Anonymous
04/20/2023 17:11
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
There is precendent: Abe Fortas was forced to resign by then Chief Justice Earl Warren for very similar reasons. Too bad Roberts lacks the cojones to do the same.
Anonymous
04/20/2023 17:03
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So either he’s unfit because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid he doesn’t even know how to read.
It’s worse. With all he has going on financially, he needs an accountant and tax attorney/ attorney who specializes in this. Dude is on SCOTUS. This isn’t some shocker to him. He’s unfit either because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid that after multiple problems with his disclosure forms, he’s a lawyer who hasn’t hired an accountant/lawyer. Even Trump used an accounting firm (Mazars). That’s what puzzles me. Hire a good lawyer. Have them do your taxes and draft these forms for you to review. He’s getting millions in passive income. He can afford a law firm. Who does his taxes and do they have the same mistakes?
This goes beyond “I’m too important to be bothered to do the form right”. It’s “I’m too important to be bothered to hire someone to do this silly little form for me. (After the third time there has been a public scandal because I did it wrong”.
John Roberts bears responsibility to. I’ve clerked. Our Court took these seriously, top to bottom. The Court keeps saying it can self regulate. But there are no sanctions, starting with a public statement from the Court, for blowing them off.
Roberts can't do anything because Thomas can't be removed absent impeachment (which republicans would never support). Rules only matter when you have the power to enforce them
Roberts could bring pressure to bear to get Thomas to resign and leave the court with a shred of dignity, but he’s not going to. Roberts puts a well behaved gloss on things, but he’s as big a fascist as the rest of the regressive justices. He participated in the Brooks Brothers riot, same as Amy and Bretty.
I'm not sure what the rules of the court might allow - could Roberts (or a court majority) avoid assigning him any opinions, refuse to allow him to ask questions during oral argument (not much of a penalty!), not publish his dissents, not allow him to vote on cases?
You can't pull his vote- that's the whole life time tenure thing. Roberts could refuse to assign him opinions, but he can concur or dissent and other judges are free to join his concurrences which could give you an awkward situation where the opinion has 1 vote, the concurrence has 5 justices joining it and the dissent has 3.
Life tenure doesn't mean you have a lifetime vote. For example, on the circuit courts, judges on senior status don't get to vote on en banc appeals.
Judges choose to take senior judge status. Thomas would never choose to not vote
It can actually be forced too. That process is going on right now with Judge Newman on the Federal Circuit.
+1 thank you for bringing this up.
The supreme court isn't subject to that law
Anonymous
04/20/2023 16:55
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
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:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.
You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.
And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.
What a cop out...
Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.
Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.
Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.
+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.
Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.
That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.
Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.
The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.
And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.
What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.
I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.
It took you 25 pages
All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.
Lol sure.
Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?
There has been no proof just reporting. From the beginning of this thread you have been saying he broke no law. Multiple posters have said as a federal judge it in against the law to take bribes. You ignore those posters.
What was the bribe?
Gaslighting at its finest.
A bribe works two ways. What did Crow get?
Only Citizens United, the ruling that made endless bribery forever A-OK and is destroying our democracy. No biggie.
“[Thomas] emphasized that the friend in question “did not have business before the court”. But a close look at Thomas’s judicial activities from the time he became friends with Crow, in the mid-1990s, suggests that the statement might fall short of the full picture. It reveals that a conservative organization affiliated with Crow did have business before the supreme court while Thomas was on the bench.
In addition, Crow has been connected to several groups that over the years have lobbied the supreme court through so-called “amicus briefs” that provide legal arguments supporting a plaintiff or defendant.
In 2003, the anti-tax group the Club for Growth joined other rightwing individuals and organisations, including the Republican senator Mitch McConnell and the National Rifle Association (NRA), in attempting to push back campaign finance restrictions on election spending.
At the time of the legal challenge, from at least 2001 to 2004, Crow was a member of the Club for Growth’s prestigious “founders committee”. Though little is known about the role of the committee, it clearly commanded some influence over the group’s policymaking.
During the course of a 2005 investigation into likely campaign finance violations by the Club for Growth, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) noted that rank-and-file club members could “vote on an annual policy question selected by the founders committee”.
Crow has also been a major donor to the club, contributing $275,000 to its coffers in 2004 and a further $150,000 two years later.
The 2003 legal challenge championed by the Club for Growth targeted the McCain-Feingold Act, which had been passed with cross-aisle backing the previous year. The legislation placed new controls on the amount of “soft money” political party committees and corporations could spend on elections.
On appeal, a consolidated version of the lawsuit, Mitch McConnell v FEC, was taken up by the supreme court. In a majority ruling, the court allowed the most important elements of the McCain-Feingold Act to stand (though they were later nullified by the supreme court’s contentious 2010 Citizens United ruling).
Thomas was livid. He issued a 25-page dissenting opinion that sided heavily with the anti-regulation stance taken by the Club for Growth and its rightwing allies. Thomas began his opinion by breathlessly accusing his fellow justices of upholding “what can only be described as the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the civil war”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/20/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-harlan-crow-luxury-gifts
Anonymous
04/20/2023 08:42
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So either he’s unfit because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid he doesn’t even know how to read.
It’s worse. With all he has going on financially, he needs an accountant and tax attorney/ attorney who specializes in this. Dude is on SCOTUS. This isn’t some shocker to him. He’s unfit either because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid that after multiple problems with his disclosure forms, he’s a lawyer who hasn’t hired an accountant/lawyer. Even Trump used an accounting firm (Mazars). That’s what puzzles me. Hire a good lawyer. Have them do your taxes and draft these forms for you to review. He’s getting millions in passive income. He can afford a law firm. Who does his taxes and do they have the same mistakes?
This goes beyond “I’m too important to be bothered to do the form right”. It’s “I’m too important to be bothered to hire someone to do this silly little form for me. (After the third time there has been a public scandal because I did it wrong”.
John Roberts bears responsibility to. I’ve clerked. Our Court took these seriously, top to bottom. The Court keeps saying it can self regulate. But there are no sanctions, starting with a public statement from the Court, for blowing them off.
Roberts can't do anything because Thomas can't be removed absent impeachment (which republicans would never support). Rules only matter when you have the power to enforce them
Roberts could bring pressure to bear to get Thomas to resign and leave the court with a shred of dignity, but he’s not going to. Roberts puts a well behaved gloss on things, but he’s as big a fascist as the rest of the regressive justices. He participated in the Brooks Brothers riot, same as Amy and Bretty.
I'm not sure what the rules of the court might allow - could Roberts (or a court majority) avoid assigning him any opinions, refuse to allow him to ask questions during oral argument (not much of a penalty!), not publish his dissents, not allow him to vote on cases?
You can't pull his vote- that's the whole life time tenure thing. Roberts could refuse to assign him opinions, but he can concur or dissent and other judges are free to join his concurrences which could give you an awkward situation where the opinion has 1 vote, the concurrence has 5 justices joining it and the dissent has 3.
Life tenure doesn't mean you have a lifetime vote. For example, on the circuit courts, judges on senior status don't get to vote on en banc appeals.
Judges choose to take senior judge status. Thomas would never choose to not vote
It can actually be forced too. That process is going on right now with Judge Newman on the Federal Circuit.
+1 thank you for bringing this up.
Anonymous
04/20/2023 07:22
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Anonymous wrote:Wash DC pizza chain "&pizza" announced in an email to customers that, from now until Friday ... "every pie is on sale, just like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
https://twitter.com/OurShallowState/status/1648831980900061184
Anonymous
04/20/2023 02:49
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wash DC pizza chain "&pizza" announced in an email to customers that, from now until Friday ... "every pie is on sale, just like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
https://twitter.com/OurShallowState/status/1648831980900061184
Their pizza sucks.
And Thomas doesn’t?
Anonymous
04/19/2023 20:44
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wash DC pizza chain "&pizza" announced in an email to customers that, from now until Friday ... "every pie is on sale, just like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
https://twitter.com/OurShallowState/status/1648831980900061184
Their pizza sucks.
Also just like Clarence Thomas!
Anonymous
04/19/2023 20:01
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Anonymous wrote:Wash DC pizza chain "&pizza" announced in an email to customers that, from now until Friday ... "every pie is on sale, just like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
https://twitter.com/OurShallowState/status/1648831980900061184
Their pizza sucks.
Anonymous
04/19/2023 19:51
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Wash DC pizza chain "&pizza" announced in an email to customers that, from now until Friday ... "every pie is on sale, just like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
https://twitter.com/OurShallowState/status/1648831980900061184
https://twitter.com/OurShallowState/status/1648831980900061184
Anonymous
04/19/2023 17:43
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So either he’s unfit because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid he doesn’t even know how to read.
It’s worse. With all he has going on financially, he needs an accountant and tax attorney/ attorney who specializes in this. Dude is on SCOTUS. This isn’t some shocker to him. He’s unfit either because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid that after multiple problems with his disclosure forms, he’s a lawyer who hasn’t hired an accountant/lawyer. Even Trump used an accounting firm (Mazars). That’s what puzzles me. Hire a good lawyer. Have them do your taxes and draft these forms for you to review. He’s getting millions in passive income. He can afford a law firm. Who does his taxes and do they have the same mistakes?
This goes beyond “I’m too important to be bothered to do the form right”. It’s “I’m too important to be bothered to hire someone to do this silly little form for me. (After the third time there has been a public scandal because I did it wrong”.
John Roberts bears responsibility to. I’ve clerked. Our Court took these seriously, top to bottom. The Court keeps saying it can self regulate. But there are no sanctions, starting with a public statement from the Court, for blowing them off.
So you want the SCOTUS justices to start engaging in PR battles and public pissing contests?
You sure you've clerked?
Yep. And everyone in our chambers, from clerks to Judge to Admin staff was under tight ethical guidelines and was greater restricted Hatch Act. We could be fired (and maybe prosecuted) for violating them. It worked fine for us plebe at the Dictrict Court. It would work fine for SCOTUS.
Key words. There are levels to this.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
04/19/2023 13:48
Subject: No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
So either he’s unfit because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid he doesn’t even know how to read.
It’s worse. With all he has going on financially, he needs an accountant and tax attorney/ attorney who specializes in this. Dude is on SCOTUS. This isn’t some shocker to him. He’s unfit either because he’s a criminal or because he’s so stupid that after multiple problems with his disclosure forms, he’s a lawyer who hasn’t hired an accountant/lawyer. Even Trump used an accounting firm (Mazars). That’s what puzzles me. Hire a good lawyer. Have them do your taxes and draft these forms for you to review. He’s getting millions in passive income. He can afford a law firm. Who does his taxes and do they have the same mistakes?
This goes beyond “I’m too important to be bothered to do the form right”. It’s “I’m too important to be bothered to hire someone to do this silly little form for me. (After the third time there has been a public scandal because I did it wrong”.
John Roberts bears responsibility to. I’ve clerked. Our Court took these seriously, top to bottom. The Court keeps saying it can self regulate. But there are no sanctions, starting with a public statement from the Court, for blowing them off.
Roberts can't do anything because Thomas can't be removed absent impeachment (which republicans would never support). Rules only matter when you have the power to enforce them
Roberts could bring pressure to bear to get Thomas to resign and leave the court with a shred of dignity, but he’s not going to. Roberts puts a well behaved gloss on things, but he’s as big a fascist as the rest of the regressive justices. He participated in the Brooks Brothers riot, same as Amy and Bretty.
I'm not sure what the rules of the court might allow - could Roberts (or a court majority) avoid assigning him any opinions, refuse to allow him to ask questions during oral argument (not much of a penalty!), not publish his dissents, not allow him to vote on cases?
You can't pull his vote- that's the whole life time tenure thing. Roberts could refuse to assign him opinions, but he can concur or dissent and other judges are free to join his concurrences which could give you an awkward situation where the opinion has 1 vote, the concurrence has 5 justices joining it and the dissent has 3.
Life tenure doesn't mean you have a lifetime vote. For example, on the circuit courts, judges on senior status don't get to vote on en banc appeals.
Judges choose to take senior judge status. Thomas would never choose to not vote
It can actually be forced too. That process is going on right now with Judge Newman on the Federal Circuit.