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:

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.

It's not about just him, it's about institutional integrity. Pun intended

It's not about the holder of the seat, but the seat itself.

All nine of the Justices signed the Roberts letter telling the Senate to buzz off. Make that make sense...

[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.

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.

Exactly. Hilarious that it’s apparently less damaging for democracy that corrupt justices to sit on the bench, than it is to remove them. What a freaking joke.

[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.

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.

It's not about just him, it's about institutional integrity. Pun intended

It's not about the holder of the seat, but the seat itself.

All nine of the Justices signed the Roberts letter telling the Senate to buzz off. Make that make sense...

High on their own supply. It won’t end well. This scandal is doing much more harm to the institution.

[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.

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

Yes, their lessers. And the plain reality is that some people have a lot more latitude with the law than others. I prefer to live in reality as opposed to whatever fairy tale world you're imagining.

[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.

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.

Exactly. Hilarious that it’s apparently less damaging for democracy that corrupt justices to sit on the bench, than it is to remove them. What a freaking joke.

You speak from a place of extreme privilege. If you think this is corruption, you have seen nothing.

Start making the court a nakedly political instrument and you will soon find out all you want to about corruption and more.

[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.

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.

It's not about just him, it's about institutional integrity. Pun intended

It's not about the holder of the seat, but the seat itself.

All nine of the Justices signed the Roberts letter telling the Senate to buzz off. Make that make sense...

High on their own supply. It won’t end well. This scandal is doing much more harm to the institution.

More harm that letting it succumb to the whims of the lunatics on the hill?

Interesting, tell us more. I'm sure Earl Warren would love to hear it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All nine of the Justices signed the Roberts letter telling the Senate to buzz off.

Sure. They did not sign Roberts letter. There was an ethics statement they signed. The letter was signed by Roberts alone.

[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.

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.

His mother is still alive and a billionaire is paying him to stay on the court even though it’s not as lucrative as he wants instead of resigning. He could have another decade or more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All nine of the Justices signed the Roberts letter telling the Senate to buzz off.

Sure. They did not sign Roberts letter. There was an ethics statement they signed. The letter was signed by Roberts alone.

Splitting hairs. They threw their weight behind Roberts' message to the Senate.

[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.

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.

It's not about just him, it's about institutional integrity. Pun intended

It's not about the holder of the seat, but the seat itself.

All nine of the Justices signed the Roberts letter telling the Senate to buzz off. Make that make sense...

The other Justices did not sign the Roberts letter refusing to cooperate with the Senate. Republicans have been lying about that. Only Roberts signed it.

What all nine signed was an attachment “Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices” that pretends that they comply with ethical policies.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/roberts-letter-durbin.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All nine of the Justices signed the Roberts letter telling the Senate to buzz off.

Sure. They did not sign Roberts letter. There was an ethics statement they signed. The letter was signed by Roberts alone.

Splitting hairs. They threw their weight behind Roberts' message to the Senate.

They didn’t. They signed a weak statement about their disclosure and recusal policies. They didn’t sign the letter claiming that SCOTUS is above the law. Only Roberts signed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All nine of the Justices signed the Roberts letter telling the Senate to buzz off.

Sure. They did not sign Roberts letter. There was an ethics statement they signed. The letter was signed by Roberts alone.

Splitting hairs. They threw their weight behind Roberts' message to the Senate.

They didn’t. They signed a weak statement about their disclosure and recusal policies. They didn’t sign the letter claiming that SCOTUS is above the law. Only Roberts signed that.

I.e they affirmed that they will continue policing themselves on ethics and not subject themselves to Senate overlords.

A total blowoff and rebuke by all of the Justices.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because she's really going to lay out all of her baggage to a reporter.........

A 1991 story, about a speech from the 80's that was updated in 2015. No agenda there at all...

Stop 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:

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.

Exactly. Hilarious that it’s apparently less damaging for democracy that corrupt justices to sit on the bench, than it is to remove them. What a freaking joke.

You speak from a place of extreme privilege. If you think this is corruption, you have seen nothing.

Start making the court a nakedly political instrument and you will soon find out all you want to about corruption and more.

What makes you think it isn’t now?