More evidence for the need of an ethics board to govern the SC.

Clarence Thomas has accepted undisclosed luxury trips from GOP megadonor for decades, report says

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted secret luxury trips from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow for more than two decades in apparent violation of a financial disclosure law, a ProPublica report revealed Thursday.

Thomas has vacationed on Crow’s 162-foot superyacht, flown on the real estate developer’s private jet and spent time at the GOP donor’s private resort and other exclusive retreats, ProPublica reported, citing documents and dozens of interviews.

Thomas, the 74-year-old conservative associate justice who has served on the nation’s highest court since 1991, has not reported the trips on his financial disclosures as required by law, the nonprofit newsroom reported.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/06/cla...r-harlan-crow-secret-luxury-trips-report.html

This is the last thing we need given the opinion polls already showing a lack of confidence in the SC. Between Thomas's refusal to recuse in cases of obvious conflict of interest, the political work Ginni does, her involvement in supporting the failed coup, and now this, something really needs to be done.

An oversight board would be a good start. Impeaching Thomas would go a long way to showing his behavior is unacceptable.

 

The most corrupt husband-wife team to ever pollute the United States Supreme Court.

 

It sounds like you should not accept hospitality from friends.

While in the Air Force, I stayed over night with some friends and they likely too us out to eat. Apparently, I should have reported those as gifts.

 

Sure. Just as soon as you amend the Constitution to create such a board.

 

LA doesn't seem to like the constitution.... It's an obvious failing. So for LA, does the constitutionally provided remedy not fulfill its function? LA, did you know that there was a process already? And if so, why launch this temper thread??

 

We rarely agree on anything so I'm glad to see that you recognize the need for an ethics board to review the actions of members of the SC. Because Clarence, and his nutbag wife, are taking advantage of the lack of accountability in egregious ways.

 

I didn't say I agree, because you're basically creating a fourth branch of government, which is the last thing we need. I'm simply pointing out that it should only be done by constitutional amendment.

 

Perhaps you are unaware that SC justices are exempt from this code of ethics applying to lower court judges. https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Can I assume you think that should be changed? You know, to avoid the appearance, if not the reality, that justices like Clarence are accepting gifts from conservatives in order to influence their votes.

 

Ridiculous. SC justices could simply be made to adhere to the same code of ethics lower court judges must adhere to. Surely you recognize the need for that in light of Clarence and Ginni's behavior, right?

 

Be made by who? Congress? The president? That violates the separation of powers. The only way you can have your so-called ethics board and guarantee it won't be struck down as unconstitutional by the, you know, Supreme Court, is to amend the Constitution.

 

The Supreme Court Needs an Ethics Code

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, resisted calls for an ethics code, insisting that the justices consult the code for lower-court judges to guide their conduct on and off the bench.

Two weeks ago, the House Judiciary Committee held its first hearing of the 116th Congress, focusing on the much-talked-about inaugural bill of the new session, H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2019.” A little-known but vitally important provision takes aim at the United States Supreme Court as one of our least-accountable institutions.

The bill would, for the first time, extend a code of conduct to the nine justices of our nation’s highest court. And although this provision is included in the Democrats’ landmark legislation of the new Congress—and in standalone legislation recently introduced in the House and Senate—it mirrors language from a Republican-sponsored proposal that the House Judiciary Committee passed last Congress. Ethics in government is not a partisan issue.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/02/the-supreme-court-needs-an-ethics-code

No constitutional amendment required.

 

BREAKING NEWS - CLARENCE THOMAS HAS A RICH FRIEND!!!

 

Your caviler dismissal of ethics violations is noted. I can't help wondering if your attitude would be different if George Soros was flying Judge Jackson to his resort in his private jet for some quality time together.

 

A problem with most self governing bodies and people willing to shirk or ignore the appearance of corrupt behavior. I'm sure there is likely a long history of this on SCOTUS but it likely was not reported on.

 

So, again, you are unaware of the current process? Yes?

 

Is it a secret you are keeping or do you care to share?

 

So, yes, you are unaware that at any time SCOTUS judges can be impeached, which is the constitutionally guaranteed process to remove someone from the court, which has been practiced and exercised at least once.

 

Gee, I thought you had something revelatory to add. What was I thinking?

Don't you think there needs to be a means to discipline justices short of impeachment? By a non-partisan entity. Because just as Repub congressmen were never going to impeach Trump despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, they are never going to undo McTreason's treacherous abuse of power giving conservatives control of the Court.

 

Progressive lawmakers renew call for impeachment of Justice Thomas
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...new-call-impeachment-justice-thomas-rcna78581

Given the cumulative nature of the offenses I don't think impeachment should be off the table.

 

What is unethical about it? Why would a Soros and Jackson flight be unethical? Is there anything you won't put in partisan wrappers?

 

If you don't understand the ethical violation of a SC justice accepting an expensive trip.......
The disclosure early Thursday renewed scrutiny of Justice Thomas, who has long faced questions over conflicts of interest in part because of the political activities of his wife, Virginia Thomas.

No formal code of conduct on the Supreme Court specifically bars the justice from taking the trips mentioned in ProPublica’s reporting. But under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, justices, like federal judges, must file a financial disclosure each year that lists gifts of more than $415 in avoidance of even an “appearance of impropriety.” The cost of one of the trips with Mr. Crow may have exceeded $500,000, according to ProPublica.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/06/us/politics/clarence-thomas-luxury-trips-ethics.html

..........without reporting it I can't help you.

 

Come on, you are a smart guy. You know EXACTLY that this violates ethics regulations (at least it would for normal judges, who are not sitting on the SC).

Even I, as a lowly university professor, am prohibited accepting any gift that could be viewed as paying for influence in excess of $70. Why would a SC judge be held to a different standard?

This is highly unethical behavior, and the right knows is, but, as usual, they circle the wagons and go into defense mode. In the meantime, the already very low credibility of the SC takes another hit.

 

OK, so make an ethics board then. I'm not sure what good that'll do. An ethics board, so far as I know, isn't unconstitutional. However, their powers would be extremely limited. I don't think they'll be able to do anything but issue press releases saying 'this is unethical' (but the press can already do that without an ethics board...). If you want such a board to have any actual powers of enforcement on the justices, those will likely require amending the constitution.

I spose we'll eventually need an ethics board to oversee the ethics board too, in case they start going on vacations with friends who have beefs with the SC.

 

After all this discussion, I am yet to see where these trips with a good friend influenced his decisions.

 

No. I do not. The term is lifetime. If there is a crime, they can and should be indicted. Do you assert they are not? The ethics of the person are reviewable by congress at anytime. Make your impeachment case, or move along. Your willingness to enjoin and extra constitutional remedy duly noted, but unless you intend to modify the constitution, no other source of remedy is available to you.