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

Seems like a pattern of concealment about Clarence's financial ties to Crow he kept from the public. Like the expensive vacations he took that were paid for by Crow. And his wife's $700K compensation she received working for conservative causes. And his mom living rent free, saving her $175K. Must be nice to have such a benefactor and feel no obligation to report the benefits.......which is illegal.

 

Oops! Team Thomas Offers Baffling Explano For Ethics Lapse

First off, the side-swipe blaming of aides is super classy. Points for throwing underlings under the bus.

Second, which is it: an “oversight” or a deliberate decision not to disclose because he didn’t think he had to? Those aren’t usually the same thing. An oversight is when you mistakenly fail to include something you knew you should include and maybe even intended to include but missed it somehow. Not disclosing something on purpose is a different ball of wax. The generous read might be that the “oversight” was misinterpreting the disclosure rules and requirements. But that’s not really an oversight. That’s just flat out getting it wrong.

We learned quite a bit more of interest from the “source.” I’m going to use CNN’s exact language to begin with:

• “As a part of the negotiated sale price, [Thomas’ mother], who was 85 at the time of the deal, was given an occupancy agreement to be able to live in the home for the rest of her life, the source said.”
• “She lives rent free but is responsible for paying the property taxes and insurance.”
• “Thomas and his wife put $50,000 to $70,000 into his mother’s home in capital improvements, and once the sale was completed, Thomas’ proceeds were $44,000, according to the source. Because there was no gain, Thomas thought there was no need to report, the source said.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/clarence-thomas-amend-financial-disclosure-harlan-crow

The Sgt. Shultz "I see nothing" defense of Thomas is getting downright Trumpian in nature.

 

Except it's not.

 

Even if this isn't against the rules, it's not kosher. Thomas is aware that this individual is heavily involved in fundraising and lobbying. Selling his property to this man who, in turn, lets his mother live there rent-free goes against the principles I stand for within our judicial system. At the very least it introduces a negative appearance of impropriety and that is something that should not happen with a Supreme Court justice. He's good friends with the man, and he and their families went on luxurious vacations together.. Okay, he has rich friends. Maybe, it's okay? I would disagree for the same reason here, but let's set that aside. He is now doing land deals and caring for his family through this relationship. I have a problem with that. Even if I agree with a lot of his rulings, I highly disagree with this conduct.

And, I understand that these forms have specific requirements for reporting specific things. And, it doesn't make sense to include a lot of things that don't neatly fit into the parameters. But, it's for that reason that he should not engage in the behavior. Once you become a Supreme Court Justice your life changes and your personal/professional life must be completely above reproach. Nobody who has a case before the Supreme Court should be wondering if a justice on the court is going to be influenced based on the lobbying of a man who lets his mother live on his property for free. Even if Thomas doesn't allow this to influence his rulings, the person with the case in front of the court has no way of knowing whether or not it does. For those reasons, I vehemently disagree with this conduct.

 

Clarence Thomas Broke the Law and It Isn’t Even Close
It probably won’t matter. But it should.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/clarence-thomas-broke-the-law-harlan-crow.html

I'm aware it certainly doesn't matter to you. BTW, can I assume you believe Clarence when he says he and his wife......his self-professed soulmate.........never discuss the political issues she advocates (and is paid well) for?

We will doubtless spend a few news cycles expressing outrage that Harlan Crow has spent millions of dollars lavishing the Thomases with lux vacations and high-end travel and barely pretended to separate business and pleasure, giving half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas in 2011 (which funded her own $120,000 salary). But because the justices are left to police themselves and opt not to do so, we will turn to other matters in due time. Before the outrage dries up, however, it is worth zeroing in on two aspects of the ProPublica report that do have lasting legal implications. First, the same people who benefited from the lax status quo continue to fight against any meaningful reforms that might curb the justices’ gravy train. Second, the rules governing Thomas’ conduct over these years, while terribly insufficient, actually did require him to disclose at least some of these extravagant gifts. The fact that he ignored the rules anyway illustrates just how difficult it will be to force the justices to obey the law: Without the strong threat of enforcement, a putative public servant like Thomas will thumb his nose at the law.

 

Each of us is an individual before the law.

 

Quite simple.

 

Without the strong threat of enforcement, a putative public servant like Thomas will thumb his nose at the law.

 

Thomas has not thumbed his nose at the law.

 

In all likelihood this will go the way of George Santos. Meaning, Repubs will refuse to acknowledge the problem, refuse to participate in rectifying it, and let time pass until outrage turns to apathy. Leaving another festering blight on democracy unaddressed. With all the practice they've had they're getting good at it.

 

There's no problem to acknowledge. Dems would really like to reduce the conservative majority on the SCOTUS while they control the Senate and WH. That's all that's happening.

 

You sound exactly like those who dismiss the Dominion lawsuit as nothing but a money grab. Conveniently forgetting the lies told by Faux.

 

Durbin Invites John Roberts To Sen Ethics Hearing In Wake Of Dem Calls To Impeach Thomas

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL) has invited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts—or any other justice he designates—to testify at an upcoming committee hearing on ethics reform, in the wake of recent revelations about a billionaire GOP mega-donor’s friendship with one of his colleagues.

The Illinois Democrat sent Roberts a letter on Thursday requesting his appearance at a hearing set for May 2. “The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s ethical standards,” he wrote.

In the letter, Durbin points out that there’s precedent for a sitting justice to speak before a Senate panel: Former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer testified before the Judiciary Committee about the high court’s ethical standards in the fall of 2011.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...earing-in-wake-of-dem-calls-to-impeach-thomas

Hopefully something will be done to stop ethical violations like Clarence's.

 

Amen. His refusal to recuse himself when his personal interests are CLEARLY on the line is proof positive that he needs to be removed.

He's ruled on cases concerning his wife's attempts to defeat our democarcy.

He's ruled on cases what would affect his wife's income in her positions in communications.

His political statements in his rulings show NO ability to stick to a ruling based on the constitution.

This guy has NO boundaries.

And, the court has given HIM the representation of the majority opinion.

This court is FABULOUSLY partisan. There is NO reason to trust its rulings as more than coming from the GOP.

 

Fox got what they deserved. Some of us don't calibrate our positions by party alignment.

 

I agree with that.

However, there are other such lawsuits in the works. Plus, it's not like Fox has been friendly to the truth.

I think the question is whether it is advisable to listen to the fox.

 

The question being will Thomas get what HE deserves? I'm convinced he won't. Given that likely reality, I hope mechanisms can be put in place to prevent further abuses.

 

The tale will be told in court.

 

As far as I'm concerned, he deserves to continue his distinguished service on the SCOTUS until he decides to retire.

 

Maybe.

But, we're supposed to be smart enough to see what Fox is doing all across its programming.

There are plenty of sources on all sides of topics.

 

I don't watch Fox so I don't care.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...e-of-news-defamation-suit-mcdougal-trump.html

Judge Rules Tucker Carlson Is Not a Credible Source of News
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...e-of-news-defamation-suit-mcdougal-trump.html

 

Are you surprised?

 

Absolutely not.

It's been a long time (if ever) since Carlson has been interested in truthful reporting.

I do watch Fox, as I'm interested what the radical right is talking about.

And, a LOT of the radical right just flat out loves Carlson!

 

So what?