Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[wing2000]

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?

Not blunt. Simply speculative and in my case, wrong. The lead sentence is:
It's time for Congress to hold the USSC accountable for its apparent inability to hold justices accountable for their unethical behavior.

 

[Postvieww]

Not blunt. Simply speculative and in my case, wrong. The lead sentence is:
It's time for Congress to hold the USSC accountable for its apparent inability to hold justices accountable for their unethical behavior.

If we are going to fairly administer justice in Washington we might have to hold special elections to fill a lot of positions. No this is not about Thomas and what is right this is about getting the conservative out of the way no matter how one tries to spin it.

 

[Clare73]

Not blunt. Simply speculative and in my case, wrong. The lead sentence is:
It's time for Congress to hold the USSC accountable for its apparent inability to hold justices accountable for their unethical behavior.

And the separation of powers in the Constitution?

 

[Postvieww]

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

If there is no cry to hold the current resident accountable why all the fuss about a Supreme Court justice? I must be right, it is about getting the conservative out of the way.

 

[Whyayeman]

This is not about ethics, rules or law

this is not about Thomas and what is right

I must be right, it is about getting the conservative out of the way.

For me it is a question of ethics. Clarence Thomas's position is that he failed for many years to tell the people that he took expensive gifts of hospitality from a prominent Republican. He is compromised.

I have no interest in your Supreme Court. I am not a Democrat.

(Constant repetition does not strengthen your position.)

 

[SimplyMe]

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.

You know this how? In my case, though I'm not a liberal, I've consistently stated that we need to hold Supreme Court Judges to the same ethical standard that other Federal judges are required to follow. I don't care which Supreme Justice we are talking about.

This is the same spirit as the get Trump crowd.

It is? Is it the same spirit as the "get Hillary crowd?" I'll agree, though, that there is too much tribalism on both sides of the political aisle. My issue is that Trump supporters seem to believe it has never happened before, ignoring they've been doing the same thing to Hillary for roughly 30 years.

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.

I'd be interested to see but I suspect your viewpoint is based solely on 5-4 decisions, since "conservatives" have held at least a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court for roughly 50 years. Therefore, if there was a 5-4 decision that went for the liberals, there had to be a "conservative" crossover and, if it was a 5-4 conservative decision then it was likely to have been made based on party lines. And I put conservative in quotes to placate some conservatives on the board, who will argue that some of the "conservative" justices appointed by Republican presidents were not actually conservative -- despite their record prior to being placed on the Supreme Court.

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?

I can't speak for others but for me it is about ethics. Again, if we go by the ethics required of other Federal Jurists, Thomas has failed those guidelines for most of his term due to his wife's lobbying efforts for conservative groups that had business before the court. It is not proof he's been influenced by his wife but it does appear, particularly given the money paid to Mrs. Thomas based on her lobbying, to be a conflict of interest -- and again is prohibited by the ethics rules other federal judges are to follow. If this was a liberal justice, I'd want the same.

Of course, I'm crazy enough that I'd like to prohibit most of what is paid to our government officials -- trips, meals, etc. that are funded by lobbyists -- just not gifts to the Supreme Court.

 

[SimplyMe]

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?

And yet we know people have bribed Congress persons -- and they are just one vote of 435. You have to be joking that people aren't prepared to pay large amounts of money to get 1/9 of the total vote to support them, particularly if they can get that vote to advocate for them. By your logic, it must be obvious that it wasn't actually bribery -- since those persons had no power to do anything without 217 other votes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

If you didn't read nor understand the difference between what is and isn't a gift....

I'll try to make it simple again.

If you pay for an Uber to pick me up from the airport.....that's a gift.

If you pick me up from the airport, because I'm so likable, that's not a gift.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.​

In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies purchased a string of properties on a quiet residential street in Savannah, Georgia. It wasn’t a marquee acquisition for the real estate magnate, just an old single-story home and two vacant lots down the road. What made it noteworthy were the people on the other side of the deal: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives.

The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice.

A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosedhis sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.

 

[DaisyDay]

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

Who knew for 20 years? Crow and Thomas, obviously, but who in the public sphere?

 

[Say it aint so]

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.​

In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies purchased a string of properties on a quiet residential street in Savannah, Georgia. It wasn’t a marquee acquisition for the real estate magnate, just an old single-story home and two vacant lots down the road. What made it noteworthy were the people on the other side of the deal: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives.

The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice.

A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosedhis sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.

Rules for thee but not for me!

 

[Whyayeman]

If you didn't read nor understand the difference between what is and isn't a gift....

I'll try to make it simple again.

If you pay for an Uber to pick me up from the airport.....that's a gift.

If you pick me up from the airport, because I'm so likable, that's not a gift.

A distinction without a difference...

 

[Ana the Ist]

And yet we know people have bribed Congress persons -- and they are just one vote of 435.

Well those people campaign. They're bought well before they win an election.

You have to be joking that people aren't prepared to pay large amounts of money to get 1/9 of the total vote to support them,

I didn't say that...but you do realize that despite a ton of cases going to the SCOTUS, few are heard, right?

particularly if they can get that vote to advocate for them.

It would still only help you if 4 others went your way as well.

By your logic, it must be obvious that it wasn't actually bribery -- since those persons had no power to do anything without 217 other votes.

Let's imagine that you give Clarence Thomas billions in accommodations and hospitality.

And he doesn't rule on a case the way you wanted. What recourse do you have?

 

[Ana the Ist]

A distinction without a difference...

There's quite literally a difference.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You know this how? In my case, though I'm not a liberal, I've consistently stated that we need to hold Supreme Court Judges to the same ethical standard that other Federal judges are required to follow. I don't care which Supreme Justice we are talking about.

Ok....well they also knew Ginsburg was friends with a journalist and provided inside information to her for decades. They waited till she was dead though to talk about it.

How about leaking of the RvW decision?

Are the FBI hot on that person's tail?

It is? Is it the same spirit as the "get Hillary crowd?" I'll agree, though, that there is too much tribalism on both sides of the political aisle. My issue is that Trump supporters seem to believe it has never happened before, ignoring they've been doing the same thing to Hillary for roughly 30 years.

I spoke out against benghazi hearings after the first concluded. I pointed out that she shouldn't be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents after she lost the election.

No hypocrisy from me on this....

I'd be interested to see but I suspect your viewpoint is based solely on 5-4 decisions, since "conservatives" have held at least a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court for roughly 50 years. Therefore, if there was a 5-4 decision that went for the liberals, there had to be a "conservative" crossover and, if it was a 5-4 conservative decision then it was likely to have been made based on party lines. And I put conservative in quotes to placate some conservatives on the board, who will argue that some of the "conservative" justices appointed by Republican presidents were not actually conservative -- despite their record prior to being placed on the Supreme Court.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

I can't speak for others but for me it is about ethics.

No.

Again, if we go by the ethics required of other Federal Jurists, Thomas has failed those guidelines for most of his term due to his wife's lobbying efforts for conservative groups that had business before the court.

His wife can't be political. He can't have any friends. If his children cook him breakfast too many times, he has to add up the cost of ingredients and ensure they don't exceed 500$ lol.

It is not proof he's been influenced by his wife but it does appear, particularly given the money paid to Mrs. Thomas based on her lobbying, to be a conflict of interest -- and again is prohibited by the ethics rules other federal judges are to follow. If this was a liberal justice, I'd want the same.

In what way is there a conflict of interest?

His wife has political opinions?

What exactly is the conflict?

Of course, I'm crazy enough that I'd like to prohibit most of what is paid to our government officials -- trips, meals, etc. that are funded by lobbyists -- just not gifts to the Supreme Court.

Wow. I can't tell if this is serious. You only watch left wing news huh? No idea what's on that laptop?

 

[rambot]

Harlan Crow Bought Property from Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.

Man...that's so weird. I wonder why he didn't disclose the deal?

Was it because it was for two vacant lots and a house where thomas' mom was living? Probably not.

That as owner the of the property Crow began making numerous improvements to the home?


Was it because he was, by law, required to report it as a real estate deal over $1,000? Probably not.


Was it because he didn't want to admit a financial relationship between a Supreme Court Judge and a billionaire?
Noooooooo....
Can't be that either.


You know what's crazy? If it somehow came to light that a parent of one d my students gave me 50000$ everyone, left and right, would recognize the action as AT LEAST fishy. But more likely offensive and Improper if not illegal.


But here we see a Supreme Court Judge receiving far more lavish treatment and one's response is?

 

[SimplyMe]

Ok....well they also knew Ginsburg was friends with a journalist and provided inside information to her for decades. They waited till she was dead though to talk about it.

How about leaking of the RvW decision?

Are the FBI hot on that person's tail?



I spoke out against benghazi hearings after the first concluded. I pointed out that she shouldn't be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents after she lost the election.

No hypocrisy from me on this....

I'm glad to hear it, though I didn't claim you did. I just pointed out there many on the Right, particularly the pro-MAGA bunch, talk about how persecuted Trump is (most persecuted in history) with no sense of irony when they chant "Lock her up!" and ignore the investigations she has been put through by some on the Right.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

I'm pointing out that when a "Right Wing" justice (to mean a justice appointed by a Republican President) votes against the other "Right Wing" justices, it gets pointed out since it (for about 50 years) "flipped" the decision of the court towards the "Liberal" justices. By contrast, when a "Left Wing" justice voted with the "Right Wing" justices, it isn't really noticed as it would typically make the margin 6-3. That is likely the reason you think "Right Wing" justices "break ranks" more often than the "Left Wing" justices.

No.

Not sure what you are saying "No" to here.

His wife can't be political. He can't have any friends. If his children cook him breakfast too many times, he has to add up the cost of ingredients and ensure they don't exceed 500$ lol.

I didn't say that, I said that he (and every other Supreme Court justice) should be held to the same standard as all other federal justices. This includes recusing themselves if they have a conflict, which (in their ethics rules) includes a wife that works for a group that has a case before the court.

In what way is there a conflict of interest?

His wife has political opinions?

What exactly is the conflict?

The conflict is that his wife works as a "lobbyist" and groups that have business before the court have frequently hired her business. This makes it appear as if they are attempting to "bribe" Justice Thomas by paying money to his family. It looks bad, even If it is completely on the up and up and the Ethics Standards for Federal Judges requires a judge to recuse himself if he is in this position. It doesn't prevent the wife from having opinions or working for businesses, merely requires the judge to recuse himself if there is this type of conflict of interest.

Wow. I can't tell if this is serious. You only watch left wing news huh? No idea what's on that laptop?

I tend not to "watch" news, period. I tend to read news from a variety of sources. And, if the claims made by the right wing are true, that isn't "lobbying." Don't get me wrong, I support a full investigation of the laptop and Hunter and wouldn't mind seeing laws that prevent the deals various government leaders, and their families, do with foreign nations after they leave office.

My point was the fact that we allow our government officials to take bribes -- both from lobbyists and, as you pointed out, from donors (particularly SuperPACS) during elections. Sure, we limit the amounts, in terms of what they can take from lobbyists and direct campaign donations (not to include PACs), but that doesn't change the fact that they are effectively a type of bribery.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.​

In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies purchased a string of properties on a quiet residential street in Savannah, Georgia. It wasn’t a marquee acquisition for the real estate magnate, just an old single-story home and two vacant lots down the road. What made it noteworthy were the people on the other side of the deal: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives.

The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice.

A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosedhis sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.

My gosh...


Clarence Thomas sold property and didn't report it?

Oh wait, it says family. Who owned property before it was sold?

 

[DaisyDay]

My gosh...


Clarence Thomas sold property and didn't report it?

Oh wait, it says family. Who owned property before it was sold?

The answers are in the article. Did you not read it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The answers are in the article. Did you not read it?

No.

It sounds silly. Family? Just...wow. Are we talking about a second cousin whom he cosigned a loan for?