Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Clare73]

Which constitutional freedom is being denied by him having to report gifts?

If it is not a law, one is not governed by the requirement.

As far as "overreaching the law" goes, the Legislative Branch having the ability to regulate the Judiciary Branch causes difficulties with the separation of powers.

Did Congress not just make a law regarding that?

Ethical guidelines for lower courts are not laws either - there are no legal penalties (jail time, fines, etc) assessed for breaches.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He’s bought and paid for.

That's rather hard to believe....

After all, he's only got 1 vote in the opinion of a case. You could spend billions on him but it wouldn't guarantee anything. If he didn't do as the billionaire who fills his pockets (a hypothetical of course, as no such evidence has been put forth) what recourse does the billionaire have? Charge him with accepting bribes? The billionaire would be guilty of bribery lol....

Did you spend a few seconds thinking about this before you wrote it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wrong, check your dates.

First colleges began enacting AA policies in 1969....and Thomas got his first bachelor's degree in 1971.

These two facts alone plus a bare minimum of common sense means I don't even need to check and see if his colleges specifically had enacted AA policies in admissions to reject the claim he benefitted from them.

If you need me to explain how that works....just ask.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Given the events of the past week--and revelations over the past twenty years--believing he has the most integrity is delusional.

I swear I said he had more integrity than these supposed black friends of yours.

The idea that he's betraying black people.... suggests that he's supposed to use his power to discriminate in favor of black people....and is itself an ethical violation and reveals the hypocrisy of their viewpoint.

The Constitution is just a document to be manipulated.

Hopefully people like yourself can be kept from power.

And if you want to read the voting rights decisions look them up. Basically he said racism is no longer an issue so they are unnecessary.

If you want to quote him in context or give me the case you're referring to I'll look for myself.

Immediately after the decision, red states started suppressing votes particularly in large cities.
Hmm..

I'm certainly not going to take your word on this....

The current left wing standard regarding a problem in our electoral system is that the problem must be so big in scope....it can be shown to have altered election results....and if it can't, it's not worth bothering with.

Left wing claims of voter suppression are almost identical to right wing claims of voters fraud. Are they possibly happening? Sure. Is there enough evidence that they altered election outcomes? Not really.

 

[Larniavc]

Did you spend a few seconds thinking about this before you wrote it?

Did you spend a few seconds thinking about this after I wrote it?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If it is not a law, one is not governed by the requirement.

What does that have to do with constitutional protections?

Did Congress not just make a law regarding that?

Sort of - they passed a law creating a regulation. However, failure to follow those regulations does not incur any civil or legal penalties, so it's not a law in the same way that, say, the speed limit is.

And the problem truly arises when dealing with the Supreme Court, since they are the ultimate authority on the question of the constitutionality of laws. If Congress passes a law that regulates the Supreme Court and it's contested, then who hears the case? The Supreme Court would have an inherent conflict of interest, and lower courts wouldn't have the authority. That's why it's traditionally fallen upon the USSC to police itself and for them to follow standard legal codes of ethics despite not technically being bound by them.

 

[Whyayeman]

That's why it's traditionally fallen upon the USSC to police itself and for them to follow standard legal codes of ethics despite not technically being bound by them.

I think that has nailed it.

I think is absurd to suggest, as at least one contributor to this thread has, that the highest court in the land is not bound by the highest standards of public life.

 

[Velaut]

That's rather hard to believe....

After all, he's only got 1 vote in the opinion of a case. You could spend billions on him but it wouldn't guarantee anything. If he didn't do as the billionaire who fills his pockets (a hypothetical of course, as no such evidence has been put forth) what recourse does the billionaire have? Charge him with accepting bribes? The billionaire would be guilty of bribery lol....

Did you spend a few seconds thinking about this before you wrote it?

No recourse needed. The billionaire gets enough quality time with the justice to be able to influence. Doesn't need to be always exactly what he wants. I know i can't influence you in one post but if we spent enough time together i am sure you will end up leaning a little bit more to my side (and me towards you), more so if i had a yaught.

1 vote??
5 of the other justices are in his camp. They communicate. They are all allies.
The billionaire has not just access to 1 vote, he has access to 6.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you spend a few seconds thinking about this after I wrote it?

No....it's not obvious how one buys a SCOTUS judge....or what for.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

1 vote??
5 of the other justices are in his camp. They communicate. They are all allies.
The billionaire has not just access to 1 vote, he has access to 6.

Not to mention, with the number of 5-4 decisions in recent years, 1 vote is often all that's needed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No recourse needed. The billionaire gets enough quality time with the justice to be able to influence. Doesn't need to be always exactly what he wants. I know i can't influence you in one post but if we spent enough time together i am sure you will end up leaning a little bit more to my side (and me towards you), more so if i had a yaught.

1 vote??
5 of the other justices are in his camp.

No, they aren't in a camp.

If you're under the impression that they always vote along conservative or liberal lines...they don't.

They communicate. They are all allies.

Allies? I'm betting you don't know how the SCOTUS works.

The billionaire has not just access to 1 vote, he has access to 6.

Liberal Supreme Court justices vote in lockstep, not the conservative justices

Over the past several sessions, Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted in unison more than their Republican counterparts.

www.usatoday.com

Conservative judges tend to vote along with liberal judges more than liberal judges vote along with conservative judges.

There goes that theory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that has nailed it.

I think is absurd to suggest, as at least one contributor to this thread has, that the highest court in the land is not bound by the highest standards of public life.

What is absurd to suggest....is that anyone here actually cares about corruption or ethical violations.

 

[Larniavc]

No....it's not obvious how one buys a SCOTUS judge....or what for.

Lavish gifts over many years should do it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lavish gifts over many years should do it.

Thomas has already answered the accusations by claiming they were personal hospitality.

There's a difference between your friend buying you an Uber ride....and your friend picking you up in their car.

 

[Clare73]

Whataboutism is inherently dishonest.

Love it! ! !

 

[Ana the Ist]

Love it! ! !

Seriously....it's something they knew about for 20 years. Nobody here even wonders why it's being mentioned now.

 

[Whyayeman]

Thomas has already answered the accusations by claiming they were personal hospitality.

There's a difference between your friend buying you an Uber ride....and your friend picking you up in their car.

For public officials there's a difference between declaring and not declaring personal gifts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For public officials there's a difference between declaring and not declaring personal gifts.

And do you know these fall under gifts?

 

[Whyayeman]

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.

And do you know these fall under gifts?

Of course Thomas did not pay for these freebies. The issue is not that Thomas enjoyed these gifts. It is that ethically he should have declared them promptly and that his reputation as a supreme court judge is tarnished by his failure to declare.

This is not difficult.

 

[Postvieww]

There is a whole lot of righteous indignation going on with this thread. Liberals clamoring for the rule of law and and enforcement of ethics rules, but the real motive here is get Thomas he is a conservative and is in the way of the holy “unholy “ agenda. This is the same spirit as the get Trump crowd. Has anyone done a study on how many times each side on the court vote in lock step with each other. I admit I don’t have the numbers but my money says the so called “conservative” side has one who will break from the “ conservative “ pack on a decision far more than the “ liberal “ side. This is not about ethics, rules or law it is about getting control of the Supreme court so the liberal agendas that can’t get passed into law can get a little support from the court. Was I too blunt here?