No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

[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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

[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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

What reason, and what’s the reasoning behind it?

[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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

What reason, and what’s the reasoning behind it?

Goodness, read the thread man. It's been explained over and over again.

[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.

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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

What reason, and what’s the reasoning behind it?

Goodness, read the thread man. It's been explained over and over again.

I have read this whole thread. It is not clear to me why Supreme Court justices should be treated as infallible monarchs while District and Appellate judges have to follow ethical standards and practices.

[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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

I have not read the 52 pages of the thread but it seems to me that SC justices, given their power, should be held to stricter standards than other judges not more lax.

[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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

I have not read the 52 pages of the thread but it seems to me that SC justices, given their power, should be held to stricter standards than other judges not more lax.

Let me give you an analogy, you ever heard to "too big to fail banks"? Yeah nobody loves it, but it is what it is. The regional banks can shutter, but you better think long and hard before doing it to a big boy.

[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.

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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

I have not read the 52 pages of the thread but it seems to me that SC justices, given their power, should be held to stricter standards than other judges not more lax.

Let me give you an analogy, you ever heard to "too big to fail banks"? Yeah nobody loves it, but it is what it is. The regional banks can shutter, but you better think long and hard before doing it to a big boy.

Bad analogy. Bad justices should be removed from the bench and replaced.

[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:

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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

I have not read the 52 pages of the thread but it seems to me that SC justices, given their power, should be held to stricter standards than other judges not more lax.

Let me give you an analogy, you ever heard to "too big to fail banks"? Yeah nobody loves it, but it is what it is. The regional banks can shutter, but you better think long and hard before doing it to a big boy.

Bad analogy. Bad justices should be removed from the bench and replaced.

And badly behaving banks should be let to fail, yet here we are.

Also, there is a mechanism for removing judges from the bench. It's called impeachment. Is anybody objecting to the existence of that mechanism? I have not seen it.

[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:

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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

I have not read the 52 pages of the thread but it seems to me that SC justices, given their power, should be held to stricter standards than other judges not more lax.

Let me give you an analogy, you ever heard to "too big to fail banks"? Yeah nobody loves it, but it is what it is. The regional banks can shutter, but you better think long and hard before doing it to a big boy.

Bad analogy. Bad justices should be removed from the bench and replaced.

And badly behaving banks should be let to fail, yet here we are.

Also, there is a mechanism for removing judges from the bench. It's called impeachment. Is anybody objecting to the existence of that mechanism? I have not seen it.

Yes, bad banks should be allowed to fail. Especially when they deal in high-risk banking, and when their main customers and investors are wealthy.

[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:

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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

I have not read the 52 pages of the thread but it seems to me that SC justices, given their power, should be held to stricter standards than other judges not more lax.

Let me give you an analogy, you ever heard to "too big to fail banks"? Yeah nobody loves it, but it is what it is. The regional banks can shutter, but you better think long and hard before doing it to a big boy.

Bad analogy. Bad justices should be removed from the bench and replaced.

And badly behaving banks should be let to fail, yet here we are.

Also, there is a mechanism for removing judges from the bench. It's called impeachment. Is anybody objecting to the existence of that mechanism? I have not seen it.

Yes, bad banks should be allowed to fail. Especially when they deal in high-risk banking, and when their main customers and investors are wealthy.

And yet they are not. Make that make sense.

[Anonymous]

Replace them all NOW.

[Anonymous]

Out with him. Caesar’s wife must be above reproach. He’s as corrupt as the day is long and we have receipts.

[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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

“Their lessers”??? No one is above the law. Checks and balances are crucial to a healthy democracy. Did Trump teach you nothing.

[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.

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?

I was a federal law clerk. SCOTUS is not held to the same code of ethics as other federal judges. Here is my standard: if a member of SCOTUS has the sort of serious ethical violations and conflicts of interest that would cause a District Court Judge to be subject to disciplinary action, a SCOTUS Justice should also be subject to disciplinary action.

SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than other federal judges because they have more power and their actions have the power to undermine the federal judiciary. Currently, they are held to most no standard.

This has already been explained in this thread. Nobody should want SCOTUS turned into an even bigger sh*tshow by trying to pickoff SCOTUS Justices for supposed ethics violations to which lower courts are held. The institution needs stability and functionality and given the institutional significance of the highest court, it needs to be shielded as much as possible from the vagaries of the sh*tshow on the hill.

Impeachment is the main enforcement mechanism; make your case.

Congrats on your district court clerkship though.

Ethics standards are clear. To Fed, to law clerks, to Judges. And if you have a question, I literally watched a mandatory bod this week that explained, again, how to ask. Are you really saying that CT is smart enough to be a justice but too stupid to have a lawyer who specializes in this work with the accountant that he undoubtedly has (because his financial picture is a bit more complex than Turbo Tax) to ensure the returns are accurate?

No, I'm saying that SCOTUS Justices are treated differently and for a reason. Stop trying to compare them to their lessers.

I have not read the 52 pages of the thread but it seems to me that SC justices, given their power, should be held to stricter standards than other judges not more lax.

Let me give you an analogy, you ever heard to "too big to fail banks"? Yeah nobody loves it, but it is what it is. The regional banks can shutter, but you better think long and hard before doing it to a big boy.

Big Boy Thomas could die in his sleep tonight. And in three months, his replacement would be sworn in. And democracy would be the better for it. He isn’t too big to fail. He can be replaced, easily.