No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Burn it all down I don’t care. If they’re all corrupt they all deserve to go. Too many decent hardworking people work hard, follow the law, and act with discretion only to get nowhere in life, because we tolerate this. I don’t care anymore. Time for some spring cleaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re just not cut out for public life then my friend. I’ll see you on the upper deck.

[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.

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...

I don't know what to say to you if you don't find these CT disclosures shocking and egregious, because any normal person does - and anyone defending them on the ground that maybe some other justice also took bribes isn't engaging a very good defense.

[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.

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...

I'd also invite you to examine the Sup Ct's actual jurisprudence, much of which does come down to "I know it when I see it" sorts of tests. In this case, I know it when I see it - this is really bad.

[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.

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...

I'd also invite you to examine the Sup Ct's actual jurisprudence, much of which does come down to "I know it when I see it" sorts of tests. In this case, I know it when I see it - this is really bad.

At least you're honest that you're making it up. You don't care about ethics, hack.

Care to explain why the "I know it when I see it" ethical muscles only started flexing now when a lot of this stuff has been public and known for decades?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re just not cut out for public life then my friend. I’ll see you on the upper deck.

The people know best. I ran for school board once and lost by a few votes. I think they knew I wasn't fancy.

[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.

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...

I'd also invite you to examine the Sup Ct's actual jurisprudence, much of which does come down to "I know it when I see it" sorts of tests. In this case, I know it when I see it - this is really bad.

At least you're honest that you're making it up. You don't care about ethics, hack.

Care to explain why the "I know it when I see it" ethical muscles only started flexing now when a lot of this stuff has been public and known for decades?

All of this information is new because Thomas wasn’t disclosing it.

[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

After the Justices, some of them bribed, gutted the bribery statutes in the Bob McDonnell decision there’s not much to be done.

[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.

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.

No, it really only describes one party. The GOP. The Democratic Party continues to operate above board.

[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.

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.

No, it really only describes one party. The GOP. The Democratic Party continues to operate above board.

It doesn’t even matter. There are certainly corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle. The difference is that one party holds their people accountable and the other does not.

[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.

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...

I'd also invite you to examine the Sup Ct's actual jurisprudence, much of which does come down to "I know it when I see it" sorts of tests. In this case, I know it when I see it - this is really bad.

At least you're honest that you're making it up. You don't care about ethics, hack.

Care to explain why the "I know it when I see it" ethical muscles only started flexing now when a lot of this stuff has been public and known for decades?

All of this information is new because Thomas wasn’t disclosing it.

This is from 2011...

https://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/06/controversial-thomas-friendship-with-harlan-crow-goes-back-more-than-a-decade.html

It's been decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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...

I'd also invite you to examine the Sup Ct's actual jurisprudence, much of which does come down to "I know it when I see it" sorts of tests. In this case, I know it when I see it - this is really bad.

At least you're honest that you're making it up. You don't care about ethics, hack.

Care to explain why the "I know it when I see it" ethical muscles only started flexing now when a lot of this stuff has been public and known for decades?

All of this information is new because Thomas wasn’t disclosing it.

This is from 2011...

https://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/06/controversial-thomas-friendship-with-harlan-crow-goes-back-more-than-a-decade.html

It's been decades.

This doesn't say anything about Harlan funneling millions of dollars of undisclosed gifts to Clarence for the last 25 years. It actually mentions a couple of the small disclosed gifts from the late 1990s and early 2000s, as if it all stopped then.

[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.

No, it really only describes one party. The GOP. The Democratic Party continues to operate above board.

It doesn’t even matter. There are certainly corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle. The difference is that one party holds their people accountable and the other does not.

You really cannot both sides where we are right now.

[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.

No, it really only describes one party. The GOP. The Democratic Party continues to operate above board.

It doesn’t even matter. There are certainly corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle. The difference is that one party holds their people accountable and the other does not.

+100.

And, Democrats keep acting as though Republicans operate in good faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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...

I'd also invite you to examine the Sup Ct's actual jurisprudence, much of which does come down to "I know it when I see it" sorts of tests. In this case, I know it when I see it - this is really bad.

At least you're honest that you're making it up. You don't care about ethics, hack.

Care to explain why the "I know it when I see it" ethical muscles only started flexing now when a lot of this stuff has been public and known for decades?

All of this information is new because Thomas wasn’t disclosing it.

This is from 2011...

https://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/06/controversial-thomas-friendship-with-harlan-crow-goes-back-more-than-a-decade.html

It's been decades.

This doesn't say anything about Harlan funneling millions of dollars of undisclosed gifts to Clarence for the last 25 years. It actually mentions a couple of the small disclosed gifts from the late 1990s and early 2000s, as if it all stopped then.

Keep poking around. Some of this is new, but a lot just isn't. Something else is new though..