No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[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.

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.

You certainly can't on this website.

[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: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..

It's all new. That's why it's a big deal.

[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.

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.

You certainly can't on this website.

Not recusing yourself when one party has paid you $3.6 million seems like both sides to me

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

[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: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..

It's all new. That's why it's a big deal.

No, that is not why it is a big deal.

Just like when a bunch of ethics claims and impeachment threats started vigorously popping up after years of ascendancy of the Warren Court.

[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.

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.

You certainly can't on this website.

Not recusing yourself when one party has paid you $3.6 million seems like both sides to me

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

What rule do you think would indicate she should have recused? This is not a situation where a judge would normally recuse. That's probably why Gorsuch also didn't recuse from that case even though he was paid a lot of money by the same company.

[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.

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.

You certainly can't on this website.

Not recusing yourself when one party has paid you $3.6 million seems like both sides to me

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

What rule do you think would indicate she should have recused? This is not a situation where a judge would normally recuse. That's probably why Gorsuch also didn't recuse from that case even though he was paid a lot of money by the same company.

You don't think ongoing payments from one party toping $3 million is a reason to reuse? On any other federal court, they would have been required to recuse themselves by law

"(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

[Anonymous]

Kick them all off and put nine new ones on, NOW.

[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.

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.

You certainly can't on this website.

Not recusing yourself when one party has paid you $3.6 million seems like both sides to me

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

What rule do you think would indicate she should have recused? This is not a situation where a judge would normally recuse. That's probably why Gorsuch also didn't recuse from that case even though he was paid a lot of money by the same company.

You don't think ongoing payments from one party toping $3 million is a reason to reuse? On any other federal court, they would have been required to recuse themselves by law

"(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

Certainly not under that rule (or any other one that I'm aware of). She didn't have a financial interest in either the subject matter or a party, or any other interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome.

[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.

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?

That's a good question, especially given that Franken was on Judiciary as well. But at the time Dems were already in the minority so losing one member wasn't a big deal...which is why the GOP didn't bother playing stupid games with his replacement on the committee. But with Feinstein being the difference between a majority and gridlock, you can bet they're playing stupid games.

[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: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.

You certainly can't on this website.

Not recusing yourself when one party has paid you $3.6 million seems like both sides to me

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

What rule do you think would indicate she should have recused? This is not a situation where a judge would normally recuse. That's probably why Gorsuch also didn't recuse from that case even though he was paid a lot of money by the same company.

You don't think ongoing payments from one party toping $3 million is a reason to reuse? On any other federal court, they would have been required to recuse themselves by law

"(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

Certainly not under that rule (or any other one that I'm aware of). She didn't have a financial interest in either the subject matter or a party, or any other interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome.

She had a financial interest in one of the parties

[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.

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?

That's a good question, especially given that Franken was on Judiciary as well. But at the time Dems were already in the minority so losing one member wasn't a big deal...which is why the GOP didn't bother playing stupid games with his replacement on the committee. But with Feinstein being the difference between a majority and gridlock, you can bet they're playing stupid games.

Remember when Feinstein and establishment democrats insisted she wasn’t too old to run for re-election? Fun times

[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: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.

You certainly can't on this website.

Not recusing yourself when one party has paid you $3.6 million seems like both sides to me

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

What rule do you think would indicate she should have recused? This is not a situation where a judge would normally recuse. That's probably why Gorsuch also didn't recuse from that case even though he was paid a lot of money by the same company.

You don't think ongoing payments from one party toping $3 million is a reason to reuse? On any other federal court, they would have been required to recuse themselves by law

"(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

Certainly not under that rule (or any other one that I'm aware of). She didn't have a financial interest in either the subject matter or a party, or any other interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome.

She had a financial interest in one of the parties

No, she didn't. Financial interest means that you own stock in one of the parties. That's the way this is interpreted and applied by every federal judge. The same term is also used in the executive branch ethics rules and is defined the same way.

[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: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.

You certainly can't on this website.

Not recusing yourself when one party has paid you $3.6 million seems like both sides to me

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

What rule do you think would indicate she should have recused? This is not a situation where a judge would normally recuse. That's probably why Gorsuch also didn't recuse from that case even though he was paid a lot of money by the same company.

You don't think ongoing payments from one party toping $3 million is a reason to reuse? On any other federal court, they would have been required to recuse themselves by law

"(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

Certainly not under that rule (or any other one that I'm aware of). She didn't have a financial interest in either the subject matter or a party, or any other interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome.

She had a financial interest in one of the parties

No, she didn't. Financial interest means that you own stock in one of the parties. That's the way this is interpreted and applied by every federal judge. The same term is also used in the executive branch ethics rules and is defined the same way.

^^^^this is correct. It's in statute and in regulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems just keep screwing up. Anyone with half a brain knows that the digging into the Thomases personal affairs is because Democrats desperately want another seat on SCOTUS. No one is fooled by this grandstanding and false piety. I have no doubt Thomas has taken advantage of his position, as many justices before him have, and as many justices and judges all over America are doing right. Unless Democrats intend to fully investigate every sitting justice, including democratic justices, this is a politically-motivated witch hunt and it will backfire. The fact that I am turned off as a Democrat who can’t stand Thomas tells you something. This is opening the door to using witch hunts of sitting supreme court justices as a score-settling measure between the parties. The country is wracked by partisanship enough as it is. Give it a freaking rest.

I don't believe you're a democrat who dislikes Thomas. I'm shocked that you think it's okay to do these things. I believe there should be an actual code of ethics they must follow rather than norms. I also believe all the justices should be checked out. If they're all doing this stuff, let's put a stop to it and make some actual rules with actual consequences. If it's a one side issue, that's legit corruption, and I feel like that should be handled differently, but I don't know how. If it's Thomas only, I think he should step down or be removed. I don't see how anyone can look at this and say honestly that they think this is fair and should be condoned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dems just keep screwing up. Anyone with half a brain knows that the digging into the Thomases personal affairs is because Democrats desperately want another seat on SCOTUS. No one is fooled by this grandstanding and false piety. I have no doubt Thomas has taken advantage of his position, as many justices before him have, and as many justices and judges all over America are doing right. Unless Democrats intend to fully investigate every sitting justice, including democratic justices, this is a politically-motivated witch hunt and it will backfire. The fact that I am turned off as a Democrat who can’t stand Thomas tells you something. This is opening the door to using witch hunts of sitting supreme court justices as a score-settling measure between the parties. The country is wracked by partisanship enough as it is. Give it a freaking rest.

Lol it’s the “I’m a Democrat” gaslighter.

Why can you just leave the corrupt SC alone? Everyone does it!

Heaven help us. This is kind of knuckle dragging response that Democrats produce nowadays. We’re supposed to be the smart people, the clear thinkers, the people who can see the forest beyond the trees.

Have you clerked?

I have!

I clerked for two federal judges in major jurisdictions — both Democratic appointees. During my three year is clerking, I saw lots of goings on among judges on the district and COA level that anyone could make something of if they felt like being spiteful. You have no freaking clue. And everyone I’m talking about is a Dem.

You are completely batshit if you think any justice can go through the kind of scrutiny we are putting Thomas through right now and come out clean. The ethics rules are very subjective, very vague, poorly enforced, and intentionally so because the idea is to give justices latitude in the conduct of their affairs.

You might not like that, but using them as a pretext for this witch hunt is going to blow back on us. When right wing nut jobs turn the same scrutiny on our justices AND our federal judges it’s going to be a bloodbath. They’re combing financials right now and already making noises about Sotomayor. At some point, a republican will return to the presidency and then you’ll see. Our base isn’t going to shrug and the heads of good Democratic judges will roll.

+1000

[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.

Bingo. And then he stopped disclosing anything because he didn’t like that reporters were reporting it.