SCOTUS - US Supreme Court (and other court stuff)

Justice Thomas says he didn't have to disclose luxury trips

An expensive bottle of single malt whisky is a gift from a friend.

A trip worth more than
(what figure would you consider fair?)
constitutes influence purchasing.

Let's say $25K per year x 31 years = $750,025.00.
Which could easily be $1,550,000.
Etc.

 

Oh, he had to disclose them.
The rules say that.
He could take them all he wanted and nobody could say a damn thing about it.
But he has to disclose it.
That is a major problem with Supreme Court Ethics Rules but he couldn't even stick to those.

 

Dead horse beating alert!!

I have no faith in any of our government agencies doing what they are required to do by law.

A legal demonstration being illegally removed by force by law enforcement to make good optics for a staged photo-op for NPD Trump.

Warnings of violence at the Capitol Building ignored because the presence of too many armed troops would make for bad optics. But no such concern for the Black Lives Matter rally.

The Secret Service deleting communication records from Jan 05 & 06.

The DOJ being affected by political appointments (do not sing Barr's praises) .

Our judicial system compromised by the appointment of judges willing to impose their personal views rather than follow the law.

Political parties -- currently the Republicans -- willing to tolerate and support any despicable activities in order to achieve & maintain power. Along with the Us vs Them No Compromises posturing.

I'll stop now. I don't want to lose my lunch.

 

I'm assuming Clarence Thomas is literate and of above average intelligence. Where did he go to law school? Did he miss or flunk the classes on ethics?

Clarence Thomas Didn’t Disclose Harlan Crow Real Estate Deal — ProPublica

See the details about the improvements made to Thomas' mother's house after Crow purchased if.

Even if this, and the previous "reporting oversights," were truly only part of a close friendship, they should've been reported. Thomas knew this when he intentionally broke the rules.

The big question is what can be done to him now?

What can be done to take serious action against SCOTUS justices in the future? Would such an effort fall into the political black hole of committees, investigations, reports, & recommendations that go nowhere?

Will SCOTUS put up a Black Robe Shield? The same way politicians protect themselves from effective campaign finance laws? The same way LEOs cover for each other even when the evidence against "one of their own" is overwhelming? I'm guessing yes.

 

He can be impeached, it's been done in the past, but not for a very long time.
The man is a complete scumbag and doesn't deserve the job but as to anyone having the guts to actually removing him...
The Dems will be too afraid of looking like racists and the Repubs going after one of theirs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges#:~:text=If a majority of the,thirds vote in the Senate.

The SCOTUS info is way down in the article.


Opinion | How to Impeach a Supreme Court Justice

Again the info regarding the process is further in the article. Interesting that Nixon had Ford look into removing a liberal justice, but ultimately no action was action. The Democrats voted along party lines to take no action (that sounds very familiar).

 

Our founders clearly expected men of honor with integrity to do the right thing, even if it meant personal and/or political sacrifice. Even if a man didn't necessarily want to, he would have enough pride to be shamed into doing the right thing.

If NPD Trump did nothing else, he certainly exposed the flaws in our system of balance of powers and the self-policing that makes the system work.

 

More proof that Clarence Thomas likes to play fast & loose with ethics.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...real-estate-disclosure-inaccurate-1234715890/

Keep in the family, baby.

 

Congress Minutes: Essential news and analysis from Apr 10, 2023

A bunch of noise that will die down once the general public seeks fresher news?

Will John Roberts take any action? If so, will it have teeth, or will merely be some kind of notation in the official record?

At Thomas' age it's not like a black mark on his record is going to hurt his career. I'm sure he'd get a book deal, & some sizeable speaker fees because of his increased reputation as a radical right anus.

 

"...power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
--Lord Acton

 

Don't worry about that stench turning your stomach, we're just fine, there's nothing here to concern you.
-- Chief Justice John Roberts, The Supreme Court of the United States

Refusal by Roberts to Testify Over Supreme Court Ethics Scandals Called 'Untenable'

Supreme Court on ethics issues: Not broken, no fix needed

The Black Robe is in place.
All nine justices signed the letter.
Roberts refuses to meet with Senate Judiciary Committee.


There's nothing here to concern you.

 

So Crow paid the tuition at at least two private schools for Thomas' adopted son.*

The exact amount is (was?) unknown, but it wasn't disclosed by Thomas. His pattern of intentionally violating the financial disclosure rules is now even more obvious.

Also obvious: The SC isn't going to do shit about it.

*A laughable explanation for the payments: Crow wanted to help an underprivileged kid. This "underprivelaged" kid was being raised in a household that is most definitely UMC, probably even wealthy.

 

This' beyond ridiculous.

Opinion | Clarence Thomas must resign — or be impeached

This needs to be in the hands of the DOJ.
Not the SC.
Not the Legislative branch.
Whatever needs to be done to make this happen.



View: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/05/05/ginni-thomas-payments-leonard-leo-wapo-nc-vpx.cnn


Edit: The Washinton Post is hitting me with a paywall.


This has been going on for a long time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gin..._e6VVZKXhDsTa9AOSrYXYDw_42:1084.5714111328125

 

Legal Eagle did a very comprehensive piece on Clarence Thomas' corruption.

 

The whole thing on the conservative side of the court is amazing how they pretend ignorance to their own privilege and access to advantage and power to amp up their own personal gain in the machine of the justice department.
I used to think maybe Roberts had some sense of integrity but seeing how his wife plays groomer for huge law firms who work in the SCOTUS frequently and makes mega bank off that access and influence....they all have deep sub zero integrity in my pov.
Damn, those were long sentences.

 

Don't be fooled by the title, the article is an attack on the SC for its positions on the 2nd Admendment.

Thank Clarence Thomas for our gun madness

I find it interesting that the conservative courts are viewing the very brief 2A through a very tight lense. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers didn't write a lengthy 2A because they knew interpretations would be needed, & trying to cover every possible scenario was impossible.

I'm also sure our founding fathers had no idea what kind of firearms would be developed over the centuries, and how some people would form such a protective attitude towards gun ownership.

An in-depth 2A discussion would require its own thread.

 

Old news that slipped by me.

Harlan Crow Refuses Senate Request in Justice Thomas Inquiry

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Crow isn't going to turn over anything without subpoenas and/or court orders (of course followed by all the motions to quash, alter, delay, etc).