No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMPEACH.

TO WHAT END

Seriously, there’s not an elected Republican who would vote to convict. Not even if Clarence Thomas proudly admitted he were working for a secret cabal of international baby eaters and was stealing money from churches to fund their kidnapping ring. He is a reliable fascist vote on the bench and he isn’t going anywhere till he dies of natural causes.

We all understand the republicans will protect their own no matter how corrupt they are. Nothing will change in the immediate term. But there's a lot of value in pointing out their corruption to voters.

Not with the way the right wing mainstream media spins it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yep.
The left desperately wants Thomas out so that Biden has another opening. Thus, the calls for "IMPEACH!"
It ain't happening.
The left has made impeachment the new weapon in their arsenal when they don't agree with the views of an individual. They have been whining about Thomas for years - they hate the fact that a black man can have independent thought and conservative views.

He doesn’t have independent thought. He lives in the pocket of a billionaire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMPEACH.

TO WHAT END

Seriously, there’s not an elected Republican who would vote to convict. Not even if Clarence Thomas proudly admitted he were working for a secret cabal of international baby eaters and was stealing money from churches to fund their kidnapping ring. He is a reliable fascist vote on the bench and he isn’t going anywhere till he dies of natural causes.

Give him time, Harlan’s brother Trammell Jr. is running a human trafficking ring already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMPEACH.

TO WHAT END

Seriously, there’s not an elected Republican who would vote to convict. Not even if Clarence Thomas proudly admitted he were working for a secret cabal of international baby eaters and was stealing money from churches to fund their kidnapping ring. He is a reliable fascist vote on the bench and he isn’t going anywhere till he dies of natural causes.

Give him time, Harlan’s brother Trammell Jr. is running a human trafficking ring already.

BS. Accused by two women, likely looking to get a big pay out.

[Anonymous]

This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

[Anonymous]

Thomas is in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
...
COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen[.]

Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so. You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thomas is in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
...
COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen[.]

Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

The nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which goes beyond the basic ethics laws enacted after Watergate and creates uniformity around thorny issues like recusals and participation in political activities

https://fixthecourt.com/fix/code-of-ethics/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thomas is in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
...
COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen[.]

Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

The nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which goes beyond the basic ethics laws enacted after Watergate and creates uniformity around thorny issues like recusals and participation in political activities

https://fixthecourt.com/fix/code-of-ethics/

Assuming he isn't legally bound to comply -- which I do, because who is going to police the highest level of authority anyway? -- hopefully we can all agree that he's ethically bound to follow the Code and that he has failed to do so. His behavior is unethical even if it turns out to be legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so. You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter!

Will you agree that Justice Thomas is unethical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thomas is in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
...
COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen[.]

Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

The nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which goes beyond the basic ethics laws enacted after Watergate and creates uniformity around thorny issues like recusals and participation in political activities

https://fixthecourt.com/fix/code-of-ethics/

Assuming he isn't legally bound to comply -- which I do, because who is going to police the highest level of authority anyway? -- hopefully we can all agree that he's ethically bound to follow the Code and that he has failed to do so. His behavior is unethical even if it turns out to be legal.

He does not feel bound to follow the Constitution. Why would he feel bound to comply with an ethics code. Thomas and the other conservatives judges are easily influenced by money.

SCOTUS is a bunch of old, out of touch, unelected bureaucrats imposing law with their hands out groping for money. It is a relic from British royal court system. A new system is needed that reflect American values and ethics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so. You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter!

Will you agree that Justice Thomas is unethical?

I am hesitant to get into the business of regulating personal relationships, but ultimately lifelong public service should entail some sacrifice and forgoing the accoutrements of such a friendship, genuine though it may be, is well within the realm of sacrifices a life tenured Justice should have to make in order to preserve the reputation and institutional legitimacy of the Court.