the appearance of a conflict of interest and impartiality, which is already clearly defined by regulations that work in other branches of Government.What reason did they have in Obama's time to press for a code of ethics for the Justices. While it would have been good to have, there were no Thomas-type affairs to drive the issue.
Republicans may be against adopting an ethics code for the Justices, but so are the Justices—all 9 of them.
Relative to the nation's final arbiter (the Court and its mechanisms), it must be a position of trust. It will always be a body of differing ideologies, but it should never be a mix of politics.
The attacks on Justice Thomas are not criminal in nature, they are political attacks. Trying to turn them into ethics violations, relative to the stature of a Justice, as they would equate to being applied to politicians (a most trustworthy lot?), doesn't work for me. It's just more politics where they shouldn't be.
I think a Court of mixed ideologies is a natural and right thing. I do trust the Court as a body. Generally (again with the possible exception of the tuition thing), the things Thomas is being attacked for have been within the ethics code observed by all Justices. Yet they weren't a problem until a conservative Justice followed that same ethics standard.
That is just politics, and trying to sneak it in under the innocent guise of 'Who could object to a code of ethics?' is disingenuous.
Do you think those damn ethics-resisting Republicans know they are helping those damn liberal judges hide their ethics violations too?
GA"Relative to the nation's final arbiter (the Court and its mechanisms), it must be a position of trust." - AGREED, which Thomas has broken since at least 2011.
The attacks on Thomas are a result of his lack of ethics, not politics. The politics comes in because only the Democrats seem to care.
BTW, I am still waiting for proof that the liberal Justices (or any of the other conservative Justices for that matter) have acted unethically. All that has been shown is that Breyer took some trips on a billionaires dime. Missing is any accusation that he didn't report it like Thomas didn't.
Consequently, I can't give your last sentence any weight.
I trust the Court if it were full of moderates, not extremists. Unfortunately, Trump made sure it was full of right-wing extremists with his appointments. The Court, in my opinion, breaks down this way:
- Two far-right extremists who shouldn't even be on the Court
- Three far-right conservatives
- One somewhat far-right conservative
- Three not too far-left liberals.
I would like to see Alito and Thomas replace with a Garland and Kennedy-type.If you compare Justice Breyer's few trips on a billionaire's dime with the many trips of Justice Thomas, it appears you are assigning degrees of the ethics violations to determine whether an ethics violation occurred.
Per the information in Mike's post (in another thread) the ranking of trips noted puts Breyer at the top of the list, not just a few trips: "Justice Stephen Breyer appointed the year later in 1994, took 233 reported trips, including 63 international trips."
He was followed by Ginsberg: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed in 1993. Two years later in the time she was on the court. She took 157 trips, including 28 international trips."
At the real bottom of the list, but at the top of your list, is:
"Justice Thomas [who] was appointed in 1991. And the time since then, he's taken 109 reported trips, five international trips."
Your reasoning implies you think one can be a little bit pregnant, right?
GAI trust Mike as much as I trust Trump. That said, Mike didn't prove that Breyer was unethical. He "said" Breyer took trips on a billionaires dime. I don't want to waste time on him so I will take that as true.
While it doesn't apply here because Breyer is presumed to be ethical unless evidence is offered that says otherwise, I do make distinctions between jaywalking - a crime - and murder - also a crime. So yes, you can be a little bit pregnant.
BTW, the "number" of trips is just a deflection. The ethical issue is that he didn't report them since they were gifts from a political donor. THAT is the ethical lapse, in case Mike had misled you.I must be prophetic. I expected your jaywalking/murder response and ya still got me. "So yes, you can be a little bit pregnant." I didn't expect that. One is either pregnant or not in my world.
Neither does shooting the messenger because you don't like the message. Mike's post was of quotes, he didn't make them up. And my reference to them wasn't as facts but as information provided in a thread.
[ADDED] To the number of trips being a deflection, the implication is that an expensive trip on a billionaire's dime is okay as long as it's reported. Is that how you see it?
GAIt is how he put them together leaving out context and only giving part of the story.
That is sort of like your last statement that is missing important context. I know you are just yanking my chain because unlike others, I don't think you are being obtuse. What is the context you left out? The fact of whether there were political overtones to the transaction.
In Thomas' case, bribery or influence is often the quid pro quo from the "gifts" he received. Mike made no such claim against Breyer, he just said Breyer took trips on a billionaires dime. I am sure you didn't miss that distinction.The problem you see with Mike's presentation of the quotes is separate from my referencing them. They were referenced simply as data points — the pro or con presentation of them doesn't affect their use as bits of information. The details attached to them can be argued as right or wrong (your view of missing context), but the only argument against using them as numbers to be compared would be whether the number was right or wrong.
I didn't touch the point of political overtones attached to the trips, I only spoke to the issue of Justices taking expense-paid trips paid for by rich friends. As you like to say, mine was an apples-to-apples comparison. The type and purpose of the trip are secondary to that point.
I've heard the criticisms, particularly of Thomas: about the non-reporting and political-influence purpose of the freebies, but I haven't looked. I don't know beans about them, so they were never part of my point. I think that has been clear and your argument about why Thomas' were ethics violations and Breyer's weren't is a separate point. I don't think any context was left out. It wasn't needed.
The starting point is whether taking expense-paid trips is a violation of ethics in the sphere of the Court. The propriety and legal boundaries for ethical determination (mandated ethics code) have to originate from that starting point question.
The thought behind my point is that generally speaking, I don't have a problem with the practice. Of course, there is the opportunity for abuse, but relative to the stature of a Justice, they've earned the assumption of trustworthiness.
If a Fortes-type instance arises (if the charges were true) I trust the Court to follow similar self-regulation. If not, the politicians will create a legal authority to do it. (as Nixon's actions against Fortes were claimed to be)
GABut you are basing your whole narrative on a flawed, one-sided, highly biased presentation. If you ONLY used the quotes, then you definitely don't have the whole picture. The problem I see with Mike's arguments is that they were ultimately a lie because he left out important context that would have worked against him.
If you ignored the political overtones, then your whole point misses the mark since that is what the whole issue is - was Thomas bribed or influenced or not?
" I think that has been clear and your argument about why Thomas' were ethics violations and Breyer's weren't is a separate point. I don't think any context was left out. It wasn't needed." - SINCE the original point that Credence made was absolutely about ethics violations, then I totally don't see why you bothered to comment on something else entirely.
"The starting point is whether taking expense-paid trips is a violation of ethics in the sphere of the Court. " - No, I disagree. "The starting point is whether taking expense-paid trips from rich political donors is a violation of ethics in the sphere of the Court." It was that extra part that caught Pro Publica's attention and got them to print the article exposing Thomas' potential ethics violations.Nope, nope, and nope.
Yes, Cred's point was about ethics violations. I entered the conversation asking what 'Uncle Tom-comparable names he would give to the other Justices that had taken similar trips.
The question was if their trips were ethics violations too, or was it just Thomas' circumstances that made him an unethical Uncle Tom.
That exchange ended with a common understanding that for the general point of taking trips, perhaps Uncle Tom was unwarranted, and the question of whether the act of taking the trips was unethical from the start, or become unethical when Judicial trust is abused (i.e. Fortes?) was the first to be answered.
That ending worked for me. I didn't look back to see where I entered with you, but I am sure it would have been within the same point., not about the accuracy of your charges of bribery and corruption.
GA"he would give to the other Justices that had taken similar trips." - MEANING trips paid for by political donors, correct? That would make them "similar".
Trips paid for by anyone not related makes them "similar". That it was paid for by someone that also makes political donations means nothing, not for a SCOTUS judge that is not being elected.
"Means Nothing" - yep, that is the answer Conservatives are giving isn't it. Potential attempted bribery (and tax evasion) of a Justice is, as Credence has said several times now, OK with Conservatives. (something to add to my book)
What do you think they are being bribed to do? Cancel RvW?
Yes, Credence has said it. Problem is that Credence, just like you, has an Everest sized bias against Conservatives, and, like you, makes up what he thinks a Conservative wants, says and does.And you don't have your own sage opinion regarding the "liberal mind?"
Is it a bias when you have formed an opinion based on observation? I guess so, since my observations over the last half-century is that conservatism, as practiced in America, has brought great harm to this nation. That is why I am writing a book about it.
From the same observations, I can firmly say that conservativism, as practiced in the Islamic state (I am trying to say not all Muslims are conservative), has brought immeasurable harm and suffering to the world.
From the same observations, I can firmly say that conservativism, as practiced in the Jewish state, has helped prevent peace in the Middle East.
You get my drift? I don't have too much of a problem with conservative theory, beyond what I pointed out in my comment to Wilderness. My issue is how it is implemented by humans.
So now you want to argue different degrees of "donor"? Once again, working from the original 'Mike' info, it seems you want to argue the difference between Harlan Crow and the Pritzker Family, or free luxury vacations with old friends to luxury expense-paid trips.
GAI am not "Now" arguing that, I have been arguing that all along because that is what triggers the ethics debate. Why do you keep avoiding the issue of undo influence on our Justices and the Justices hiding that fact?
By the way, you haven't said yet whether Breyer reported the trip or not - Mike didn't include that "quote" did he.The 'undo influence' point, relative to Thomas, hasn't been addressed because deciding that is unnecessary if just taking the trip — with the purpose aside — is an ethics violation. If so, then the presence or degree of intentional influence matters. So would the reporting issue. I would give a lot more weight of wrongness on the first and practically none on the second.
I don't think a luxury vacation with an almost lifelong family friend is an ethics violation. Consider: If an old family friend asked you to join them on a vacation trip—at their expense, would you consider that an attempt to influence you? If you accepted that trip would you be guilty of accepting something you knew to be wrong?
For circumstances, consider that friend's family is 4, and the only vacation rental they could get accommodates 8. They book it anyway and then offer your family the chance to go with them—using the other 4 slots. Money isn't an issue. Would it be unethical for you to accept?
I would credit someone that has lived a life that warranted appointment to the Court to be smart enough to know the difference between a vacation offer and an inducement offer and to have the integrity to know whether to accept the trip.
Maybe the circumstances of your described behavior can show that Thomas is unethical and lacks the integrity to be on the Court, but they will have to be more than the fact that he took trips when all the other Justices did the same, and it will have to be more than a paperwork issue too.
On the other hand, if simply taking the trips is a violation, then yep, you're right, they're all a bit unethical, but Thomas is more unethical—because of the details of his trips. Now the job is to decide the degree of ethical violation (your claimed charges) to determine the proper action. This is the point I made half-a-dozen comments ago, Is it taking trips that is unethical or the details of the trip that turns an ethical trip into an unethical one?
GAThe point is - we don't know, do we. Crow is very active in Republican politics. It should have been a no brainer, assuming everything was above board, for Thomas to report the trips and other gifts. But, he didn't, he chose to hide them from the public view even though he sits on the Court that could very well see cases that involve things Crow has a financial interest.
For example:
After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas claimed last week that he did not need to report a series of lavish gifts from the real estate magnate Harlan Crow in part because Crow did not have business before the court, a new report from Bloomberg Monday revealed the Supreme Court did in fact review at least one matter involving a Crow-linked firm—raising questions about whether Thomas should have recused himself from the case.
and later
New York University School of Law judicial ethics expert Stephen Gillers told Bloomberg that Thomas’ relationship with Harlan Crow constituted grounds for him to recuse himself from the 2004 case, adding that Thomas should have been “hypervigilant to the prospect of a Crow interest showing up on the Court’s docket.” Judges have discretion in deciding when they should step aside from a case due to a conflict, such as when they have a relative who could financially benefit from decisions, Bloomberg reported.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 … a972656c74Since "we don't know," you presume the worst case: bribery and corruption (undue influence?). So, since we don't know, it is just as valid to presume the best case—my presumption.
You offer legal minds that support your perspective and I'm sure Thomas supporters can offer the same. And both of those perspectives will be opinions based on incomplete information.
When more facts are known I'll check to see if they affect my view of Justice Thomas.
GA
Well, GA, of course all 9 justices are going to oppose any kind of restraint on their behavior while on the bench, could you have expected anything different? No one wants to have his or her behavior involuntary restrained.
It is a position of trust until you can see that that trust is dangerously violated. I always say, trust but verify. That applies to all members of the court.
I have acknowledged that I may have picked on Thomas, but the larger problem of conflict of interests and compromise of objectivity still remains. I spoke of the resignation Abe Fortas in 1969 for a comparatively minor ethics violation. The rules regarding ethics were pretty much in cement for the Court and both parties of Congress, even the Democrats who stood to lose an ideological kindred from the court. The integrity and impartiality of the court seem to override petty partisan considerations. What has happened to all that? You are a supporter of the "system", how does it go so far awry since 1969?
Regardless of your opinion, in my opinion ethics stands as a problem from the standpoint of all parties concerned.
And still the Republican resist the idea of a more rigid ethics code with teeth and the Democrat support it.
But is that not part of a Republican style of thinking that the wealthy should always have an inordinate amount of influence in how our government is run, is that the source of the resistance?To be honest, Credence, I could have. And as I said earlier I am sorely disappointed in our liberal Justices for taking a bite from that poisoned apple.
Thanks for helping to bring ever more pertinent information front and center.
I dont get why this is a partisan issue for some people. Why defend someone only because he is a conservative judge? At the least, this warrants the calls for an investigation. Everybody should be suspicious and uncomfortable with this his actions.
For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them. He frequently took trips on Crow's private jet and yacht. One such excursion in 2019 was worth $500,000.
In 2011, The New York Times reported on Crow’s generosity toward the justice. That same year, Politico revealed that Crow had given half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas, which also paid her a $120,000 salary.
In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies purchased an old single-story home and two vacant lots down the road in Savannah, Georgia. The Crow company bought the properties for $133,363 from three co-owners — Thomas, his mother and the family of Thomas’ late brother. He now owned the house where the justice’s elderly mother was living. Soon after the sale was completed, contractors began work on tens of thousands of dollars of improvements on the two-bedroom, one-bathroom home. A Crow Holdings company soon began paying the roughly $1,500 in annual property taxes on Thomas’ mother’s house, according to county tax records. The taxes had previously been paid by Clarence and Ginni Thomas. Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there.
Thomas’ financial disclosure for that year is detailed, listing everything from a “stained glass medallion” he received from Yale to a life insurance policy. But he failed to report his sale to Crow. A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties.
Crow paid tuition for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ grandnephew for two years at two private boarding schools which would amount to roughly $100,000 of undisclosed gifts. Thomas did not include the payments in the financial disclosures he is required to file each year.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clar … gifts-crow
https://www.propublica.org/article/clar … ate-scotus
https://www.propublica.org/article/clar … tin-school
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu … -the-court
Long an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics, Crow has spent millions on ideological efforts to shape the law and the judiciary. A major Republican donor for decades, Crow has given more than $10 million in publicly disclosed political contributions. He’s also given to groups that keep their donors secret — how much of this so-called dark money he’s given and to whom are not fully known. “I don’t disclose what I’m not required to disclose,” Crow once told the Times.
Crow has long supported efforts to move the judiciary to the right. He has donated to the Federalist Society and given millions of dollars to groups dedicated to tort reform and conservative jurisprudence."I dont get why this is a partisan issue for some people."
Probably because, going on what this thread has said, liberal judges have been doing it for years without any complaint. It thus looks like nothing more but another liberal attack on anything conservative, whether it is or not.Not true. Or at least I haven seen allegations against any other judge, liberal or conservative, of the same kind that has been alleged against Thomas. The problematic part it is not the trips/gifts (it should be, but it is legal, as long as it is reported). It is that he never disclosed them, like it is required.
But even if "It thus looks like nothing more but another liberal attack on anything conservative, whether it is or not." Any responsible non partisan citizen, should try to find if "it is or not" before defending someone just because.Who else reported the gifts? And who found out if "it is or not" before attacking Thomas? I mean, I'm seeing demands that Thomas be removed from the bench before finding out anything at all except that someone gave him a gift. Isn't that what you're requiring - to "find out" before defending? Doesn't it work both ways?
except that someone gave him a gift.
Again, that is not the issue.Then I don't understand what the issue is. That he didn't report the gift? Report it to whom? Is it required under law, or just curiosity? Are you wanting anyone getting a (large) gift to report it, or just some?
Im sorry but that's the problem when you want to discuss an issue but you dont inform yourself.
It wasnt "a" "the" gift. There were multiple gifts and trips, a real estate sale, and so on that he didnt report. And yes, it is required. The same posts you're replying to are quoting this.
He has expressed his "reasons" for not doing it, but he admited that he didnt. So yes, it is problematic and at the least, warrants an investigation.Who is requiring it? Not the IRS, and posts in this thread seem to indicate no one does. Are you sure you're informed with the correct information?
He sold real estate and didn't report the sale? Again, report it to whom, and why? I never "reported" such a sale - why would he? Are you saying that his financial dealings must be an open book for everyone? If so, what law requires that?
And you never answered the question; who else didn't report and why are they not being semi-accused of some vile crime? Why only Thomas?You are all over the place.
Supreme Court justices are required to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics and Government Act of 1978.
Federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000.
And I did. No one as of now. If they did, (and Im sure there are people looking for some "but they did too" so we'll find out soon enough), they will be.
Now, you can search and read the rest if you're really interested.And yet this thread reports many justices DID receive large gifts. And it's hard to believe that out of 12 (well to do) people only one sold real estate in 45 years.
Yes it does but that is only HALF the story. This thread does not say the others did not report it properly. Since it didn't and I can't find a record that they didn't, I have to assume they were ethical and filed the appropriate reports.
Again, it was not reported, so you didn't find it, so it didn't happen? Still quite an assumption, seems to me.
I can't find any reports about Justices other than Thomas violating the reporting requirement.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … ree-trips/
This might help and it is to apply to all justices. An annual disclosure report is now Required and is not optional.Great! I think it is something that should have been done 100 years ago.
But that leaves us asking why Thomas is attacked for a common practice that was perfectly legal. And asking just why Thomas was attacked, and why he might be defended by conservatives...conservatives who live by the law rather than wants and opinions.You then disagree with Gillers?
"Stephen Gillers, author of perhaps the leading judicial ethics textbook, said that Thomas' failure to disclose all this is "arguably legal, the key word being arguably."
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/11686496 … omas-trips
I have to question whether your extensive reading makes you a better authority than he is.Did I say that? And did you, for that matter?
Anyway, this is nothing new with you. Im wasting time.Yeah, me too. discussing with someone that has a mind made up without researching, then deciding that they don't want to acknowledge there are other (expert) opinions doesn't seem useful.
Huh? All I said an investigation is warranted and cited the laws. I even told you Thomas admited to it and gave his reasons why. LOL
You're the one with his mind made up, "conservative? Nothing wrong." Without even reading about it. Nothing new.
But yeah, thanks for reminding me.
PD I also encouraged you to read.
I belive in miracles lalaa.You claimed (claimed! that not reporting the gifts was illegal. According to the expert it is most likely quite legal. You may call that "citing the laws", but I don't.
Yep, my mind is made up. That I don't know the law and neither do you. And all I did is provide one possible answer to "why do Conservatives defend Thomas", who you have determined is guilty in spite of the expert opinion that he probably is not.Where did I claim illegality?
I said it was requiered by law. Yes, there are loopholes that make some of his reasoning "arguably legal". But the sheer number of unreported gifts, trips, payments, deals, etc., make it problematic enough for anyone to be uncomfortable/suspicious and that it warrants an investigation.
Peras al olmo."Es como pedirle peras al olmo."
Like wanting pears from an elm, I guess.Better not ask. When she brings out the Spanish a smart man knows to slowly and quietly back out of the room. ;-)
GA
"Where did I claim illegality?
I said it was requiered by law."
You answered your own question.He does that to me all the time - makes things up.
And even IF multiple non-reporting is "technically" legal, it is clearly unethical. Not recusing himself from that one case I mentioned is also untheatrical. Sexually harassing Anita Hill is unethical. Do you see a pattern here?I do. I see a pattern. "Sexually assaulting Anita Hill is unethical."
A claim was made but not proven. An opinion is formed, and a fact is declared.
Yep, that's a pattern I've seen before.
GAThey didn't go to trial, so proof is out of the question. I watched those hearings, as you probably did to, and found her a very credible victim. I believed Ford as well re: Kavanaugh.
I have no doubt that O.J. Simpson murdered those people and that Al Capone was a murderer as well, but those were never proven either. In fact, it was never proven that Hitler, Stalin, Assad, Putin, Xi, Un, Maduro, and host of others were war criminals or murderers, but I hope you don't think any of them didn't do what they were/are accused of.
But you rarely, if ever, research anything. That is the point Island, I, and others have been making for a long time. You only argue.
And you change the argument into something it wasn't.
"conservatives who live by the law rather than wants and opinions."
Oh really? I believe that they just simply live by their own unique wants an opinions.Yes, you have made your bias very well known. On the other hand I haven't seen any real conservatives on this forum advocating to get rid of Thomas...because he followed the law. Only liberals.
I made it clear earlier in this thread that Thomas' ethics problem is shared by other justices to varying extent, and I should not pick on him exclusively
. But I want the boom lowered so that Thomas and the other 8 justices need to be held to the same ethical standards as anyone else, no one should be allowed to operate without oversight and accountability. NO ONE....While at the same time saying "That's it: Uncle Clerance has got to go!" because he did not follow ethical standards not in place, and ignoring that it was common practice for many, if not all, of the justices. Thereby earning the comment about bias.
I corrected that initial assessment as an error here within this very thread, but perhaps you did not get the memo?
"Uncle Thomas" come from how his rulings have been viewed within our community and has nothing to do with the his ethics.
How often do conservative types ever admit to an error? Not often...Perhaps I did miss where you decided you didn't actually know if he should be kicked off the court.
Yes, even conservative types admit to an error.Yep, I did once. I'm sure ya'll remember seeing my '78 mea culpa reference where I thought I was wrong but turned out to be mistaken.
GA ;-)
I guess Ethics is optional for some conservatives. To liberals, they are mandatory.
The typical liberal on the Hill doesn't know the meaning of the word. Of course, neither do Conservatives there.
I will have hundreds of examples in my book where "conservatives who live by the law rather than wants and opinions." is not true.
Leaving large gifts off the financial disclosure statements is not "Common". The best I can find is it is unique to Thomas and maybe Fortes.
If it was not reported, how would you find it? Are you assuming that because you did find what was never reported it never happened? That seems quite an assumption to me.
An NPR article says about what your link said—more or less.
They quoted a guy they claim to be the leading expert on this issue: "Stephen Gillers, author of perhaps the leading judicial ethics textbook" that says Justice Thomas' explanation for not reporting the trips is legally valid. To be clear he said "...arguably legal," but the Justice was on firm ground regarding his reasoning for not recording.
Thomas' explanation also notes that he was advised by . . . someone, the article doesn't say, but odds are it wasn't the intern.
The new rule you mentioned sounds like vacation trips such as Thomas' might still be exempt from reporting.
GAIt probably won't solve the problem to the extent that I would prefer, but it is a start knowing that more light is going to be shed on the largesse that these justices receive and whether conflicts of interest are being properly addressed by them.
Officials at the "top of the food chain" should be required to set the highest example and avoid even the appearance of impropriety instead of the idea that the rules should not apply to them because of their lofty status.The new rule change seems a fair compromise to me. I think the vacation-type trips exemption covers the Crow-Thomas trips—directly personal, but narrows the lane for freebie expense-paid junkets.
Just for chuckles, and you know I will offer the rosiest view to your darkest one . . . consider the irony of demanding Supreme Court justices—the minds and character we place in position to judge our most serious and structurally deep issues, adhere to a set of ethics determined by some public committee.
The Court seems to have a linearly-improving history of "ethical" behavior. That history also shows a Court already following the guidelines of a Judicial ethics body. It has shown instances of self-policing (Fortes?), and it also already follows the legal reporting requirements (this case being the argument of course) for gifts.
From the arguments presented, there appear to be reasonable explanations for each of the claims—from the trips to the tuition to the mother's house. That isn't to say the claims are false, but that they might be false because of the optics, and the bias of those making the claims of course.
GAI don't believe the Court forced Fortes out. Wasn't it Congress?
He resigned under pressure from Congress after an investigation aided by the Nixon administration.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/opin … ortas.html
Do your own research.I only looked briefly into the Fortes issue after Cred offered him as an example of unethical behavior. That 'glance' indicated that Fortes denied the claims of intentional impropriety and resisted calls for his resignation until Nixon and Congress started demanding an investigation.
It was said that the growing roar of the demand caused the other Justices to then recommend (insist?), as a body, that Fortes resign. Not for the impropriety of his action, but for the good of the Court.
Maybe that was just one interpretation and there are others. *shrug
GA
Yeah, I read the rule and it is still unclear to me whether it is ethically OK to take massive, multiple gifts from a political donor who has had cases come before the Court, regardless of whether they are a friend or not. They don't seem to draw a distinction between a gift worth a few hundred dollars, a couple of thousand dollars, or, as in Thomas' multiple cases, tens of thousands of dollars. To me, it stinks to high heaven.
Crow still may be in hot water though for not reporting these gifts to Thomas as such and paying taxes on their value.To be clear, the "gifts" of this discussion are the value of the vacation trips, not some expensive crystal mantel piece or luxury car, right?
As with the other stuff, a quick look-around portrays the tuition and house sale charges to be as reasonably defended as 'not gifts to Thomas' as they can purposely be defined as gifts to him.
GA
Not according to so many conservatives, especially MAGA ones.
You aren't a Supreme Court Justice, are you, who could rule on the person you are receiving gifts from.
Now as I understand it that WOULD be a violation of ethics and probably the law. Is that what happened? Thomas got a gift from someone who had a case Thomas judged?
"Im sorry but that's the problem when you want to discuss an issue but you dont inform yourself." - AGREED
And the defining point is the gift giver potentially can receive benefit from those gifts in the way a Justice might rule for them (as Thomas did in at least one case involving a Crow entity).
Actually, it IS required under the law - for anybody in the executive and judicial branches (not sure about the legislative) EXCEPT the Supreme Court Justices.
What is supposed to guide them are ETHICS, of which Thomas apparently has none.Then it is NOT required under the law, just as you say. And apparently Thomas has the same ethics as the rest, unless you are prepared to say everyone else reports gifts from personal friends.
I don't know and neither do you maybe all the liberal Justices reported such gifts. What is your rational that liberal Justices receive gifts all the time from rich political activists. Maybe they do report it, but Thomas certainly didn't.
Going solely on the reports in this thread.
Maybe they did...but no one has indicated. Personally I think it rather safe to think they did not.
It has become even more clear why Clarence Thomas (I hesitate to call him a Justice anymore) should be impeached. He is a liar and unethical and is not fit to be a Justice.
Not only is he being bought off by Harlan Crowe, he lied about his sister.
In 1981, Thomas said "“She gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check,” Thomas said in a remark that has since been widely quoted. “That is how dependent she is. What’s worse is that now her kids feel entitled to the check, too. They have no motivation for doing better or getting out of that situation.”[/b] - THAT was a LIE.
[i]"But a journalist tracked down Thomas’ sister and discovered that what he said about her was not quite true. She learned that while Thomas attended law school, his sister Emma Mae Martin worked two minimum-wage jobs before quitting to take care of an ailing elderly aunt. She did receive welfare checks, but their sums were paltry, and she later took another job as a hospital cook. And her children all either worked or were in school when the journalist spoke with her. One even served his country aboard a battleship during Operation Desert Storm." - It is no wonder Blacks look down on Thomas.
:But the latest revelations about Thomas may also have another unintended effect: They should put the to rest the myth about why so many Black people have despised Thomas going back to his days in the Reagan administration, when he chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
But many Black people don’t despise Thomas because he’s a conservative. They reject him because they say he’s a “hypocrite” and a “traitor” who hurts his own people to help himself.
Georgia State Senator Nikki Merritt says "“Justice Thomas likes to talk about the myth of pulling himself up by his bootstraps and being resilient, yet he’s benefited from handouts from these White conservatives who have supported his privileged lifestyle,” she says. “That makes him a traitor and a hypocrite in my eyes.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/11/politics … index.htmlI don't beat up on Uncle Clerance because he is a conservative justice, what bothers me is this
-----
But many Black people don’t despise Thomas because he’s a conservative. They reject him because they say he’s a “hypocrite” and a “traitor” who hurts his own people to help himself.
Georgia State Senator Nikki Merritt says "“Justice Thomas likes to talk about the myth of pulling himself up by his bootstraps and being resilient, yet he’s benefited from handouts from these White conservatives who have supported his privileged lifestyle,” she says. “That makes him a traitor and a hypocrite in my eyes.”
I can't see the Supreme Court being an impartial arbiter of anything when too many justices seem to disregard the principle of staying away from corruption ( being bought) or the appearance of same.Alito and Thomas have certainly tarnished the Court.
Thomas' conservative bias is so strong, it makes him unfit to serve on an impartial Supreme Court.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … tm-vpx.cnn
Related Discussions
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 23 months ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 181
That's it: Uncle Clerance has got to go!
by Credence2 11 months ago
Background, let me know if for some reason you cannot access thishttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … velations/I go back to 1969 when Abe Fortas was forced to step down as a Supreme Court Justice for accepting 20k from a donor, who was charged with financial impropriety. The demand for...
- 45
Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
by IslandBites 10 hours ago
The Supreme Court’s biggest decisions of the term are coming. I thought it'll be good to have one thread, kind of a tracker of the upcoming decisions.The high court has 10 opinions left to release over the next week before the justices begin their summer break.
- 36
Democrats Want To Pack Court With Four New Judges
by ga anderson 3 years ago
"Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices"[i]"Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.The move intensifies a...
- 26
Justice Amy Coney Barret's Confirmation
by ga anderson 3 years ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...
- 30
The Party grooms another Presidential puppet.
by Barefootfae 11 years ago
http://daily-download.com/chelsea-clint … ournalist/Of course. I have no doubt Chelsea is a wonderful girl.I also have no doubt she is hideously unqualified. When the time comes that won't matter.Just like the last two Supreme Court justices.