No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not what anyone wants to hear but the salary for SCJ and other senior officials is too low—makes them susceptible to this kind of corruption. The lifetime appointment doesn’t hurt but it’s not enough to live like these guys want to live.

Maybe select some people who don't need to live a lavish lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

If the Congress had a shred of legitimacy it would impeach him. As it is, we have been a failed state for some time I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not what anyone wants to hear but the salary for SCJ and other senior officials is too low—makes them susceptible to this kind of corruption. The lifetime appointment doesn’t hurt but it’s not enough to live like these guys want to live.

Maybe select some people who don't need to live a lavish lifestyle.

Box seats are freaking expensive dude. Even if you like cheap beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

From what is known, CT has probably pushed the line the furthest, even though there is probably some weasely lawyer way to give himself cover.

But this is a paradox of the heap problem. Can you pinpoint at which point Justice Thomas's ethical lapses were such that they warranted removal from the court? What particular thing tipped the scale?

If it's really about this non-disclosure, was one enough? Is it a cumulative thing? Be careful with what precedent you set.

Either you care about ethics or you don't. When you start drawing arbitrary lines to suit your politics, you reveal yourself to be an unserious partisan hack.

There’s always someone who sets the example. Let Thomas be the one and the chips can fall how they may.

The problem with this is that it ends up in a nakedly political court. They at least try to pretend a little bit now. The Court is the last line of defense for the independence of the judiciary branch. Those suggesting you treat them like other federal court judges need to acknowledge that doing so would make the court way more susceptible to politicization, instability and witch hunts.

Uh. Pretzel logic. No.

Aka the Constitution. Maybe try reading it.

“shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”

Yes, impeachment is still allowed under the Constitution. Go for it...

I bet you define good behavior like a Kindergarten teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

They don't actually think this. What they think is that liberals are evil and bad for the country so anything that liberals dislike is probably good for the country. And, even if corruption is bad, liberals are worse, so the ends justifies the means and the benefits outweigh the costs.

^And this is the definition of extremism ladies and gentlemen. Conservative my ass.

It's called rule utilitarianism. Pretty much describes both parties these days really. Things only disintegrate from here.

Way back when, a scandal meant resigning in disgrace. Then we started pushing the boundaries a bit here and a bit there and politicians realized that they could just ride it out. Now, I'm shocked if they ever resign willingly

Yup, a real lack of shame and dignity these days. Still surprised Al Franken didn't ride it out, but things have calcified even further post Trump.

Franken was pressured to resign because Democrats were accusing Trump of the same kind of misconduct and didn't want to give the GOP that talking point. There weren't really any long-term consequences since he was replaced by another Dem. But any SCOTUS resignation has yuge long-term consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

From what is known, CT has probably pushed the line the furthest, even though there is probably some weasely lawyer way to give himself cover.

But this is a paradox of the heap problem. Can you pinpoint at which point Justice Thomas's ethical lapses were such that they warranted removal from the court? What particular thing tipped the scale?

If it's really about this non-disclosure, was one enough? Is it a cumulative thing? Be careful with what precedent you set.

Either you care about ethics or you don't. When you start drawing arbitrary lines to suit your politics, you reveal yourself to be an unserious partisan hack.

There’s always someone who sets the example. Let Thomas be the one and the chips can fall how they may.

The problem with this is that it ends up in a nakedly political court. They at least try to pretend a little bit now. The Court is the last line of defense for the independence of the judiciary branch. Those suggesting you treat them like other federal court judges need to acknowledge that doing so would make the court way more susceptible to politicization, instability and witch hunts.

If not before (perhaps with Bush v. Gore), the nakedly political court became reality when Merrick Garland didn't get a confirmation hearing.

Bless your sweet heart if you think this is nakedly political...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

From what is known, CT has probably pushed the line the furthest, even though there is probably some weasely lawyer way to give himself cover.

But this is a paradox of the heap problem. Can you pinpoint at which point Justice Thomas's ethical lapses were such that they warranted removal from the court? What particular thing tipped the scale?

If it's really about this non-disclosure, was one enough? Is it a cumulative thing? Be careful with what precedent you set.

Either you care about ethics or you don't. When you start drawing arbitrary lines to suit your politics, you reveal yourself to be an unserious partisan hack.

There’s always someone who sets the example. Let Thomas be the one and the chips can fall how they may.

The problem with this is that it ends up in a nakedly political court. They at least try to pretend a little bit now. The Court is the last line of defense for the independence of the judiciary branch. Those suggesting you treat them like other federal court judges need to acknowledge that doing so would make the court way more susceptible to politicization, instability and witch hunts.

Uh. Pretzel logic. No.

Aka the Constitution. Maybe try reading it.

“shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”

Yes, impeachment is still allowed under the Constitution. Go for it...

I bet you define good behavior like a Kindergarten teacher

I define it like someone who hasn’t lost their bar license. Pathetic we can’t hold a SCJ to the same standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thomas is safe, but federal prosecutors should be looking very closely at the gift givers. Bribing is just as illegal as accepting a bribe

They should also be giving close scrutiny to Ginni who is even more corrupt than Clarence!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

They don't actually think this. What they think is that liberals are evil and bad for the country so anything that liberals dislike is probably good for the country. And, even if corruption is bad, liberals are worse, so the ends justifies the means and the benefits outweigh the costs.

^And this is the definition of extremism ladies and gentlemen. Conservative my ass.

It's called rule utilitarianism. Pretty much describes both parties these days really. Things only disintegrate from here.

Way back when, a scandal meant resigning in disgrace. Then we started pushing the boundaries a bit here and a bit there and politicians realized that they could just ride it out. Now, I'm shocked if they ever resign willingly

Yup, a real lack of shame and dignity these days. Still surprised Al Franken didn't ride it out, but things have calcified even further post Trump.

Franken was pressured to resign because Democrats were accusing Trump of the same kind of misconduct and didn't want to give the GOP that talking point. There weren't really any long-term consequences since he was replaced by another Dem. But any SCOTUS resignation has yuge long-term consequences.

Is that why Feinstein in holding on for dear life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

From what is known, CT has probably pushed the line the furthest, even though there is probably some weasely lawyer way to give himself cover.

But this is a paradox of the heap problem. Can you pinpoint at which point Justice Thomas's ethical lapses were such that they warranted removal from the court? What particular thing tipped the scale?

If it's really about this non-disclosure, was one enough? Is it a cumulative thing? Be careful with what precedent you set.

Either you care about ethics or you don't. When you start drawing arbitrary lines to suit your politics, you reveal yourself to be an unserious partisan hack.

Yeah, let's start with the non-disclosure. I am comfortable drawing that line. When you've got untold $$$$$$$ coming into your dirty hands and you're hiding it from the public, I feel like we can start with drawing THAT line in the sand.

So if the Daily Caller or Fox News somehow finds any missed disclosures from Sotomayor or KBJ, you will be at the front line asking for their resignation?

"Any" missed disclosures? I don't know, let's use some common sense and tackle it with a sense of proportionality.

Millions of dollars with of nondisclosures? Yes, let's use some judgment in this case, too.

You're not being as clever as you think you are. Life - and application of the law, and ethics - requires discretion, judgment, proportionality. In this case, CT's nondisclosures are truly shocking and egregious. And this is just what we know so far - who here thinks we've come to the end yet? I sure don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

From what is known, CT has probably pushed the line the furthest, even though there is probably some weasely lawyer way to give himself cover.

But this is a paradox of the heap problem. Can you pinpoint at which point Justice Thomas's ethical lapses were such that they warranted removal from the court? What particular thing tipped the scale?

If it's really about this non-disclosure, was one enough? Is it a cumulative thing? Be careful with what precedent you set.

Either you care about ethics or you don't. When you start drawing arbitrary lines to suit your politics, you reveal yourself to be an unserious partisan hack.

There’s always someone who sets the example. Let Thomas be the one and the chips can fall how they may.

The problem with this is that it ends up in a nakedly political court. They at least try to pretend a little bit now. The Court is the last line of defense for the independence of the judiciary branch. Those suggesting you treat them like other federal court judges need to acknowledge that doing so would make the court way more susceptible to politicization, instability and witch hunts.

Uh. Pretzel logic. No.

Aka the Constitution. Maybe try reading it.

“shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”

Yes, impeachment is still allowed under the Constitution. Go for it...

I bet you define good behavior like a Kindergarten teacher

I define it like someone who hasn’t lost their bar license. Pathetic we can’t hold a SCJ to the same standards.

Sounds doctrinally rigorous. Well done, what a scholar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

They don't actually think this. What they think is that liberals are evil and bad for the country so anything that liberals dislike is probably good for the country. And, even if corruption is bad, liberals are worse, so the ends justifies the means and the benefits outweigh the costs.

^And this is the definition of extremism ladies and gentlemen. Conservative my ass.

It's called rule utilitarianism. Pretty much describes both parties these days really. Things only disintegrate from here.

Way back when, a scandal meant resigning in disgrace. Then we started pushing the boundaries a bit here and a bit there and politicians realized that they could just ride it out. Now, I'm shocked if they ever resign willingly

Yup, a real lack of shame and dignity these days. Still surprised Al Franken didn't ride it out, but things have calcified even further post Trump.

Franken was pressured to resign because Democrats were accusing Trump of the same kind of misconduct and didn't want to give the GOP that talking point. There weren't really any long-term consequences since he was replaced by another Dem. But any SCOTUS resignation has yuge long-term consequences.

It was not the "same kind" of misconduct. Trump was accused of sexual assault and possibly even rape. Franken took some dumb pictures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not what anyone wants to hear but the salary for SCJ and other senior officials is too low—makes them susceptible to this kind of corruption. The lifetime appointment doesn’t hurt but it’s not enough to live like these guys want to live.

Maybe select some people who don't need to live a lavish lifestyle.

Box seats are freaking expensive dude. Even if you like cheap beer.

I do like cheap beer. But I also kind of like the worst sort of nose bleed seats. Just being in the stadium or arena is fun. In fact, some of the least enjoyable experiences I've had were the few times I've made it into a suite of some sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

From what is known, CT has probably pushed the line the furthest, even though there is probably some weasely lawyer way to give himself cover.

But this is a paradox of the heap problem. Can you pinpoint at which point Justice Thomas's ethical lapses were such that they warranted removal from the court? What particular thing tipped the scale?

If it's really about this non-disclosure, was one enough? Is it a cumulative thing? Be careful with what precedent you set.

Either you care about ethics or you don't. When you start drawing arbitrary lines to suit your politics, you reveal yourself to be an unserious partisan hack.

Yeah, let's start with the non-disclosure. I am comfortable drawing that line. When you've got untold $$$$$$$ coming into your dirty hands and you're hiding it from the public, I feel like we can start with drawing THAT line in the sand.

So if the Daily Caller or Fox News somehow finds any missed disclosures from Sotomayor or KBJ, you will be at the front line asking for their resignation?

"Any" missed disclosures? I don't know, let's use some common sense and tackle it with a sense of proportionality.

Millions of dollars with of nondisclosures? Yes, let's use some judgment in this case, too.

You're not being as clever as you think you are. Life - and application of the law, and ethics - requires discretion, judgment, proportionality. In this case, CT's nondisclosures are truly shocking and egregious. And this is just what we know so far - who here thinks we've come to the end yet? I sure don't.

Not shocking. And egregious?!?

All I'm hearing is I want to make it up situationally as I go. We already knew that...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.

From what is known, CT has probably pushed the line the furthest, even though there is probably some weasely lawyer way to give himself cover.

But this is a paradox of the heap problem. Can you pinpoint at which point Justice Thomas's ethical lapses were such that they warranted removal from the court? What particular thing tipped the scale?

If it's really about this non-disclosure, was one enough? Is it a cumulative thing? Be careful with what precedent you set.

Either you care about ethics or you don't. When you start drawing arbitrary lines to suit your politics, you reveal yourself to be an unserious partisan hack.

Yeah, let's start with the non-disclosure. I am comfortable drawing that line. When you've got untold $$$$$$$ coming into your dirty hands and you're hiding it from the public, I feel like we can start with drawing THAT line in the sand.

So if the Daily Caller or Fox News somehow finds any missed disclosures from Sotomayor or KBJ, you will be at the front line asking for their resignation?

"Any" missed disclosures? I don't know, let's use some common sense and tackle it with a sense of proportionality.

Millions of dollars with of nondisclosures? Yes, let's use some judgment in this case, too.

You're not being as clever as you think you are. Life - and application of the law, and ethics - requires discretion, judgment, proportionality. In this case, CT's nondisclosures are truly shocking and egregious. And this is just what we know so far - who here thinks we've come to the end yet? I sure don't.

These are the people who didn't think mitigation strategies for COVID were worth pursuing. If something didn't completely stop COVID transmission, it wasn't worth doing.