Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Yes there is. Do you really think a SCJ can fly under the radar? There are only a handful of lawyers from a small group of firms that specialize in the SCOTUS case. They make a lot and lots of money and have a files on each SCJ. I have seen the analysis of votes and associations(people, organizations, spouses, etc) for each justices. Thomas is the easiest to get if you know the right people. There is a dollar value assigned to Thomas. It’s the way some SCJ works. Guess what the analysis will never see the light of day because why f%$% up an easy vote.

.

Again, non-answer.

Thomas' actions here are simply indefensible. Whether they violate some specific statutes, some guidelines that theoretically the Justice as supposed to follow, or general common sense, Thomas is corrupt. Get real. The Justice are supposed to have the highest of ethics and be free of any actual or perceived conflict. Thomas several months ago pushed back on those challenging the Court. Those push backs were due to Thomas' own behavior. Integrity and respect are earned not simply given. Thomas simply has none. His lack of self awareness is simply amazing and frankly makes him a lousy lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Yes there is. Do you really think a SCJ can fly under the radar? There are only a handful of lawyers from a small group of firms that specialize in the SCOTUS case. They make a lot and lots of money and have a files on each SCJ. I have seen the analysis of votes and associations(people, organizations, spouses, etc) for each justices. Thomas is the easiest to get if you know the right people. There is a dollar value assigned to Thomas. It’s the way some SCJ works. Guess what the analysis will never see the light of day because why f%$% up an easy vote.

.

Again, non-answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Yes there is. Do you really think a SCJ can fly under the radar? There are only a handful of lawyers from a small group of firms that specialize in the SCOTUS case. They make a lot and lots of money and have a files on each SCJ. I have seen the analysis of votes and associations(people, organizations, spouses, etc) for each justices. Thomas is the easiest to get if you know the right people. There is a dollar value assigned to Thomas. It’s the way some SCJ works. Guess what the analysis will never see the light of day because why f%$% up an easy vote.

.

Again, non-answer.

How about this? It doesn’t really matter if he did or did not. What matters is perception. And the perception right now is that there is (at least) one justice available for purchase. Regardless of this is true, this taints the legitimacy of the court that Robert’s has not protected. We all hope that the legal system is our last hope, but as we are seeing quickly and brightly, that hope is eroding. This latest scandal is just adding fuel to the fire.

So no, maybe we don’t have exact proof of bribery, but the optics of this are pretty bad. Especially for a SC that already buried its image. We no long have faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Yes there is. Do you really think a SCJ can fly under the radar? There are only a handful of lawyers from a small group of firms that specialize in the SCOTUS case. They make a lot and lots of money and have a files on each SCJ. I have seen the analysis of votes and associations(people, organizations, spouses, etc) for each justices. Thomas is the easiest to get if you know the right people. There is a dollar value assigned to Thomas. It’s the way some SCJ works. Guess what the analysis will never see the light of day because why f%$% up an easy vote.

.

Again, non-answer.

How about this? It doesn’t really matter if he did or did not. What matters is perception. And the perception right now is that there is (at least) one justice available for purchase. Regardless of this is true, this taints the legitimacy of the court that Robert’s has not protected. We all hope that the legal system is our last hope, but as we are seeing quickly and brightly, that hope is eroding. This latest scandal is just adding fuel to the fire.

So no, maybe we don’t have exact proof of bribery, but the optics of this are pretty bad. Especially for a SC that already buried its image. We no long have faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Yes there is. Do you really think a SCJ can fly under the radar? There are only a handful of lawyers from a small group of firms that specialize in the SCOTUS case. They make a lot and lots of money and have a files on each SCJ. I have seen the analysis of votes and associations(people, organizations, spouses, etc) for each justices. Thomas is the easiest to get if you know the right people. There is a dollar value assigned to Thomas. It’s the way some SCJ works. Guess what the analysis will never see the light of day because why f%$% up an easy vote.

.

Again, non-answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Yes there is. Do you really think a SCJ can fly under the radar? There are only a handful of lawyers from a small group of firms that specialize in the SCOTUS case. They make a lot and lots of money and have a files on each SCJ. I have seen the analysis of votes and associations(people, organizations, spouses, etc) for each justices. Thomas is the easiest to get if you know the right people. There is a dollar value assigned to Thomas. It’s the way some SCJ works. Guess what the analysis will never see the light of day because why f%$% up an easy vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Read the thread, this has been covered. Crow is on the board of the American Enterprise Institute which files amicus briefs all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Can you point to the evidence? Did Crow have matters before the Court? Is there an appreciable difference between Thomas' rulings before and after he met Crow?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

We’ve done that on literally every other page of this thread and the linked article goes into detail about it. Read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's so much wrong with this:
So many gifts: travel gifts, non-travel gifts (like the Frederick Douglass Bible), honorary gifts (the library wing), gift to his wife's group (donation).....
And Harlen is a collector of Hitler and Nazi memorabilia - and he displays it - in his home. Not to mention he's got statues of modern baddies that were once toppled by citizens and moved (I saw the word 'smuggled' used) to his backyard.
Then there's the crazy wife who buys into conspiracy theories and the 'election was stolen' lie.

Clarence Thomas does not have the ethical conscience and morality required to sit on the Supreme Court. His closest friends and family aren't mere Republican supporters. They are extremists.

You do know that after WWII, lots of people displayed Nazi memorabilia as trophies of victory. It is not unusual for that to occur in wars. Japanese swords, hats, etc, were also trophies. It does not mean he admires Nazis. You are really grasping here.


Gee, and the horrors of donating money to libraries in poor communities. How awful!

I don’t think a signed copy of “Mein Kampf” counts as a “victory trophy”. What kind of person would buy something like that, let alone proudly display it in their home? Unbelievable.

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: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.

“Pitchforks”? “Pitchforks” implies we’re a bunch of toothless goons running up from the swamps who want to git someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. That’s not the case here. He accepted mega gifts from a billionaire and failed to report it. It calls into question every decision he’s ever made when he himself has shown that he can’t be trusted. And this on top of the fact that his wife helped plan the insurrection. There’s no way in the close, loving marriage they claim to have that he didn’t know exactly what his wife - who also took money from Crow - was doing. And that’s on top of the sexual harassment case before he was even confirmed.

Absolutely gutter expectations some of you have.

He does not have to report it. It's that simple. Stomping your feet and saying "but he should" is irrelevant. Other Justices have done the same thing (including RBG).

No one has done it at the scale or length of time that Justice Corrupt did. The Thomases have been living a lifestyle way above what they could honestly afford. RBG's husband was a highly successful lawyer for decades, and they is no comparison at all.

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: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.

“Pitchforks”? “Pitchforks” implies we’re a bunch of toothless goons running up from the swamps who want to git someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. That’s not the case here. He accepted mega gifts from a billionaire and failed to report it. It calls into question every decision he’s ever made when he himself has shown that he can’t be trusted. And this on top of the fact that his wife helped plan the insurrection. There’s no way in the close, loving marriage they claim to have that he didn’t know exactly what his wife - who also took money from Crow - was doing. And that’s on top of the sexual harassment case before he was even confirmed.

Absolutely gutter expectations some of you have.

He does not have to report it. It's that simple. Stomping your feet and saying "but he should" is irrelevant. Other Justices have done the same thing (including RBG).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This town is full of federal employees who can tell you that Thomas' excuses are complete BS. Stop covering for this crook.

Right? When I think about the hours and angst I spend a few months ago with my ethics officers to make sure that I was handling an outside activity properly - one that had *nothing* to do with my job... soooo frustrating....

Ok, and? This has zero to do with your job and what the standards are at that job. Please show us what he violated, specifically.

You can go back and see his votes. He took bribe for his vote. I guess you are saying a bribes are legal for conservative members of SCOTUS.