No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know why he's trying to explain. Everybody knows he left his integrity behind a long time ago. The Right knows he's a corrupt tool that can be bought. And the Left knows he's a corrupt tool that's being bought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

What’s impeachable is always a question, but by not disclosing he’s breaking a federal law.

[Anonymous]

Do you think behind closed doors the other Supremes ever call him out on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An article from 2005...

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2005-01-01-0501010223-story.html

Big scoop there...

Ol' Quittin' Time Clarence loves freebies!


Thomas tops justices in gift-taking

By Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage
Baltimore Sun
Jan 01, 2005

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think behind closed doors the other Supremes ever call him out on this?

Oh... sure... MAGA courage, writ large!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

It's only impeachable if you can get 50% + 1 of the House to vote for it. It's only removable if you can get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for it. There are no legal criteria that matter, just political will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

What’s impeachable is always a question, but by not disclosing he’s breaking a federal law.

What law? You realize SCOTUS decides on the constitutionality of laws that come out of the political branches right? And SCOTUS has maintained that the question of the applicability of these ethics rules to SCOTUS Justices has not come before the Court and the disclosures they do are voluntary for institutional legitimacy and transparency.

If, as they maintain, they are voluntarily disclosing, that does not mean they are breaking a federal law if they fail to disclose. The law has not been tested for SCOTUS Justices and they are the deciders of the answers to the test. The could easily come up with some separation of powers pretext for why they are excepted. Might be horrible for transparency and institutional legitimacy if they desist from disclosing, but the only real and binding check on SCOTUS Justices is impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think behind closed doors the other Supremes ever call him out on this?

Clearly CJ Roberts commands zero respect from his colleagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

What’s impeachable is always a question, but by not disclosing he’s breaking a federal law.

What law? You realize SCOTUS decides on the constitutionality of laws that come out of the political branches right? And SCOTUS has maintained that the question of the applicability of these ethics rules to SCOTUS Justices has not come before the Court and the disclosures they do are voluntary for institutional legitimacy and transparency.

If, as they maintain, they are voluntarily disclosing, that does not mean they are breaking a federal law if they fail to disclose. The law has not been tested for SCOTUS Justices and they are the deciders of the answers to the test. The could easily come up with some separation of powers pretext for why they are excepted. Might be horrible for transparency and institutional legitimacy if they desist from disclosing, but the only real and binding check on SCOTUS Justices is impeachment.

5 USC 13101 et seq. It is discussed extensively in the article and this same question was asked on the previous page of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think behind closed doors the other Supremes ever call him out on this?

Clearly CJ Roberts commands zero respect from his colleagues.

Scalia used to get up to much the same. WTF was new kid Roberts gonna say to Scalia lol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

What’s impeachable is always a question, but by not disclosing he’s breaking a federal law.

What law? You realize SCOTUS decides on the constitutionality of laws that come out of the political branches right? And SCOTUS has maintained that the question of the applicability of these ethics rules to SCOTUS Justices has not come before the Court and the disclosures they do are voluntary for institutional legitimacy and transparency.

If, as they maintain, they are voluntarily disclosing, that does not mean they are breaking a federal law if they fail to disclose. The law has not been tested for SCOTUS Justices and they are the deciders of the answers to the test. The could easily come up with some separation of powers pretext for why they are excepted. Might be horrible for transparency and institutional legitimacy if they desist from disclosing, but the only real and binding check on SCOTUS Justices is impeachment.

5 USC 13101 et seq. It is discussed extensively in the article and this same question was asked on the previous page of this thread.

You need to read that statute closely. I don't think it means what you think it does. And the same dynamic applies. SCOTUS still decides constitutionality of laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An article from 2005...

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2005-01-01-0501010223-story.html

Big scoop there...

Ol' Quittin' Time Clarence loves freebies!


Thomas tops justices in gift-taking

By Richard A. Serrano and David G. Savage
Baltimore Sun
Jan 01, 2005

Yaaaaaaawn. . .