No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems like the unreported use of a private jet and billionaires home to swear in a 5th Circuit judge would be a pretty clear violation.

A violation of what? Please show me what it violates. Not what you "feel" it violates, but in writing. The part you decided to not include in your quote says no violations

Huh? What are you even talking about?

The PP knows the facts - there is no Code of Ethics for the SCOTUS. So - what did Thomas violate? Also - we all know if this was liberal leaning Black Justice - the press would be screaming racist attack.

Yes, but they are still required to file annual financial disclosure requirements.

And to further this, while the rules around personal hospitality reporting requirements did just get updated, it’s pretty clear attending a swearing in of a judge is official business, and that trip should have been reported under the prior requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

Everything in this realm is tribal. I mean "side with the liberals" in that even if Thomas were a legal giant with solid opinions and impeccable ethics, a good chunk of liberals would still be calling for his blood because of the outcomes he endorses. So, to a conservative, I imagine it feels like empowering those folks if one were to side with them in a criticism of Thomas. Even though, as it happens, Thomas is a corrupt partisan without any notable legal acumen.

Oh, well either way it could just lead to increased politicization of the court and the court being subsumed under a political branch with an increasingly overbearing penchant for "oversight". That is how you end up with a Court rubber stamping Trump's lawsuits from the 2020 elections.

[Anonymous]

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

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

You can be fired and criminally charged. Thomas is literally above the law unless you can convince republicans in congress to turn on him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

Everything in this realm is tribal. I mean "side with the liberals" in that even if Thomas were a legal giant with solid opinions and impeccable ethics, a good chunk of liberals would still be calling for his blood because of the outcomes he endorses. So, to a conservative, I imagine it feels like empowering those folks if one were to side with them in a criticism of Thomas. Even though, as it happens, Thomas is a corrupt partisan without any notable legal acumen.

Oh, well either way it could just lead to increased politicization of the court and the court being subsumed under a political branch with an increasingly overbearing penchant for "oversight". That is how you end up with a Court rubber stamping Trump's lawsuits from the 2020 elections.

The court is already a rubber stamp for conservatives. This is why the republicans refuse to do anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh please Harlan’s brother is a certified disaster and has been for years. He has zero credibility. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/76-million-dollar-divorce/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

“Pitchforks”? “Pitchforks” implies we’re a bunch of toothless goons running up from the swamps who want to git someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. That’s not the case here. He accepted mega gifts from a billionaire and failed to report it. It calls into question every decision he’s ever made when he himself has shown that he can’t be trusted. And this on top of the fact that his wife helped plan the insurrection. There’s no way in the close, loving marriage they claim to have that he didn’t know exactly what his wife - who also took money from Crow - was doing. And that’s on top of the sexual harassment case before he was even confirmed.

Absolutely gutter expectations some of you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

Everything in this realm is tribal. I mean "side with the liberals" in that even if Thomas were a legal giant with solid opinions and impeccable ethics, a good chunk of liberals would still be calling for his blood because of the outcomes he endorses. So, to a conservative, I imagine it feels like empowering those folks if one were to side with them in a criticism of Thomas. Even though, as it happens, Thomas is a corrupt partisan without any notable legal acumen.

Oh, well either way it could just lead to increased politicization of the court and the court being subsumed under a political branch with an increasingly overbearing penchant for "oversight". That is how you end up with a Court rubber stamping Trump's lawsuits from the 2020 elections.

The court is already a rubber stamp for conservatives. This is why the republicans refuse to do anything.

Trump is not President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

“Pitchforks”? “Pitchforks” implies we’re a bunch of toothless goons running up from the swamps who want to git someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. That’s not the case here. He accepted mega gifts from a billionaire and failed to report it. It calls into question every decision he’s ever made when he himself has shown that he can’t be trusted. And this on top of the fact that his wife helped plan the insurrection. There’s no way in the close, loving marriage they claim to have that he didn’t know exactly what his wife - who also took money from Crow - was doing. And that’s on top of the sexual harassment case before he was even confirmed.

Absolutely gutter expectations some of you have.

LOL! Yup, pitchfork! Please take a few deep breaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

Everything in this realm is tribal. I mean "side with the liberals" in that even if Thomas were a legal giant with solid opinions and impeccable ethics, a good chunk of liberals would still be calling for his blood because of the outcomes he endorses. So, to a conservative, I imagine it feels like empowering those folks if one were to side with them in a criticism of Thomas. Even though, as it happens, Thomas is a corrupt partisan without any notable legal acumen.

Oh, well either way it could just lead to increased politicization of the court and the court being subsumed under a political branch with an increasingly overbearing penchant for "oversight". That is how you end up with a Court rubber stamping Trump's lawsuits from the 2020 elections.

The court is already a rubber stamp for conservatives. This is why the republicans refuse to do anything.

Trump is not President.

SCOTUS just did nit get a chance. If there was a case before SCOTUS to determine if Biden or Trump was president what do you think the outcome would be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

Everything in this realm is tribal. I mean "side with the liberals" in that even if Thomas were a legal giant with solid opinions and impeccable ethics, a good chunk of liberals would still be calling for his blood because of the outcomes he endorses. So, to a conservative, I imagine it feels like empowering those folks if one were to side with them in a criticism of Thomas. Even though, as it happens, Thomas is a corrupt partisan without any notable legal acumen.

Oh, well either way it could just lead to increased politicization of the court and the court being subsumed under a political branch with an increasingly overbearing penchant for "oversight". That is how you end up with a Court rubber stamping Trump's lawsuits from the 2020 elections.

The court is already a rubber stamp for conservatives. This is why the republicans refuse to do anything.

Trump is not President.

SCOTUS just did nit get a chance. If there was a case before SCOTUS to determine if Biden or Trump was president what do you think the outcome would be?

Tell me now. Trump pressed several election lawsuits. How many did SC award in his favor???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

“Pitchforks”? “Pitchforks” implies we’re a bunch of toothless goons running up from the swamps who want to git someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. That’s not the case here. He accepted mega gifts from a billionaire and failed to report it. It calls into question every decision he’s ever made when he himself has shown that he can’t be trusted. And this on top of the fact that his wife helped plan the insurrection. There’s no way in the close, loving marriage they claim to have that he didn’t know exactly what his wife - who also took money from Crow - was doing. And that’s on top of the sexual harassment case before he was even confirmed.

Absolutely gutter expectations some of you have.

He does not have to report it. It's that simple. Stomping your feet and saying "but he should" is irrelevant. Other Justices have done the same thing (including RBG).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

We’ve done that on literally every other page of this thread and the linked article goes into detail about it. Read.