No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It’s worse. With all he has going on financially, he needs an accountant and tax attorney/ attorney who specializes in this. Dude is on SCOTUS. This isn’t some shocker to him. He’s unfit either because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid that after multiple problems with his disclosure forms, he’s a lawyer who hasn’t hired an accountant/lawyer. Even Trump used an accounting firm (Mazars). That’s what puzzles me. Hire a good lawyer. Have them do your taxes and draft these forms for you to review. He’s getting millions in passive income. He can afford a law firm. Who does his taxes and do they have the same mistakes? This goes beyond “I’m too important to be bothered to do the form right”. It’s “I’m too important to be bothered to hire someone to do this silly little form for me. (After the third time there has been a public scandal because I did it wrong”. John Roberts bears responsibility to. I’ve clerked. Our Court took these seriously, top to bottom. The Court keeps saying it can self regulate. But there are no sanctions, starting with a public statement from the Court, for blowing them off. |
Anonymous
+1. We’ll said. |
Anonymous
Considering that we know that nothing can be done about Thomas right now, Roberts is the one with all the responsibility here. He is literally the only only who can ask Thomas to leave. And he’s not going to because he’s okay with this joke of a court. |
Anonymous
Roberts can't do anything because Thomas can't be removed absent impeachment (which republicans would never support). Rules only matter when you have the power to enforce them |
Anonymous
So you want the SCOTUS justices to start engaging in PR battles and public pissing contests? You sure you've clerked? |
Anonymous
They already are engaging in PR battles and public pissing contest. The issue is there no legitimacy to the court. Even the justices do not follow the laws because they do not believe in the system. That is Thomas and the other conservatives. They self identify as sovereign citizens. |
Anonymous
Roberts could bring pressure to bear to get Thomas to resign and leave the court with a shred of dignity, but he’s not going to. Roberts puts a well behaved gloss on things, but he’s as big a fascist as the rest of the regressive justices. He participated in the Brooks Brothers riot, same as Amy and Bretty. |
Anonymous
They are already doing so. Roberts can’t impeach Thomas, but he can push the Court to adopt a set of ethical guidelines with teeth. And his office can issue a public statement: “The chief justices office is deeply concerned about allegations raised in the pro publica article, the leak of Dobbs and other ethical issues that have been raised recently that appear to show ethical lapses by members of this Court . I have also appointed (name four highly respected retired federal judges, one appointed by by both Bushes, Clinton and Obama) to be a Standing Committee on SCOTUS ethics. I have directed them to draft proposed guidelines for a Code of SCOTUS ethics with meaningful sanctions for serious violations. This proposed Code is to to be completed 8/1/2023, and I urge my colleagues to adopt their recommendations before the beginning of next term. Upon completion of their work, the committee will remain in place to issue written guidance to Justices who seek it in novel or complex ethical areas. I am also referring the issues surrounding Justice Thomas’s alleged failure to accurately complete financial disclose forms, allegations of failures to recuse in cases where a Justice’s spouse has a significant stake and the leak of the Dobbs to (inset here: the Judicial Conference, the IG, the DOJ or a bipartisan Senate Committee) for investigation. I will urge all impacted parties (myself included) to follow their recommendations to the greatest extent possible.” Also, Thomas should be required to have an attorney and a CPA countersign his Financial Disclosures attesting to their accuracy under penalty of perjury. Really, all the Justices should. |
Anonymous
Yep. And everyone in our chambers, from clerks to Judge to Admin staff was under tight ethical guidelines and was greater restricted Hatch Act. We could be fired (and maybe prosecuted) for violating them. It worked fine for us plebe at the Dictrict Court. It would work fine for SCOTUS. |
Anonymous
I'm not sure what the rules of the court might allow - could Roberts (or a court majority) avoid assigning him any opinions, refuse to allow him to ask questions during oral argument (not much of a penalty!), not publish his dissents, not allow him to vote on cases? |
Anonymous
Sure Roberts could do all those things. EXCEPT, SCOTUS ultimately rules on whether these things are constitutional. Thee Court is ultimately self-regulating. Seems like. Votes for ethics would be 5-4 against right now, with the 4 being Roberts and the 3 liberals. What we have now is a Constitutional Crisis, because we have a self regulating body of government is refusing to self regulate. Congress could also pass Regs. But this Congress loves the corruption. |
Anonymous
You can't pull his vote- that's the whole life time tenure thing. Roberts could refuse to assign him opinions, but he can concur or dissent and other judges are free to join his concurrences which could give you an awkward situation where the opinion has 1 vote, the concurrence has 5 justices joining it and the dissent has 3. |
Anonymous
Life tenure doesn't mean you have a lifetime vote. For example, on the circuit courts, judges on senior status don't get to vote on en banc appeals. |
Anonymous
Judges choose to take senior judge status. Thomas would never choose to not vote |
Anonymous
I'm not sure if the Constitution makes any of this very clear. Article III, section 1 provides: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." So, once appointed, a judge holds office and receives compensation. I think there is room for debate as to what it means to "hold office." If the majority of the court determines that it won't allow a Justice to vote on the outcome of cases if the Justice is in violation of the ethical rules adopted by the Court, is that a deprivation of office? I can see arguments either way. And as a practical matter, if a majority of the Justices say that it is not a deprivation of the office, who is going to tell them otherwise? None of this really matters because you're not going to get five Justices to take any kind of action against Thomas. So he can rape babies during oral argument if he wants and it won't matter. |