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

Why is asking that Clarence not be allowed to indiscriminately violate ethics rules, not to mention laws, such a problem for you folks?

 

First time it's been a problem for you guys, ahem Clinton.

 

You may have missed the part where it said buyers were routinely not identified.

 

Further evidence that it's a false issue.

 

The Biden rule applied when the President and Senate majority were different parties. In the recent episode that was not the case. The only precedent was Harry Reid's elimination of the filibuster for judicial appointments.

 

Sorry to see you run from a simple citation of fact.
Does 28 US Code 455 apply to Supreme Court?

United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994)28 U.S.C. §455(a) requires recusal of a judge in any proceeding in which his impartiality may be questioned. The Supreme Court holds that matters arising out of the course of judicial proceedings – either in this case, or in a prior case – are not a proper basis for recusal.

Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge, 28 U.S.C. § 455

 

You do realize that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever?
Ta ta.

 

It only seems that way to you because Mitch turned the Dems own arguments back on them.

 

Senators hear testimony on Supreme Court ethics

Supreme Court ethics are front and center Tuesday as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony from a variety of witnesses ranging from judicial ethics experts to a former attorney general in the George W. Bush administration.

There is, however, no one representing the central players in the current drama over high court ethics — no member of the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts last week declined the committee's invitation to testify, citing "separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving Judicial independence." Rather, he released a short letter to that effect, accompanied by a joint statement from all nine current justices reaffirming, apparently for the first time publicly, their voluntary adherence to the code of conduct that applies to lower federal court judges.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/1173138576/supreme-court-ethics-hearing

Chief Justice John Roberts last week declined the committee's invitation to testify. Not surprising given his own conflict of interest.

 

Horseshyte. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/sep/21/context-there-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

 

After-the-fact lawyering. Biden said what he said. The fact that he later found his own remarks inconvenient means nothing. Dems were simply outsmarted by Mitch, using the Dems' own words.

 

The democrats do have a long history of figuratively lynching the opposition. -



Kangaroo committees, false accusations, leaks, - they still do it today.

 

I think what Justice Thomas and Gorsuch have done is unethical, but not necessarily illegal. We have tried to put into place a bill called The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, first in 2009, and the latest in 2017, both introduced by Senator Grassley, but all attempts died in Congress. This will be the best approach in which the office of inspector general wouild be established in the Supreme Court for a four-year term. The other approach is to make the federal judge code of ethics, codified 28 USC 455 should be applied to all federal judges including Supreme Court justices. If you read the code, it appears it may include the Supreme Court, but it is not clear enough, and there is enough wiggle room for Supreme Court justices to argue that the law does not apply to them under the separation of powers. Additionally, shore up the financial disclosure laws for Supreme Court justices in which they must report trips paid by other benefactors that must be reported no matter what if above $250.

A final option is for Chief Justice Roberts to take it upon himself and set a code of ethics within the Supreme Court. He can use the DOJ code of ethics as a guideline and have the Marshal of the Supreme Court act as its enforcer if any of the violations occur by any justice or employee of the Supreme Court. But this could cause a revolt among Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito on any and all cases they hear, which is not a good thing IMO.

 

Clarence Thomas Had A Child In Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.

In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided to send his teenage grandnephew to Hidden Lake Academy, a private boarding school in the foothills of northern Georgia. The boy, Mark Martin, was far from home. For the previous decade, he had lived with the justice and his wife in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was “raising him as a son.”

Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martin’s tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow. The payments extended beyond that month, according to Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school. Crow paid Martin’s tuition the entire time he was a student there, which was about a year, Grimwood told ProPublica.

“Harlan picked up the tab,” said Grimwood, who got to know Crow and the Thomases and had access to school financial information through his work as an administrator. Before and after his time at Hidden Lake, Martin attended a second boarding school, Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia. “Harlan said he was paying for the tuition at Randolph-Macon Academy as well,” Grimwood said, recalling a conversation he had with Crow during a visit to the billionaire’s Adirondacks estate.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...m_campaign=Backchannel No 96&utm_medium=email

We should all be so lucky as to have such a good friend............sitting on the bench of the SC.

 

I wonder if Harlan has any other friends, who are judges, that he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on to send their kids to private school, buy, fix up their mother's house, and allow their mothers to live in said house rent free, fly them around in his private jet, and take them on expensive vacations all over the world?

Probably not. Because if he did those judges would not be judges any longer for brazenly violating ethics rules.

 

GOP activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’ wife

(NewsNation) — A judicial activist directed tens of thousands of dollars be paid to the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for consulting work with “no mention” of her name, according to a new report from the Washington Post.

In January 2012, Leonard Leo instructed Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use the money to pay Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, according to documents reviewed by the Post. The nonprofit, Judicial Education Project, filed a brief in a landmark Supreme Court case that same year.

Leo told Conway he wanted her to “give” Thomas “another “$25K” and make sure the paperwork have “No mention of Ginni, of course,” according to the Post. In all, Conway’s polling firm paid Ginni Thomas’ consulting firm $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/gop-activist-fees-clarence-thomas-wife-ginni-thomas/

Repubs will follow the George Santos strategy. Refuse to acknowledge Santos' lies, refuse to do anything about his lies, refuse to call for him to resign, wait for the turmoil to blow over, thereby aiding and abetting the corruption.

 

Why should he resign?

 

Pro Publica takes aim at another senior Black office holder. Coincidence?

Opinion
The State
James Clyburn’s betrayal leaves all of us more cynical | Opinion

 

That's a major cop out and you know it. Moscow Mitch's actions were the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

 

Does the word "ethics" have any meaning at all to conservatives?

 

Nope. That was just Mitch making good on his warning to the Dems that they would regret their own expedient actions.

 

Does not answer my question.

 

There's a strong sense of irony when a poster on a forum, who makes racist posts akin to the garbage on Stormfront, complains about "ethics." The racially charged attacks on a black justice is solely because of his politics. They wouldn't make these racist positions against a black liberally appointed justice. This isn't about ethics. This is about attacking the institution of the Supreme Court because they made a couple of rulings the fascists dislike, and they fear future rulings. So they want to kick conservative justices off the court or allow a Democrat to nominate every justice. And this is their true motive behind starting over. Would they want to "flush" the Supreme Court with a Republican president? Of course they wouldn't.. because this has nothing to do with ethics. It's fascism through and through. And the reason he's currently so active on this forum is that he got kicked last month from another major political forum when he said he wanted to see a Republican Senator murdered and that he would celebrate it.

 

Yes the leftists are very color oriented, that is how come they call trump the orange man. I think the leftists get confused when they see a mixed race couple, not knowing if the couple is oppressed or privileged. It's not about individuals with leftists. They don't see individuals, not even in their own self, but only groups and a half white, half black group perplexes them. It's unidentifiable by the leftist's tribal nature.

 

The absolute apex of hypocrisy. He talks outta both sides of his face, like the accomplished liar that he is.