No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Does he have to? What are you proposing be done about it?

Or do you just want to whine and moan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash: People - even Supreme Court Justices - are friends with and vacation with people who are like-minded. Some of them are even wealthy!!!
Shocker!!!

Vacationing with people who are likeminded is one thing. Having those friends pay every cent of your luxurious vacation is quite another. I don’t vacation on my friends’ dimes …. Particularly not to the tune of $500,000 a vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Does he have to? What are you proposing be done about it?

Or do you just want to whine and moan?

Regretfully, every single elected Republican sucks so “whining” and “moaning” are really all we can do directly about this.

But I can also make it my personal mission to point out Clarence’s corruption regularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Does he have to? What are you proposing be done about it?

Or do you just want to whine and moan?

Yes, he has to. It’s a federal law. Also, integrity is at issue but so many Republicans are committed to normalizing not having any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Does he have to? What are you proposing be done about it?

Or do you just want to whine and moan?

Yes, he has to. It’s a federal law. Also, integrity is at issue but so many Republicans are committed to normalizing not having any.

What law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Does he have to? What are you proposing be done about it?

Or do you just want to whine and moan?

Yes, he has to. It’s a federal law. Also, integrity is at issue but so many Republicans are committed to normalizing not having any.

What law?

5 USC 13101 et seq. It is discussed extensively in the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, tens of thousands of government employees turn down gifts, tickets, special events ALL the time because ethics matter to them. But people who complain about the “government “ are here defending this guy. Madness.

Feds need to get over themselves.

It's not because ethics matter to them, it's because they are bound by different obligations and ethics enforcement regimes than SCOTUS justices.

The rules themselves are essentially the same. But you are right, there is no enforcement when it comes to SCOTUS. They can violate the rules with no consequences whatsoever. The question is why we let the most powerful people operate above the law.

The rules are pretty much voluntary for the Justices. Very few apply to the Justices save those which they determine to impose upon themselves. They mostly apply to lower court judges.

There are institutional/separation of powers reasons for the arrangement, but I suspect many here will not find them particularly convincing with such a conservative court.

The rules are not voluntary at all. The reporting law very specifically says that it includes the justices. They are only voluntary in the sense that there are no consequences to violating them because the GOP members of Congress will protect their own no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, tens of thousands of government employees turn down gifts, tickets, special events ALL the time because ethics matter to them. But people who complain about the “government “ are here defending this guy. Madness.

Feds need to get over themselves.

It's not because ethics matter to them, it's because they are bound by different obligations and ethics enforcement regimes than SCOTUS justices.

The rules themselves are essentially the same. But you are right, there is no enforcement when it comes to SCOTUS. They can violate the rules with no consequences whatsoever. The question is why we let the most powerful people operate above the law.

The rules are pretty much voluntary for the Justices. Very few apply to the Justices save those which they determine to impose upon themselves. They mostly apply to lower court judges.

There are institutional/separation of powers reasons for the arrangement, but I suspect many here will not find them particularly convincing with such a conservative court.

The rules are not voluntary at all. The reporting law very specifically says that it includes the justices. They are only voluntary in the sense that there are no consequences to violating them because the GOP members of Congress will protect their own no matter what.

Although the revision went into effect on March 14, there has not been any acknowledgement from the Supreme Court. We will not know whether the justices follow the rule until May 15, 2024, when this year’s reports are due. Even then, there is no enforcement mechanism for justices who balk at full disclosure.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3934664-will-the-supreme-court-justices-comply-with-new-rules-on-gift-disclosure/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, tens of thousands of government employees turn down gifts, tickets, special events ALL the time because ethics matter to them. But people who complain about the “government “ are here defending this guy. Madness.

Feds need to get over themselves.

It's not because ethics matter to them, it's because they are bound by different obligations and ethics enforcement regimes than SCOTUS justices.

The rules themselves are essentially the same. But you are right, there is no enforcement when it comes to SCOTUS. They can violate the rules with no consequences whatsoever. The question is why we let the most powerful people operate above the law.

The rules are pretty much voluntary for the Justices. Very few apply to the Justices save those which they determine to impose upon themselves. They mostly apply to lower court judges.

There are institutional/separation of powers reasons for the arrangement, but I suspect many here will not find them particularly convincing with such a conservative court.

The rules are not voluntary at all. The reporting law very specifically says that it includes the justices. They are only voluntary in the sense that there are no consequences to violating them because the GOP members of Congress will protect their own no matter what.

Although the revision went into effect on March 14, there has not been any acknowledgement from the Supreme Court. We will not know whether the justices follow the rule until May 15, 2024, when this year’s reports are due. Even then, there is no enforcement mechanism for justices who balk at full disclosure.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3934664-will-the-supreme-court-justices-comply-with-new-rules-on-gift-disclosure/

These are discussing two different things. One is a law passed by Congress that specifically includes the Supreme Court. The other is a code of ethics adopted by the judiciary that doesn't explicitly apply to SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, tens of thousands of government employees turn down gifts, tickets, special events ALL the time because ethics matter to them. But people who complain about the “government “ are here defending this guy. Madness.

Feds need to get over themselves.

It's not because ethics matter to them, it's because they are bound by different obligations and ethics enforcement regimes than SCOTUS justices.

The rules themselves are essentially the same. But you are right, there is no enforcement when it comes to SCOTUS. They can violate the rules with no consequences whatsoever. The question is why we let the most powerful people operate above the law.

The rules are pretty much voluntary for the Justices. Very few apply to the Justices save those which they determine to impose upon themselves. They mostly apply to lower court judges.

There are institutional/separation of powers reasons for the arrangement, but I suspect many here will not find them particularly convincing with such a conservative court.

The rules are not voluntary at all. The reporting law very specifically says that it includes the justices. They are only voluntary in the sense that there are no consequences to violating them because the GOP members of Congress will protect their own no matter what.

Although the revision went into effect on March 14, there has not been any acknowledgement from the Supreme Court. We will not know whether the justices follow the rule until May 15, 2024, when this year’s reports are due. Even then, there is no enforcement mechanism for justices who balk at full disclosure.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3934664-will-the-supreme-court-justices-comply-with-new-rules-on-gift-disclosure/

These are discussing two different things. One is a law passed by Congress that specifically includes the Supreme Court. The other is a code of ethics adopted by the judiciary that doesn't explicitly apply to SCOTUS.

It does not matter. SCOTUS is not accountable to either. It is a mystery why this is even being talked about. It is common knowledge if you pay the right amount to the right law firms/people you will get the ruling you desire. Currently the practices of SCOTUS corrupts the rule of law. The system works for the rich and the people who make their living off the court so nothing will change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, tens of thousands of government employees turn down gifts, tickets, special events ALL the time because ethics matter to them. But people who complain about the “government “ are here defending this guy. Madness.

Feds need to get over themselves.

It's not because ethics matter to them, it's because they are bound by different obligations and ethics enforcement regimes than SCOTUS justices.

The rules themselves are essentially the same. But you are right, there is no enforcement when it comes to SCOTUS. They can violate the rules with no consequences whatsoever. The question is why we let the most powerful people operate above the law.

The rules are pretty much voluntary for the Justices. Very few apply to the Justices save those which they determine to impose upon themselves. They mostly apply to lower court judges.

There are institutional/separation of powers reasons for the arrangement, but I suspect many here will not find them particularly convincing with such a conservative court.

The rules are not voluntary at all. The reporting law very specifically says that it includes the justices. They are only voluntary in the sense that there are no consequences to violating them because the GOP members of Congress will protect their own no matter what.

Although the revision went into effect on March 14, there has not been any acknowledgement from the Supreme Court. We will not know whether the justices follow the rule until May 15, 2024, when this year’s reports are due. Even then, there is no enforcement mechanism for justices who balk at full disclosure.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3934664-will-the-supreme-court-justices-comply-with-new-rules-on-gift-disclosure/

These are discussing two different things. One is a law passed by Congress that specifically includes the Supreme Court. The other is a code of ethics adopted by the judiciary that doesn't explicitly apply to SCOTUS.

It does not matter. SCOTUS is not accountable to either. It is a mystery why this is even being talked about. It is common knowledge if you pay the right amount to the right law firms/people you will get the ruling you desire. Currently the practices of SCOTUS corrupts the rule of law. The system works for the rich and the people who make their living off the court so nothing will change.

It looks to me like the problem is corruption in the GOP. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, tens of thousands of government employees turn down gifts, tickets, special events ALL the time because ethics matter to them. But people who complain about the “government “ are here defending this guy. Madness.

Feds need to get over themselves.

It's not because ethics matter to them, it's because they are bound by different obligations and ethics enforcement regimes than SCOTUS justices.

The rules themselves are essentially the same. But you are right, there is no enforcement when it comes to SCOTUS. They can violate the rules with no consequences whatsoever. The question is why we let the most powerful people operate above the law.

The rules are pretty much voluntary for the Justices. Very few apply to the Justices save those which they determine to impose upon themselves. They mostly apply to lower court judges.

There are institutional/separation of powers reasons for the arrangement, but I suspect many here will not find them particularly convincing with such a conservative court.

The rules are not voluntary at all. The reporting law very specifically says that it includes the justices. They are only voluntary in the sense that there are no consequences to violating them because the GOP members of Congress will protect their own no matter what.

Although the revision went into effect on March 14, there has not been any acknowledgement from the Supreme Court. We will not know whether the justices follow the rule until May 15, 2024, when this year’s reports are due. Even then, there is no enforcement mechanism for justices who balk at full disclosure.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3934664-will-the-supreme-court-justices-comply-with-new-rules-on-gift-disclosure/

These are discussing two different things. One is a law passed by Congress that specifically includes the Supreme Court. The other is a code of ethics adopted by the judiciary that doesn't explicitly apply to SCOTUS.

They're talking about the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Nothing burger.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/