Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

Seems like the unreported use of a private jet and billionaires home to swear in a 5th Circuit judge would be a pretty clear violation.

A violation of what? Please show me what it violates. Not what you "feel" it violates, but in writing. The part you decided to not include in your quote says no violations

Huh? What are you even talking about?

The PP knows the facts - there is no Code of Ethics for the SCOTUS. So - what did Thomas violate? Also - we all know if this was liberal leaning Black Justice - the press would be screaming racist attack.

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:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so. You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter!

Will you agree that Justice Thomas is unethical?

I am hesitant to get into the business of regulating personal relationships, but ultimately lifelong public service should entail some sacrifice and forgoing the accoutrements of such a friendship, genuine though it may be, is well within the realm of sacrifices a life tenured Justice should have to make in order to preserve the reputation and institutional legitimacy of the Court.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

What do you mean by side with the liberals?

SCOTUS ethics lie at a strange interstice trying to balance separation of powers, institutional hierarchy, legitimacy and perception, institutional mechanics and efficiency, personal freedoms, privacy and rights of Justices and, ultimately, fidelity to the Constitution.

Not exactly the best place for pitchforks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

Seems like the unreported use of a private jet and billionaires home to swear in a 5th Circuit judge would be a pretty clear violation.

A violation of what? Please show me what it violates. Not what you "feel" it violates, but in writing. The part you decided to not include in your quote says no violations

Huh? What are you even talking about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

Seems like the unreported use of a private jet and billionaires home to swear in a 5th Circuit judge would be a pretty clear violation.

A violation of what? Please show me what it violates. Not what you "feel" it violates, but in writing. The part you decided to not include in your quote says no violations

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

Seems like the unreported use of a private jet and billionaires home to swear in a 5th Circuit judge would be a pretty clear violation.

A violation of what? Please show me what it violates. Not what you "feel" it violates, but in writing. The part you decided to not include in your quote says no violations

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

Seems like the unreported use of a private jet and billionaires home to swear in a 5th Circuit judge would be a pretty clear violation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so. You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter!

Will you agree that Justice Thomas is unethical?

Anonymous wrote:He needs to be impeached. Anything less is an insult to America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so. You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter!

Will you agree that Justice Thomas is unethical?

I am hesitant to get into the business of regulating personal relationships, but ultimately lifelong public service should entail some sacrifice and forgoing the accoutrements of such a friendship, genuine though it may be, is well within the realm of sacrifices a life tenured Justice should have to make in order to preserve the reputation and institutional legitimacy of the Court.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

I think get the reservation from PP. If he believes in conservative things, he'd maybe be reluctant to side with the liberals on this. Doing so might encourage them to gin up fake or overblown charges of corruption, not so much because they care about a judge's ethics, but more because they want a club with which they can hit a judge who doesn't decide things "the right way."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so. You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter!

Will you agree that Justice Thomas is unethical?

I am hesitant to get into the business of regulating personal relationships, but ultimately lifelong public service should entail some sacrifice and forgoing the accoutrements of such a friendship, genuine though it may be, is well within the realm of sacrifices a life tenured Justice should have to make in order to preserve the reputation and institutional legitimacy of the Court.

You’re basically saying it. You see it, we know you can see it. He’s corrupt and his corruption dirties the court upon which he sits. Just form a declarative sentence to that effect and see where it leads you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28

Please note: This document is the new requirement. Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules. It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.

Yes, they did need to be disclosed. That particular form is new, but the requirement is not. It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this? Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004. What happened in 2004? The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them. Sorry. Simply BS. It looks bad, because it is corrupt. Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone. The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so. You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter!

Will you agree that Justice Thomas is unethical?

I am hesitant to get into the business of regulating personal relationships, but ultimately lifelong public service should entail some sacrifice and forgoing the accoutrements of such a friendship, genuine though it may be, is well within the realm of sacrifices a life tenured Justice should have to make in order to preserve the reputation and institutional legitimacy of the Court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thomas is in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
...
COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen[.]

Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

The nine justices of the Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which goes beyond the basic ethics laws enacted after Watergate and creates uniformity around thorny issues like recusals and participation in political activities

https://fixthecourt.com/fix/code-of-ethics/

Assuming he isn't legally bound to comply -- which I do, because who is going to police the highest level of authority anyway? -- hopefully we can all agree that he's ethically bound to follow the Code and that he has failed to do so. His behavior is unethical even if it turns out to be legal.

He does not feel bound to follow the Constitution. Why would he feel bound to comply with an ethics code. Thomas and the other conservatives judges are easily influenced by money.

SCOTUS is a bunch of old, out of touch, unelected bureaucrats imposing law with their hands out groping for money. It is a relic from British royal court system. A new system is needed that reflect American values and ethics.