Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[wing2000]

Is it wrong to have a good personal friend who is wealthy?

No.

Are you to refuse the company of his friendship just because he is wealthy?

No

And how does that alter his interpretation of the Constitution and the Law of the land?
He is not a politician who can grant political favors.

And then there's the "business" of the family of the current president. . .

He most certainly is in a position to affect how laws are interpreted. He, nor any other person in his position of influence, should never create the appearance of impropriety.

 

[wing2000]

I'm thinking there is no law requiring his disclosure.

And if so, his critics are holier than the law.

Correct, there is no law. The USSC justices are assumed to be persons who understand basic ethics.

 

[ralliann]

Is it wrong to have a good personal friend who is wealthy?

Only if is politically expedient. This is the way of politics in America these days. And banana republics of course

Are you to refuse the company of his friendship just because he is wealthy?

And how does that alter his interpretation of the Constitution and the Law of the land?
He is not a politician who can grant political favors.

And then there's the "business" of the family of the current president. . .

But, current politics does not care about the doings of the current president, nor other political people which are expedient for their purposes. And they will gleefully applaud such innovations. They want what they want period.

 

[Say it aint so]

330.10 Gifts

"Except as indicated in Guide, Vol. 2D, § 210.30, each financial disclosure report must contain the identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts aggregating more than $415 in value that are received by the filer during the reporting period from any one source. For in-kind travel-related gifts, include travel locations, dates, and nature of expenses provided. "​

​

All he has to do is report them. I am now a retired union hourly worker in the manufacturing industry. We had to go over gift rules every year. The idea of Clarence Thomas as a SCOTUS judge based his knowledge of the rules from "some person from before told him" is pure comedy gold.

 

[ralliann]

No.


No



He most certainly is in a position to affect how laws are interpreted. He, nor any other person in his position of influence, should never create the appearance of impropriety.

This is rich. Our agencies of enforcing law have shamed themselves to no end, yet you are worried about how he interprets? When the others simply enforce law at will, or not at will.

 

[Fantine]

From your thoughts to God's ear hopefully, Velaut.

None of this is new. Thomas has not filed financial statements for years and years despite being required to by the Court. This was being discussed in liberal circles twenty years ago.

That, along with his wife Ginni heading a "think tank" (when I consider Ginni Thomas' views, it is hard for me to associate them with 'thought,' but her organization was called a "think tank") and holding expensive soirees for conservative businessmen promising them "access" to her husband and Justice Scalia.

So let's review:

• She got a job heading a think tank because she could provide "access" to two Supreme Court judges whom the businessmen could influence and persuade.
• She made several hundred thousand dollars a year on her job. (Years ago.)
• Her husband, the justice, enjoyed an enhanced lifestyle because her income was higher than his government income.

And all that was before we knew that he was taking $500,000 trips on private jets and yachts and going to expensive vacation clubs owned by his "friend."

Thomas said he had consulted with friends who said he didn't have to report the trips--but since his behavior has been negatively commented on for years, he should have known to file reports. He said today that the Senate has changed rules for Supreme Court justices and he will follow those rules in the future.

I hope the pressure for him to resign reaches a fever pitch, and I hope that every 5-4 decision in the past 20 years that is friendly to businesses his 'friend' owned is revisited by the new court. I also hope he recuses himself from such cases in the future.

 

[Clare73]

No.
No
He most certainly is in a position to affect how laws are interpreted. He, nor any other person in his position of influence, should never create the appearance of impropriety.

Interpretation is not a matter of opinion, it is legal fact.

Interpretation has to be supported by the text.

 

[Clare73]

330.10 Gifts

"Except as indicated in Guide, Vol. 2D, § 210.30, each financial disclosure report must contain the identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts aggregating more than $415 in value that are received by the filer during the reporting period from any one source. For in-kind travel-related gifts, include travel locations, dates, and nature of expenses provided. "​

​

All he has to do is report them. I am now a retired union hourly worker in the manufacturing industry. We had to go over gift rules every year. The idea of Clarence Thomas as a SCOTUS judge based his knowledge of the rules from "some person from before told him" is pure comedy gold.

What is indicated in Guide, Vol. 2D?

 

[Clare73]

From your thoughts to God's ear hopefully, Velaut.

None of this is new. Thomas has not filed financial statements for years and years despite being required to by the Court. This was being discussed in liberal circles twenty years ago.

That, along with his wife Ginni heading a "think tank" (when I consider Ginni Thomas' views, it is hard for me to associate them with 'thought,' but her organization was called a "think tank") and holding expensive soirees for conservative businessmen promising them "access" to her husband and Justice Scalia.

So let's review:

• She got a job heading a think tank because she could provide "access" to two Supreme Court judges whom the businessmen could influence and persuade.
• She made several hundred thousand dollars a year on her job. (Years ago.)
• Her husband, the justice, enjoyed an enhanced lifestyle because her income was higher than his government income.

And all that was before we knew that he was taking $500,000 trips on private jets and yachts and going to expensive vacation clubs owned by his "friend."

Thomas said he had consulted with friends who said he didn't have to report the trips--but since his behavior has been negatively commented on for years, he should have known to file reports. He said today that the Senate has changed rules for Supreme Court justices and he will follow those rules in the future.

So what law applying to him was he not following?

I hope the pressure for him to resign reaches a fever pitch, and I hope that every 5-4 decision in the past 20 years that is friendly to businesses his 'friend' owned is revisited by the new court. I also hope he recuses himself from such cases in the future.

 

[Fantine]

Well, Clare, I will, for the length of time it takes for me to write this, assume that you are right.

Until March 14, 2023. That's the date that all of the six figure trips and vacations "friends" offer Thomas must be reported.

I'm sure that you are as delighted as I am that in the future these gifts will no longer be disputed. If Thomas and Crow are really best buds, they can meet for lunch at Applebee's or have coffee at Starbucks where they can enjoy one another's company in a low-budget way, the way the rest of us do.

The new regulations now require that judges disclose non-business stays at resorts, the use of private jets and instances when a third party reimburses a host for costs associated with a visit.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/politics/judiciary-ethics/index.html

 

[Clare73]

Well, Clare, I will, for the length of time it takes for me to write this, assume that you are right.

Until March 14, 2023. That's the date that all of the six figure trips and vacations "friends" offer Thomas must be reported.

I'm sure that you are as delighted as I am that in the future these gifts will no longer be disputed. If Thomas and Crow are really best buds, they can meet for lunch at Applebee's or have coffee at Starbucks where they can enjoy one another's company in a low-budget way, the way the rest of us do.

Why do they have to do that, if it is not his friend's preference?

Thomas has simply to just report it.

The law exists to prevent corruption.
Has any corruption been proven regarding Thomas?

My sister is my good friend, we associate much in her environment, but she does not influence my mind in any matter of its consequential judgment. That is reserved to my own judgment.
The two can be separated by those with clear minds.. .as they were with Scalia and Ginsberg who were very good friends.

 

[Fantine]

If such lavishly expensive trips are received and reported, such gigantic line items will probably be looked into seriously, as well they should.

Not everyone is so willing to accept that these half a million dollar trips are just friendship, particularly when the justice in question is the one with the most ideologically extreme positions, so ideologically extreme that recently he was the sole dissenter in a case involving Trump.
Justices are supposed to avoid even the "appearance" of impropriety.

A Supreme Court justice makes about $300,000 a year. One annual trip worth $500K is $200,000 more than his annual salary. I'd like to have a 'friend' who expected nothing in return give me a gift worth 1.6 times my annual salary, wouldn't you?

So good it almost sounds like a fairy tale---which is what I believe it is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm thinking there is no law requiring his disclosure.

And if so, his critics are holier than the law.

Actually, there is some precedent for requiring disclosure.

Though rules governing SCOTUS gifts are not in statute, just 17 days after new gift rules for the political branches went into effect in 1991, Chief Justice William Rehnquist drafted a memo on behalf of himself and his colleagues saying they’d follow the same gift rules put in place for lower court judges.

Any gifts – whether flights, hotels, or physical presents – must be reported on their financial disclosures if the aggregate market value is above $415.

But of course, there are three major loopholes: (1) family gifts and (2) personal hospitality do not count as “gifts” that need to be reported. And for transportation, meals, lodging and physical gifts, (3) anything with a market value of $166 or less need not be aggregated for reporting purposes. Pages 35-36 of this PDF are helpful in explaining the rules with concrete examples.

So there are things that definitely should be getting disclosed, but aren't under the "personal hospitality" loophole.


And I think that it's a tad far-fetched that a billionaire decides to befriend a supreme court justice and take him on high end vacations, trips on luxury yachts, and putting him up in $2000/night accommodations for weekend retreats simply because the 2 magically struck up a friendship in 1992 a year after he was added to the supreme court and started donating large sums to Thomas's wife Ginni's political advocacy group.

Maybe Thomas is just really good at telling campfire stories at those weekend retreats?



Let's be honest here,
If it was uncovered that George Soros or Bill Gates was taking Ginsberg or Sotomayor on lavish undisclosed vacations and donating $500k sums to their spouses back in the day, it'd be all that Fox News would talk about for months on end.

 

[Clare73]

If such lavishly expensive trips are received and reported, such gigantic line items will probably be looked into seriously, as well they should.

Not everyone is so willing to accept that these half a million dollar trips are just friendship, particularly when the justice in question is the one with the most ideologically extreme positions, so ideologically extreme that recently he was the sole dissenter in a case involving Trump.
Justices are supposed to avoid even the "appearance" of impropriety.

Where is that law found for Supreme Court justices?

A Supreme Court justice makes about $300,000 a year. One annual trip worth $500K is $200,000 more than his annual salary. I'd like to have a 'friend' who expected nothing in return give me a gift worth 1.6 times my annual salary, wouldn't you?

Perhaps we all would. . .does that make the friendship immoral or illegal?

So good it almost sounds like a fairy tale---which is what I believe it is.

So the friend is not a billionaire after all?

Much ado about nothing?

 

[Fantine]

Do you or do you not agree that there is an "appearance" of impropriety?

If you don't agree there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
In any case, in the future, he will have to report such perks and I expect theSenate Ethics Committee will give them the vigorous and comprehensive investigation they deserve.

Or maybe Thomas will decide to retire to keep getting the goodies...I'd break into the Hallelujah Chorus. But we know that won't happen---because he knows his jetsetting lifestyle days will end when they won't be able to lobby him for anything in return.

 

[Clare73]

Actually, there is some precedent for requiring disclosure.

Precedent is not law.

Though rules governing SCOTUS gifts are not in statute, just 17 days after new gift rules for the political branches went into effect in 1991, Chief Justice William Rehnquist drafted a memo on behalf of himself and his colleagues saying they’d follow the same gift rules put in place for lower court judges.

Any gifts – whether flights, hotels, or physical presents – must be reported on their financial disclosures if the aggregate market value is above $415.

But of course, there are three major loopholes: (1) family gifts and (2) personal hospitality do not count as “gifts” that need to be reported. And for transportation, meals, lodging and physical gifts, (3) anything with a market value of $166 or less need not be aggregated for reporting purposes. Pages 35-36 of this PDF are helpful in explaining the rules with concrete examples.

So there are things that definitely should be getting disclosed, but aren't under the "personal hospitality" loophole.


And I think that it's a tad far-fetched that a billionaire decides to befriend a supreme court justice and take him on high end vacations, trips on luxury yachts, and putting him up in $2000/night accommodations for weekend retreats simply because the 2 magically struck up a friendship in 1992 a year after he was added to the supreme court and started donating large sums to Thomas's wife Ginni's political advocacy group.

Maybe Thomas is just really good at telling campfire stories at those weekend retreats?



Let's be honest here,
If it was uncovered that George Soros or Bill Gates was taking Ginsberg or Sotomayor on lavish undisclosed vacations and donating $500k sums to their spouses back in the day, it'd be all that Fox News would talk about for months on end.

Like the money from China to Hunter?

Don't judge everyone by Hunter.

 

[Pommer]

I would like if Clarence Thomas got a fair shake and isn’t forced off of the Court for these minor infractions of ethics rules.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's time for Congress to hold the USSC accountable for its apparent inability to hold justices accountable for their unethical behavior.

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.


For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

It appears Sen Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may call for hearings based:


“The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards. Today’s Pro Publica report reveals that Justice Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel on private yachts and jets and a litany of other gifts that he failed to disclose. This behavior is simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a Justice on the Supreme Court.

“Today’s report demonstrates, yet again, that Supreme Court Justices must be held to an enforceable code of conduct, just like every other federal judge. The Pro Publica report is a call to action, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act.”

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pr...xury-gifts-from-republican-megadonor[/URhood.

http://

http://

Absolutely disgusting. He's taking vacations? With a rich man? Doesn't he know he's not allowed friends or rides or uhhh...stuff?

I don't know what this violates, if it violates anything...as far as I know, he's not able to take anything that expensive...but he didn't receive a yacht, he received a yacht ride. That's a little tricky. He definitely wouldn't be able to give this person information on a ruling or a favorable ruling or something in exchange.

Let's be honest though....the idea this is coming from Congress is laughable. The Democrats refused to pass a bill that would have prevented insider trading because they are all dirty.

The head of various committee seats all get privileged information that they take advantage of. Pelosi might be the worst offender in modern history. Her drunk of a husband somehow averaged 90% returns year after year....by comparison Warren Buffett, one of the best investors in history of economics averages about 40% returns.

This is a problem, but entirely politically motivated, and unserious. If ending corruption was a real priority for the Democrats, they'd stop lying about wanting to raise minimum wage, telling you that the uneducated illegals are a net positive, and quit complaining about those tax loopholes for billionaires they never get around to closing.

This is a distraction.

 

[Ana the Ist]

330.10 Gifts

"Except as indicated in Guide, Vol. 2D, § 210.30, each financial disclosure report must contain the identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts aggregating more than $415 in value that are received by the filer during the reporting period from any one source. For in-kind travel-related gifts, include travel locations, dates, and nature of expenses provided. "​

​

All he has to do is report them. I am now a retired union hourly worker in the manufacturing industry. We had to go over gift rules every year. The idea of Clarence Thomas as a SCOTUS judge based his knowledge of the rules from "some person from before told him" is pure comedy gold.

Here's the thing though....

Does the guy own this stuff? If his billionaire friend owns the yacht....and isn't buying him a yacht ride....that might fall under hospitality.

Imagine being invited to a party on a big boat and for two days you sail down the coast having fun. It's your friend's boat. He was throwing the party regardless of if you went.

Is that a gift that you have to evaluate the price of? I'd guess not. I'm not certain though.

Get back to me whenever they figure out if Clarence gave his friend a favor in exchange....then find out if any ethics violation can be appealed up to the SCOTUS. I'll tell you how this turns out....

It's not like the Dems didn't already know about this. I'm not a big believer in coincidence so I'm guessing they want to distract people from Bragg’s indictment and the tanking economy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you or do you not agree that there is an "appearance" of impropriety?

If you don't agree there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
In any case, in the future, he will have to report such perks and I expect theSenate Ethics Committee will give them the vigorous and comprehensive investigation they deserve.

Is this a joke? What happens if he doesn't? You know that all these oversight and ethics committees were basically disempowered years ago....right?

Or maybe Thomas will decide to retire to keep getting the goodies...I'd break into the Hallelujah Chorus. But we know that won't happen---because he knows his jetsetting lifestyle days will end when they won't be able to lobby him for anything in return.

I don't think he's in it for the money.

He genuinely hates having to deal with people dumber than himself questioning his rulings. You should read his opinions. He makes Ginsburg sound like a dyslexic ambulance chaser. Did you hear him in the Affirmative Action cases? I'm paraphrasing here but it was hilarious...

"I keep hearing the word "diversity" so much I'm not sure what it means, can you give me a clear explanation in this context and what evidence you have for these benefits you claim it confers?"

He knows what they meant....he knows there's no evidence. He just cuts to the point.