No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because corruption is bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All 9 justices issued an extremely rare--even unanimous--statement. It details how and why the Supreme Court decides recusals on cases and other ethical issues.

... Before very recently, it was rare to hear concerns about ethics at the Supreme Court.

Democrat[ically]-appointed Supreme Court justices:

- taught overseas

- took trips with their friends (even an attorney with regular business before the Court)

- amended their ethics filings, after failing to disclose issues (including years of a spouse's legal-related income)

- failed to recuse on matters

- even heard cases involving a spouse's law firm

...
Democrat politicians and their lapdogs in the media are now politicizing and weaponizing judicial ethics.

I see we're now in the "Democrats do it too" sequence of:

I didn't do it.
Even if I did it, it's not illegal.
Even if I did it and it's illegal, the way you found out about it was illegal.
Even if I did it, it's illegal, and the way you found out about it was legal, the other people do it too.
What I did is good, actually.

You’ll note that zero examples were provided by that fool. Because the right wing is the problem and even a mild google search shows that.

+1 and the difference is that democrats want all corruption cleared out. Not BoTh SidEs. If there is rot, clear it out. But yeah, the rot is in the right and that's the problem because they have no decency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont think this is new. If i remember scalia died at a posh hunting retreat where he had flown by private airplane. We found out only because he died therr

It doesn’t make it right that the conservatives on the court are allowed to flout the rules with impunity.

But that's what conservatism is really all about!

[Anonymous]

And of course Trammell Crow did have business in front of the Court during this long friendship.

[Anonymous]

PP, what part of this do you not understand:

"In 2005, the justices declined to a hear a case involving a company that was part of the Crow family's real estate empire."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, what part of this do you not understand:

"In 2005, the justices declined to a hear a case involving a company that was part of the Crow family's real estate empire."

Declining or taking up cases is a huge part of the job of the Supreme Court. You have no idea how anything works if you’re like “it doesn’t matter because they didn’t take up that case.” When they didn’t consider that case it was beneficial to Trammell Crow because they had already won at the district and appellate levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, what part of this do you not understand:

"In 2005, the justices declined to a hear a case involving a company that was part of the Crow family's real estate empire."

The declination benefitted Trammel Crow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, what part of this do you not understand:

"In 2005, the justices declined to a hear a case involving a company that was part of the Crow family's real estate empire."

The declination benefitted Trammel Crow

I read the thread and it was easy to tell the declination was of benefit to Crow. PP cannot comprehend what he or she reads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, what part of this do you not understand:

"In 2005, the justices declined to a hear a case involving a company that was part of the Crow family's real estate empire."

The declination benefitted Trammel Crow

I read the thread and it was easy to tell the declination was of benefit to Crow. PP cannot comprehend what he or she reads.

That’s possible. But there are a lot of “moderate Republicans” who are obsessed with proving to themselves that the GOP isn’t doing anything particularly bad. On some level they grasp that they are, but they are tribal and say things like “they didn’t hear the case.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, what part of this do you not understand:

"In 2005, the justices declined to a hear a case involving a company that was part of the Crow family's real estate empire."

The declination benefitted Trammel Crow

I read the thread and it was easy to tell the declination was of benefit to Crow. PP cannot comprehend what he or she reads.

That’s possible. But there are a lot of “moderate Republicans” who are obsessed with proving to themselves that the GOP isn’t doing anything particularly bad. On some level they grasp that they are, but they are tribal and say things like “they didn’t hear the case.”

Nothing to see here. If you're not looking.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Harlan Crow paid private school tuition for Clarence Thomas’s kid.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harlan Crow paid private school tuition for Clarence Thomas’s kid.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

Oh Clarence, what have you done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harlan Crow paid private school tuition for Clarence Thomas’s kid.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

Oh Clarence, what have you done?

He devoted time and attention to his great nephew.
You have an issue with that?

STATEMENT OF MARK PAOLETTA, FRIEND OF JUSTICE THOMAS

The Thomases have rarely spoken publicly about the remarkably generous efforts to help a child in need. They have always respected the privacy of this young man and his family. It is disappointing and painful, but unsurprising that some journalists and critics cannot do the same.

The Thomases—quietly and honorably—devoted twelve years of their lives to helping a beloved child in desperate need of love, support, and guidance. In 1997, Justice Thomas and his wife brought their great nephew to live with them. They agreed to take in this young child much as Justice Thomas’s grandparents had done for him and his brother in 1955. Justice Thomas’s grandparents changed the trajectory of his life, and the Thomases hoped to do the same for a child in need.

Justice Thomas and his wife made immeasurable personal and financial sacrifices and poured every ounce of their lives and hearts into giving their great nephew a chance to succeed. In the summer of 2006, the Thomases were struggling to find a school where they could send their great nephew. In discussing these challenges with their dear friends, Harlan and Kathy Crow, Harlan recommended that the Thomases consider one more option: sending their great nephew to Randolph Macon Academy. Harlan had attended Randolph Macon, and he thought the school would be a good fit.

Harlan had financially supported Randolph Macon since the 1980s, and funded scholarships for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Harlan offered to pay the first year of Justice Thomas’s great nephew’s tuition in 2006, and that payment went directly to the school. Harlan Crow’s Office confirmed that he did not pay the great nephew’s tuition for any other year at Randolph Macon.

After some time, Randolph Macon recommended the great nephew attend a boarding school in Georgia for one year. Harlan offered to pay the first year of tuition for their great nephew at the Georgia school, and again, those tuition payments went directly to the school.

By the next school year (2009), the Thomases’ great nephew returned to Randolph Macon. He moved back to Savannah in December 2009, after he turned 18. The Thomases love their great nephew. It is despicable that the press has dragged him into their effort to smear Justice Thomas.

This story is another attempt to manufacture a scandal about Justice Thomas. But let’s be clear about what is supposedly scandalous now: Justice Thomas and his wife devoted twelve years of their lives to taking in and caring for a beloved child—who was not their own—just as Justice Thomas’s grandparents had done for him. They made many personal and financial sacrifices to do this. And along the way, their friends joined them in doing everything possible to give this child a future.

Harlan Crow’s tuition payments made directly to these schools on behalf of Justice Thomas’s great nephew did not constitute a reportable gift. Justice Thomas was not required to disclose the tuition payments made directly to Randolph Macon and the Georgia school on behalf of his great nephew because the definition of a “dependent child” under the Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. 13101 (2)) does not include a “great nephew.” It is limited to a “son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter.” Justice Thomas never asked Harlan Crow to pay for his great nephew’s tuition. And neither Harlan Crow, nor his company, had any business before the Supreme Court.

This malicious story shows nothing except for the fact that the Thomases and the Crows are kind, generous, and loving people who tried to help this young man.

[Anonymous]

Clarence Thomas is a wealthy guy. Why did he need someone else to pay the tuition? If Crow was concerned about funding education for poor kids, why couldn't he have paid the tuition of a truly poor kid who doesn't have a wealthy great-uncle raising him?