That Thomas guy

[JohnRoberts]

I'm searching for the eyeroll emoji--really weak stuff here. The information we have is that Thomas was accepting off-the-books gifts from an ultra-wealthy conservative activist. Trying to excuse that by saying that another Justice might have done similar with zero evidence of this imagined transgression is sad. Really, really sad. Pathetic, in fact.

Now, where is that eyeroll emoji?

here it is and well deserved... I am not sure I understand the coordinated attack on Justice Thomas other than to distract from other news events.

There are important real news events occurring other than this.

JR

 

[fallout]

Politicians accepting gifts for favors? That's never happened before. #FAUXAOUTRAGE

 

[hodad]

I am not sure I understand the coordinated attack on Justice Thomas

I'm not sure I understand the coordinated defense of Justice Thomas. There's every chance in the world that there's nothing that will be done to him(and little that can be done to him), but that does not make his actions defensible. It's a terrible look for a Supreme Court Justice, and it's a bad look for conservatives in general that they're so eager to defend him.

Politicians accepting gifts for favors

Supreme Court Justice is not a politician.

 

[Recording Engineer]

It's a terrible look for a Supreme Court Justice,

You think that’s why it supposedly changed all of a sudden now (at least it changed, only according to Thomas, from what I seen)? Or you think a different reason?

Seems like my question has been pretty clear, logical, and reasonable; rather than just demonizing him, completely defending him as just an attack, or acting like I’m the crazy with weird communication skills (in this case).

 

[Matador]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I'm searching for the eyeroll emoji--really weak stuff here. The information we have is that Thomas was accepting off-the-books gifts from an ultra-wealthy conservative activist. Trying to excuse that by saying that another Justice might have done similar with zero evidence of this imagined transgression is sad. Really, really sad. Pathetic, in fact.

Now, where is that eyeroll emoji?

I'm not excusing it. <edit> Hodad claimed that all other Justices (and possibly Federal judges) have reported any and all gifts. That is what I quoted in my response.

But having said that 1) there is no evidence of any quid pro quo, and 2) it isn't clear that any rule was broken. Keep carping.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I'm not sure I understand the coordinated defense of Justice Thomas. There's every chance in the world that there's nothing that will be done to him(and little that can be done to him), but that does not make his actions defensible. It's a terrible look for a Supreme Court Justice, and it's a bad look for conservatives in general that they're so eager to defend him.


Supreme Court Justice is not a politician.

You know what is actually a bad "look" for a Supreme Court Justice? Completely misreading the U.S. Constitution.

 

[hodad]

Hodad claimed that all other Justices (and possibly Federal judges) have reported any and all gifts.

Putting words into my mouth. Read it again and maybe you'll figure out what I really said.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Putting words into my mouth. Read it again and maybe you'll figure out what I really said.

#73 hodad

"And yet, it is the standard that all the non-Supreme judges adhere to."

#76 Matador

"Somehow, they all figured out how to properly report donations."

#78 Matador quoting himself

"Somehow, they all figured out how to properly report donations.

Once again, for the cheap seats."

 

[hodad]

#73 hodad

"And yet, it is the standard that all the non-Supreme judges adhere to."

Avoiding the "appearance of impropriety" is the standard I referred to. You made up the "any and all gifts" bit, which is not even what judicial guidelines specify.


I'll reiterate, do not put words in my mouth.

 

[L´Andratté]

Money talks...

All this discussion about integrity is totally unnecessary.
Nothing is off limits.
Only measure for propriety is, can you get away with it.
Maybe add a little media spin.

As I said before, this is a James Ellroy novel come alive.

There´s just so much dishonesty in public discourse, you cannot actually get things done anymore democratically.
That´s feature not a bug of political dishonesty.

I used to think Reps/Dems just inhabit different ecological niches of the same skewed system.
But Reps really take the plunge into post-truth, post-accountability, post-democracy.
Don´t delude yourself, the whole world is observing that very clearly (I know you don´t give a fxxx, yet).

There´s more to reality than consensus of peers. This will catch up with us all in the end.

 

[cyrano]

Binary disputes end in digital warfare.

 

[Recording Engineer]

More food for thought:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

 

[Dreams]

More food for thought:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

I'm sure it's fine. Nazi billionaires buy my parents gifts without any implied quid pro quo all the time, totally normal

 

[Matador]

It's ok: the phrase "money flowing from GOP donors to Republican Supreme Court Justices must be reported" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[JohnRoberts]

More food for thought:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

Yup it looks like it could be shady.

Back in 2005 Obama did a real estate deal with Tony Rezko... In hindsight he called it a learning moment to never do deals with people who are under investigation. Rezko was indicted in 2006 on two counts (unrelated to the real estate deal).

Not a smoking gun but real estate, and book deals are ways to fund rising star politicians (more the book deals than real estate).

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Unanimous.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-s...-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921

 

[pucho812]

Unanimous.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-s...-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921

Yes but according to polling public confidence is at its lowest with the court in 20 years. I often wonder who they poll because outside their bubble it’s usually opposite of the results.
Nothing wrong with the court or any trip, vacation, etc that Thomas has done. What you will find is the opposition trying to use this as an excuse to further control things.
Meanwhile real issues like the Jeffery Epstein list are still not public

 

[JohnRoberts]

The SCOTUS response is purely about separation of powers, don't take the bait.

There is an active agenda to delegitimize the courts because they routinely thwart extra-constitutional government abuses (like regulatory over-reach). This has been going on for some time already so be a critical reader and thoughtful about such attacks on the judiciary.

You will notice that one of the first branches of government gutted after authoritarian takeovers is the courts (often by packing the court, or even replacing all the jurists with hand picked replacements). We are not there yet but we need to remain ever vigilant.

JR

PS: yup it is unlikely that Epstein committed suicide, just like several others in the Clinton sphere of influence. Corruption is widespread in the swamp, and increasing the amount of spending just attracts more corruption to the government spending teat.

 

[hodad]

Now that JR has veered into wacko conspiracy land, it seems like a good time to get back on topic:

How Scalia Law School Became a Key Friend of the Court

(This should be accessible to all.)

In short: Leonard Leo, of the Federalist Society and other right wing extremist groups, threw $30 million at a Virginia university. Said university now uses some of that money to pay right-wing SCOTUS Justices $30K a pop to teach 2-week "classes," often in exotic locales. (Clarence Thomas "teaches" at the university--he has 2 assistants, so I'm sure he almost never shows up--but he gets better vacations from Harlan Crow anyway.)

Leo is laundering his SCOTUS bribery through a public university. Clever idea. Disgusting, but clever.