Federal law mandates that top officials from the three branches of government, including the Supreme Court, file annual forms detailing their finances, outside income and spouses’ sources of income, with each branch determining its own reporting standards. Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered “personal hospitality.”
Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts’ policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14. Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.
If I read that correctly, Thomas did nothing wrong. In the future, he'll need to disclose.
Reminds me of the Trump prosecution — going after someone you already hate because they hid things you wanted to be able to use against them.
It does affect my image of Thomas, who I'd pictured traveling around America in an RV, mingling with ordinary people.
I am laughing at "$500,000 if they had paid for it themselves." Obviously, island-hopping in Indonesia via superyacht is nothing you'd ever buy for yourself. Let's suppose you had $500,000 you had to spend on travel. What are the chances you'd go blow it all on one superyacht cruise around Indonesia?
141 comments:
Thank God his friend's name isn't Jim...
These smear merchants seem to have mistaken me for somebody who cares whether or not Justice Thomas enjoys the hospitality of his generous friends.
Shall we conduct a similar inquiry into the lives of all the Justices?
If we do, what are the new rules for conflicts of interest? Has Thomas' friend ever put matters before the Court on which Thomas has had to recuse himself? Is any of these hospitable acts reportable under relevant ethics or other rules, and has anybody failed to report them?
In light of what's been done to Kavanaugh and Barrett, I see this as just more generalized mayhem by the Marxists, intent upon discrediting and destroying every source of institutional authority that they do not control.
Now do Hillary.
Seriously, what if you have a really rich friend and he invites you to go on a trip?
Or invites you to play golf at an exclusive club?
Thomas does travel around in an RV. There are plenty of videos and pictures of him doing so with his wife, taken by people they meet along the way.
Did the professor mean that him also taking expensive vacations someone else paid for wipes out his taking cheap RV vacations? Why wouldn't the other way apply as well? Perhaps his cheapo RV vacations wipes out his expensive other people paid for vacations.
My wife has had business dealings with Crow. Her judgement is that he is a very nice man. Apparently he and Thomas are good friends.
Nothing to see here.
Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson Brown have no friends and never go anywhere... right?
BFD. Is Thomas running for office? Is the guy Epstein? Is there reason to believe he had cases before SCOTUS that Thomas helped decide?
And Hunter and QuidProJoe?
Democracy dies in the darkness of WaPo.
So no real punishment for Thomas. I'm fine with that.
The new articulation of a good disclosure rule. I'm fine with that.
Justice Thomas; hate him? Or not? I am definitely on the non-hate side there. For the Justice, that is. I remember so well, defending him at the time of his confirmation hearing.
But of all of the recent "Thomas" stories, why pick this one, Althouse? Of all of the interesting recent exposés surrounding Ginni Thomas in particular, this is an odd one to single out.
I presume that the angle that Althouse likes here is that it is a journalistic effort that goes too far in trying to vilify the Thomases. And Althouse might have a decent point on that. So score it 1-0, Althouse v. Journalism, in today's action.
But holy shit there are a lot of other recent, weird, hinky, jaw-droppingly fascinating stories about Ginni Thomas to choose from:
Ginni Thomas still believes Trump's false claim that the 2020 election was stolen.
Emails show Ginni Thomas pressured 29 Arizona lawmakers to overturn the 2020 election.
She was texting with Mark Meadows on January 6, but claims here husband was never aware of the messages.
And on and on and on. Good blogging material there, methinks.
So what? At least Thomas is guided by the Constituion. Robert and the Democrat Judges just make shit up based on their politics.
I always love it when the MSM pretends to care about ethics. Its so cute - and dishonest.
Fuck'em. Impeach away.
I'm just upset Ginni didn't invite me, but I bet her buddy Patty Rees got to go on some of those trips.
Well, WaPo was so very thorough on The Dossier and The Laptop. Did they leave anything out?
Scott Adams says the billionaire was giving a gift to himself, the accompaniment of his friend.
I thought they vacationed in an RV like regular folks.
Rules for lower court judges reporting on free travel stuff have been getting stricter over the years. Even 2 decades ago I had a multi-defendant case where federal judge announced he had a potential conflict with one defendant. Everyone scratching their heads. Turned out he had recently spoken at an IP conference hosted by a party, and had his room and board comped. Recused.
USSC has been resisting bringing its ethics rules into 21st Century.
And what are the other justices up to? Even if they can't show Thomas broke rules, they still want to show he's morally corrupted. But if it's normal (separate from whether it's right or wrong), then it doesn't serve their purposes.
Which is why they're only talking about Thomas' travel habits and not, say, Sotomayor's.
They getting more confident. They want to get Thomas almost as badly as they wanted to get Trump. A black conservative is a threat they will not ignore. They've been going after his wife and now are bold enough to go directly at him.
At least Thomas is not on retainer to Crow with payments to Ginni in the event of his death...I hope.
Let's Face FACTS!
Tom is Guilty as SIN!! Guilty of being Off the Plantation.
These trips around the world.. To places like the Adirondacks, or Texas, or Marin County California..
These ALL are, By Definition.. OFF THE PLANTATION! According to the democrat fugitive slave act..
He is GUILTY!!!
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton flew the Lolita Express umpteen times and the illiberal left says "Nothing to there! Go about your business."
Battle-space prep.
Let’s see, how do the House Dems enlist enough GOP squishes to bring articles from Judiciary to the full House, then listen to the oleaginous Chuck Schumer — more in sorrow than in anger — pull off the trial and the guilty finding to flip SCOTUS.
Ya gotta give it to the party of Fort Sumter, Copperheads and Jim Crow — always two steps ahead of their putative opponents, who either are blissfully unaware of the depth and foresight of the Dems’ ruthlessness, or too fixed on getting their share of the perks as the Democratic Lite Party.
I wonder about the methodology employed in the estimate of $500,000. Why not just say "a gazillion?"
Liberals upset about Bohemian grove again? I guess since they can't go to Epstein's Pedophile island anymore they wanna gripe?
Just a routine trashing of Thomas, and a pre-attack to distract from the looming Jeffrey Epstein disclosures about blue billionaires who kept his harem company.
Paging Jamie Dimon
Paging Bill Gates
Oh boy. Thomas is ripe for a National Security Intelligence report claiming the justice is a Putin stooge.
Sounds like influence buying and selling. But who knows, it may be perfectly innocent.
It does affect my image of Thomas, who I'd pictured traveling around America in an RV, mingling with ordinary people.
Why does that affect your image of the man. Is it because you can't imagine him taking and enjoying both types of a vacation?
Clarence Thomas has a rich friend?! The horror!
Next thing you know, this will catch on in Washington.
Too bad he never traveled with Epstein. Might have been a story there.
If I read that correctly, Thomas did nothing wrong
Which is precisely the opposite of what you'd think just from reading the headline.
Which way do you think the public was "informed" by the WAPO today?
Obama, revisited, but on a much, smaller scale.
"Did nothing wrong" and "violated the law" are two different things. At a bare minimum our dear judge is a moocher.
So has WaPo moved from "unquestioned truth!" to "Trust but Verify" yet?
I'm at "distrust but verify for all news sources.
I was going to comment "So", but I see Althouse had that below the fold. I wasn't aware Supreme Court Justices were not allowed to have friends and associates outside of the Supreme Court. If Thomas made a ruling or refused to recuse himself in a matter involving Harlan Crow (not just something that Harlan Crow also supports), then perhaps. Then again, those on the left would do better if they equally recused themselves.
Time to impeach Slo-Jo for shits and giggles if nothing else. The charge? Well, there's a long record of Joe accepting bribes negotiated by his felonious spawn, but we should reserve that for Impeachments II and III. How about Joe ordering the Justice Department to stand down from its statutory duty to protect judges from intimidation? Justice Kavanaugh could testify for the prosecution about numerous death threats he's received for which no Federal investigations have been launched or warrants issued.
And the laws that were broken are?
Too bad his benefactor wasn't Jeffrey Epstein, his name would be buried with all the others on that list. Looking at you, Bill Clinton.
The $500,000 described as the Thomases' travel cost is an estimate of the market value of the food, lodging, and transportation. It is a back-of-the-envelope calculation at best because I doubt there are a lot of comparables on travel on billionaires' super yachts in Indonesia.
To the billionaire the incremental cost of hosting the Thomases is at most a few thousand dollars, their consumption of food and beverages. The jet, the yacht, the fuel, the landing and docking fees, the chef, and other staff are already sunk costs.
These are the best gifts, the ones that hardly cost the donor anything and yet are highly valued by the recipients.
“Reminds me of the Trump prosecution — going after someone you already hate because they hid things you wanted to be able to use against them.”
Word.
You say Thomas will have to report going forward. Why?
Also, Supreme Court justices set the rules and enforce them, usually at the exclusion of themselves. It is most assuredly wrong for a justice to take millions over the years from friends, including when there is a clear link to politics (a "photorealistic painting" of Thomas with Leonard Leo hangs in the club!! Lol...).
The fact that the Justices haven't determined this to be wrong (at least until recently, though again no one can enforce that rule change for the Justices themselves) is another wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Highly inappropriate, and should be illegal. He should retire.
But, he won't.
"Thomas, who I'd pictured traveling around America in an RV, mingling with ordinary people."
who or whom?
Can Thomas safely do that these days? Might he put his life at risk?
I support rules that make corruption less likely. Who doesn't? If you read Peter Schweizer's works you will see that politicians (of both parties) and their families have become increasingly adept at masking payments for "pay to play" and "access for cash" and "getting to know you" by funneling the money through an intermediary entity like a foundation, or by having the money go to somebody with a family connection.
Valuation of gifts is often inflated in several ways. Giving me a $1000 hotel room for the night saves me from paying something like $250, and gives me maybe $100 worth of "value" in the luxo experience. Similarly, private jet travel isn't worth (to me) nearly what it costs, so that's why I'm at LAX, waiting in line like everyone else.
I don't think that Clarence Thomas, assuming that the article's reporting is correct, did anything immoral. But hey, let's impeach him so that some of the Justices can march into the room to the strains of Lizzo's "About Damn Time". Destroying the neutrality of the judicial system is going to be cost-free, right?
Our host didn't include this quote:
“Is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas corrupt? I don’t know,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House leadership team, said in a tweet. “But his secretive actions absolutely have the appearance of corruption. … For the good of the country, he should resign.”
... or the statement from fashion maven AOC that Thomas's "corruption" is "almost cartoonish."
I note the conspicuous absence in the article of any attempt at a similar dig into any of the progressive justices' lives. #Journalism!
So?
"Obviously, island-hopping in Indonesia via superyacht is nothing you'd ever buy for yourself. Let's suppose you had $500,000 you had to spend on travel. What are the chances you'd go blow it all one superyacht cruise around Indonesia?"
People do. Hell there is a reality show based just on that.
Racists claim it impossible for a negro to have a white friend.
If I read that correctly, Thomas did nothing wrong. Yep.
Reminds me of the Trump prosecution — going after someone you already hate because they hid things you wanted to be able to use against them.
Seeing Thomas in the news reminds me they are continually "going after" his wife Ginni, yet screaming DOX! about the biased judge in Trump's trial because people correctly pointed out his daughter worked for the Biden-Harris campaign.
This is the modern Left in a nutshell. Yesterday talking about a judge's family was bad bad bad cause orange man did it. Today we are back to SOP of attacking everything and everybody attached to a conservative judge's family. And the herd hive=minded DNC Media transcribers will go along without blinking, still insisting Trump's offense is worse.
Good for him! Sounds like a much nicer time than the Biden's Thanksgiving.
Good for him! Sounds like a much nicer time than the Biden's Thanksgiving.
So all the hype about Ruth Bader Ginsberg was free of charge, and had no benefit to her? Good to know.
There are 48 comments posted right now. None of them are mine, which I posted shortly after the blog post went online.
What is going on?
Blogger Robert Cook said...
Highly inappropriate, and should be illegal. He should retire.
But, he won't.
The local ethics expert contributes his usual Inga-like expertise. You hate him because he left the plantation.
Glad to see our corrupt, America-hating Leftists (Danny Boy, Ingot, Chuckkkie, etc.) present right on time to repeat their Democrat party talking points like the trained seals they are.
Have to give it to the Leftists, they are really good at repeating the Big Lies and slogans that their party apparatchiks make up. Fortunately, we can see that their racism is no longer hidden behind dog whistles but rather right out in the open.
what about what about?
To put it in perspective, my best friend and his wife own a houseboat. They spend most weekends June through September on the boat. They often invite my wife and I to come up and spend the weekend with them. The incremental cost to them is almost nothing, as I make sure to pack a little wine for the girls and a little beer for us, as well as steaks, chicken, or hamburger, whatever we want to grill. I have no idea what the commercial value would be, but it would be pretty high at 2000 or more per weekend for a rental houseboat. But even the IRS doesn't count it that way. The incremental cost is all that should be considered in my opinion. Plane tickets, show tickets, extra food perhaps. Which is peanuts any way you look at it. The Thomas's seem to be ordinary people doing ordinary things, and like many of us, have wealthy friends who enjoy their company.
"Sounds like influence buying and selling."
Well, I think the squirrel has finally found a nut. Or maybe the other way around. Anyway, Igna has a point, and I don't mean the one she hangs her pussy hat on. It seems fairly clear that if Justice Thomas were a raging Communist, Crow would not want to pal around with him. So Thomas must certainly feel a continuing pressure not to be a raging Communist. And there's something more than a little problematic about that. No Supreme Court justice should be deterred by personal interest from helping Igna and her friends to overthrow the Constitution.
I think this news is to distract everyone from noting that the Judge presiding over Trump's trial has a daughter that worked for the Biden/Harris campaign. Of course, that's hardly the conflict of interest compared to the Judge's donations to the Biden campaign. "Oh but it was just $35", sure the financial donation was only that amount, but it shows he wanted Biden to win in 2020 and likely again in 2024, and now here he is presiding over a case involving Biden's 2020 and likely 2024 opponent.
They're shifting from Trump back to Thomas this soon? Perhaps the indictment was so disappointing that diverting attention from it was best.
Pro Publica - their whole purpose is to dig for dirt on anyone left of left of center. Sometimes they'll get someone left of center for "balance".
They're not nice people. They're as partisan as partisan hacks can get.
They do not have the votes to impeach, but I suspect that Cookie and his friends would be happy if he was lynched for being uppity.
"Justice Thomas has accepted luxury travel for years from GOP donor, report says" (WaPo).
"accepted"
Thinking past the sale. Begging the question?
Was it a gift? It says it right there in the headline, of course it was, because he accepted it.
"Did the professor mean that him also taking expensive vacations someone else paid for wipes out his taking cheap RV vacations? Why wouldn't the other way apply as well? Perhaps his cheapo RV vacations wipes out his expensive other people paid for vacations."
First, I don't think RV vacations are that cheap. You pay something like $300 a day to rent an RV, so it's as expensive as a reasonably nice hotel. I wouldn't call that "cheapo."
Second, I'm just saying his branding was RV incognito around America and chat with people who say things like "Did anyone ever tell you you look like Clarence Thomas?" Charming and folksy, etc. etc. The superyacht/private jet image is inconsistent with the very favorable branding.
But I assume plenty of judges go on paid-for trips and hobnob with the rich.
I see AOC is saying Thomas should be impeached for this, but let's take another look at the charge that she took impermissible gifts at that Met Gala where she wore a "tax the rich" message dress.
“They getting more confident. They want to get Thomas almost as badly as they wanted to get Trump. A black conservative is a threat they will not ignore. They've been going after his wife and now are bold enough to go directly at him”
My view is that it is worse than that. Thomas speaks clearly and plainly. No legal splitting of hairs. If he were the Black Scalia, he wouldn’t be as bad as he really is, in the view of the left. His recent Bruen opinion essentially cleaned up the mess made by Scalia in his Heller opinion. One example was that Scalia refused to specify what level of scrutiny was to be given to possible violations of the 2nd Amdt. He wouldn’t commit to Intermediate or Strict scrutiny, just that the law supposedly violated by Heller was not viewed with enough scrutiny. Typical Scalia. The result was not surprising - liberal Circuits, like the 2nd and 9th, created a new standard of scrutiny, right above Rational Basis, as was used against Heller. Importantly, it allowed interest balancing, which the states usually won. Thomas stepped in, in Bruen, and essentially said: Stop this s$$t. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental enumerated right, with a long history. The proper level of scrutiny is Strict Scrutiny. No interest balancing allowed. And the historical metric for determining the meaning of the 2nd Amdt is 1791 for the 2nd Amdt and 1865 for the 14th Amdt. Anything newer doesn’t count. Thomas writes bright line decisions, where there is little room for quibbling. Lower courts are probably not going to be able to distinguish away, as was done with Scalia’s Heller decision, and probably the only way to weaken it at the Supreme Court is by a full reversal. Thomas is esp dangerous right now, because he is the senior Justice, and that means that if wants to write a decision, and the Chief doesn’t take it himself, he gets to write it. The Dems are probably shaking in their boots, worrying that he is going to write the pending Affirmative Action opinion - esp given his known views in the subject.
Our Democratic betters took free trips to Epstein Island, but yeah, Justice Thomas is the bad guy here.
deepelemblues said...
Did the professor mean that him also taking expensive vacations someone else paid for wipes out his taking cheap RV vacations? Why wouldn't the other way apply as well? Perhaps his cheapo RV vacations wipes out his expensive other people paid for vacations.
Are you implying that RVs are cheap/inferior? You, sir/ma'am/other, are RVphobic!!
Russia Collusion Truther and Hillary/FBI Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga: "Sounds like influence buying and selling."
Feel free to provide as many details and specifics about this influence buying and selling as you can.
Then, when you realize you have none at all, feel free to pretend there is hoax dossier out there somewhere which "proves" it by being "mostly true".
This should be fun.
Let's see what Inga does next, besides calling Joe Biden showering and sexualizing his adolescent daughter "perfectly normal" I mean.
Squirrel time! Didn’t Obama set the record for time aboard a luxury yacht? My lefty friends in Wisconsin all consider Obama to be a saint.
For all the whataboutists (Ann, including you on AOC) my response is ok yes let's do them too.
For those saying hey this meant much more to the recipient than the giver! Yes, agreed. Not exculpatory tho! In fact that's often the case for bribes...
For those saying meh it's fine, would you say the same if it were Kagan or Sotomayor? Because I don't think it's ok for any of them. Nor do I think it's ok that no one functionally holds any Supreme Court justice to account for ethics violations. When that's the situation, you're bound to get corruption.
I have a stock response to any leftist who prods me about things like this "Thomas business".
It is: "Robert Byrd. KKK officer. Democrat. Record holder for Senate longevity."
If you opt to buy rather than rent an RV, it could cost you as much as a small house. Even after you fully procured the RV, operational and storage costs aren't cheap either. They can be for inferior products and experience, but why would someone like Clarence Thomas go for that level of inferiority? He's not making Fauci levels of money, but I'm sure he does well.
Trammell Crow Company, big real estate developer and landlord. If the court heard cases that related to their business, an argument could be made that Thomas should have recused himself, but Clinton, Obama, and Biden have all vacationed at the houses of millionaire/billionaire contributors. What do we do about them?
If I read that correctly, Thomas did nothing wrong. In the future, he'll need to disclose.
You are apparntly conflating "wrong" with "illegal". As someone who is a stickler for the proper use of language, this is just outright sloppy on your part.
That he is accepting gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from a "friend"*, without a bare minimum of reporting it, stinks to high heavens as a conflict of interest. And we haven't gotten in to the nonsense that his wife has pulled off during the past few years.
*And I put friend in quotes because how long have they been friends? Longer than he has been a Supreme Court Justice? I doubt it. It is one thing to accept an expensive gift from a childhood or college friend who has gone onto being stinking rich. It is quite another to accept gifts from people who you have become friends with since your ascension to one of the most powerful people in the country (if not the world).
And for all of you who are obsessed with Hunter Biden, this is nothing but rank hypocrisy. What crimes has Hunter Biden committed? By Ann's reckoning he has done "nothing wrong."
But I assume plenty of judges go on paid-for trips and hobnob with the rich.
Does that make it ethical?
And also remember, Antonin Scalia was killed by his hosts on just such a junket (some say he was even used as bait in human hunting).
And yes I am being sarcastic, cynical, and facetious.
"Thomas, who I'd pictured traveling around America in an RV, mingling with ordinary people."
who or whom?
Formally whom, not as the object of pictured but as the subject of traveling, and subjects of non-finite verbs are in the objective case (him traveling around raises ethical issues.). However "who" is almost always acceptable for "whom" in modern English, with the exception of fronted prepositions: For who the bell tolls would be wrong but who the bell tolls for would be okay.
Biden has ruined any of these complaints.
Like classified documents?
Dems cried wolf far too often to care now
The democraticals are making hay over Thomas because they know there are at least 10 elected republican Senators that want to go along with removing Thomas. However, those republicans know that after giving Biden everything he wanted, delivering as much money as the dem grifters want for the Biggest Money Laundering Scheme In History in Ukraine, shoving more gun control down our throats, and working with dems to deliver another illegal alien amnesty disaster, working to remove Thomas would be the final straw in terms of the base voters who would leave en masse.
Not even the usual GOPe-er excuse of "But Truuuuuuuuuuummmmmmpppp" would cover that one up.
Still, we need to keep watching them carefully and keep the pressure on. It would be something a Romney or Murkowski or Collins or even a Tillis or Cassady or Thune might pull.
Althouse is assuming that Thomas RENTS his RV at $300.00/day.
If he owns his RV (which, of course, she doesn't know) it could be substantially less.
So why bring up the $300.00/day garbage?
Reading between the lines, she doesn't like him and his judicial philosophy, so let's pretend some thing is a fact when there is no basis for that supposition.
But I assume plenty of judges go on paid-for trips and hobnob with the rich.
And I assume you know that your standard U.S. civil servant or military personnel (no matter their grade or rank) is prohibited from taking anything more valuable than $25 from anyone having business with them.
The Dems are probably shaking in their boots, worrying that he is going to write the pending Affirmative Action opinion - esp given his known views in the subject.
That is probably why the heat is being turned up now. That decision will rival Hobbs for controversy.
Meanwhile, lefty law professors are blaming Trump for Bragg's ridiculous indictment.
Tuesday was historic for the rule of law in America, but not in the way Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, would have imagined. The 34-count indictment — which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments — was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors.
This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump’s opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms.
There you have it. All Trump's fault.
It's not just that Justice Thomas enjoys vacationing in an RV, but he camps the RV in a Walmart parking lot. Ginni must really love him. I know what my wife's reaction would be if I told her that for our vacation this summer we were going to rent an RV and go camping in some WalMart parking lots.
Oh, and get your insults in early. I have already exceeded my limit for posting here for the entire month. See you guys in May sometime.
Interestingly, none of the Thomas trips made on Crow's dimes were ever reported on the financial disclosures required of SCOTUS justices but Ginsburg reported gifts such as a bust of LBJ, a winged statue, and a heart-shaped sculpture. Sotomayor received a $10,000 honorarium, which she then donated to charity.
So no gifts received by eight of the Justices were valued anywhere near what Clarence and Ginni didn't ever report. Even though Ginni was up to her ears in Trump's illegal schemes, Clarence never recused himself from a single case heard by the court.
The ongoing comment theme here is that there are no crooks in the Republican Party and should there ever be, it does not matter.
Another attempt to make something out of nothing courtesy of the WAPO.
But at least Inga fell for it.
$500K... in other words, a few months pay for Hunter's no-show job... which merits no investigation at all, apparently.
tommyesq said...
Our Democratic betters took free trips to Epstein Island . . .
A lawsuit filed in June 2016 in federal court in New York accused Donald Trump (along with billionaire Jeffrey Epstein) of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994 at a party at Epstein’s place. She had an eyewitness but the case disappeared from the docket. Perhaps the Manhattan DA should add this buy-off to the list of TFG's catch-and-kill programs. Or was Trump a Dem in 1994?
Another distraction. How much has Joe Biden and his family received from his money sources, likely for favors. Did Clarence's friend have any business before the court?
"For those saying meh it's fine, would you say the same if it were Kagan or Sotomayor?"
Yes, I would, because it is. Crow had no business before the Court, and when required to disclose the trips Thomas disclosed them. I'm sure the Fat Latina and Incompetent Kagan will do the same thing.
"Interestingly, none of the Thomas trips made on Crow's dimes were ever reported on the financial disclosures required of SCOTUS justices..."
Read the article you ninny. This type of disclosure was not previously required to be reported, that's a new requirement. That's how this became known to the dishonest America haters at Amateur Publica and thus to you, their fellow America hater.
"For those saying meh it's fine, would you say the same if it were Kagan or Sotomayor?"
Yes, I would, because it is. Crow had no business before the Court, and when required to disclose the trips Thomas disclosed them. I'm sure the Fat Latina and Incompetent Kagan will do the same thing. Although they and that new chick who isn't a biologist won't be as principled as Thomas would about recusal.
"Interestingly, none of the Thomas trips made on Crow's dimes were ever reported on the financial disclosures required of SCOTUS justices..."
Read the article you ninny. This type of disclosure was not previously required to be reported, that's a new requirement. That's how this became known to the dishonest America haters at Amateur Publica and thus to you, their fellow America hater.
gahrie said...
Sotomayer, Kagan, and Jackson Brown have no friends and never go anywhere... right?
Talk about Running on Empty.
Did this come from some form of 'State Affiliated Media', in other words, like Pravda or Russia Today, an untrustworthy and corrupted source, prone to partisan coverage in pursuit of political advantage? So glad we're seeing some truth in advertising now......
For those saying meh it's fine, would you say the same if it were Kagan or Sotomayor?
Yup. In the same way that tax avoidance is not a crime (is, in fact, what any reasonable person ought to do), I am just fine with any of the justices' accepting hospitality from their rich and influential friends.
Who is being influenced, and how? When the decision falls along supposed partisan lines, is there ever a surprise from the progressives? (Roberts is the usual suspect for split decisions, and he is of course considered "conservative." Certainly he's not progressive. And when he does vote with the progressives, isn't there universal "See?? Even the conservatives think we're right!" from the media? Why would you want to mess with that?)
On the originalist/textualist side, they explain their judicial reasoning step by step, originating from the texts of the Constitution and laws - hence their billing as originalist or textualist. On the progressive side, their reasoning appears to me to be less well supported and more along the lines of "This is how it should be, as all Right-Thinking People agree. Now let's figure out how to shoehorn this change into the Constitution..."
When the decision is 9-0, no huhu.
"Supreme Court justices are generally permitted to accept gifts.
This is in contrast to members of the House and Senate, who generally cannot accept gifts, save with a few exceptions, like the gifts are small (under $50 in value) or given to them by close friends and family. There’s also a “personal hospitality exemption” for members of Congress, as well as for judges and justices."
So, if you wondering if the democraticals would rapidly expand their lawfare attacks against conservatives by attempting to criminalize things that explicitly not crimes, you have your clear and unequivocable answer: Yes, our modern day Lavrenty Beria's are just getting started.
Who that gadfly was such a racist.
Racists claim it impossible for a negro to have a white friend.
LoL
AOC is a ridiculous, hypocritical whore
And Gadfly. Fuck off. You are an unserious and ridiculous "person"
Rusty: "Who that gadfly was such a racist."
Everyone who has paid attention to the leftists for the last 50 years.
This is just another attempted high tech lynching of a black man who refuses to serve the white lefties on their intellectual plantation.
Lifetime job= No accountability.
Duh.
BTW isn’t getting “Borked” or “electronically lynched” both related to video rentals?
BTW, talk about playing the race card. Sheesh.
The guy is a known low character guy. We all know it. It only matters if he is or is not our low character guy. So it goes. For more and more people these days.
It's one thing to take millions of dollars from foreign national wanting access to the Veep and then the Prez, by using his son to get to him. Foreign nationals who's aim is not to help the US, but to destroy it. That's acceptable. So much so that they won't even read the laptop that is given to them as 'journalists'.
But going on vacation with a friend, paid for by that friend? It's the end of democracy.
The funny is watching all of the lefties on Twitter explode with this all within a half hour of each other this afternoon. Why...it's almost as if they get marching orders from some centralized location.
Where was Valerie Jarrett this afternoon?
What well-connected male in America hasn’t been to the Bohemian Grove? It’s not a Republican male enclave. It’s a bi-partisan male enclave.
well propublica founded by the sendlers who helped rrash washington mutual,
they have done some good work in the past, but they don't fail to push the narrative when they can,
Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges:
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.
That's a very high standard, something that I think most professionals would have difficulty meeting. Judges must avoid even the "Appearance of Impropriety." Did the actions of Justice Thomas in accepting these vacation perks have the "appearance of impropriety?" I don't know. But as a member of the highest court in the U.S.A., I would err on the side of caution.
A lawsuit filed in June 2016 in federal court in New York accused Donald Trump (along with billionaire Jeffrey Epstein) of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994 at a party at Epstein’s place
gadfly is hallucinating again. There is zero evidence that any of this happened. Gadfly goes right ahead sliming someone he knows nothing about. There is evidence that Trump threw Epstein out of Mar a Lago but gadfly prefers rumors he picked up on his pedophile channel.
knew
tim maguire said...
"Which is why they're only talking about Thomas' travel habits and not, say, Sotomayor's."
If it is determined that Sotomayor has gone on luxury trips involving travel subsidized by and stays at properties owned by a Democratic megadonor, then she should step down.
The notion that Judges should avoid the appearance of bias is pretty basic stuff. Don't know what Thomas was thinking of.
Joe Smith said...
"eriously, what if you have a really rich friend and he invites you to go on a trip?
Or invites you to play golf at an exclusive club?"
if you're a Judge you say "No thanks".
It's a reporting issue, folks.
I expect talk of the 'Soros funded' NY DA will finally stop now that we have decided this is OK.
"'Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges:
'Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.'
"That's a very high standard, something that I think most professionals would have difficulty meeting. Judges must avoid even the 'Appearance of Impropriety.' Did the actions of Justice Thomas in accepting these vacation perks have the 'appearance of impropriety?' I don't know. But as a member of the highest court in the U.S.A., I would err on the side of caution."
This, of course, is the crux of the matter. Accepting vacation perks, particularly repeatedly, with wealthy friends or acquaintances certainly tends to present the opportunity for and thus the appearance of impropriety. ANY judges who hobnobs with wealthy private citizens (on the wealthy private citizens' dime especially) create for themselves the appearance of imprompriety.
"If it is determined that Sotomayor has gone on luxury trips involving travel subsidized by and stays at properties owned by a Democratic megadonor, then she should step down.
"The notion that Judges should avoid the appearance of bias is pretty basic stuff. Don't know what Thomas was thinking of."
True that!
I would love to hear Clarence Thomas' rich baritone laugh about now.
Gadfly
A trip with a friend is a “gift?” Do politicians report such “gifts”? A politician goes on. Pheasant hunt with someone in his district. Does he report the cost of the cartridges or calculate the rental cost of a borrowed gun or the plane ride with six other hunters.
I expect talk of the 'Soros funded' NY DA will finally stop now that we have decided this is OK.
Yeah. Because this is exactly the same thing.
Dumas.
Under the new regulations, judges still do not have to disclose gifts that include food, lodging or entertainment extended by an individual for a non-business purpose. Reuters
Still
And?
Joe Smith - First post won out! Bravo!
He’s a creep. He was hired for a lifetime position after his creepiness was known.
Character and ethics don’t matter to his supporters.
Duh.
Blogger Mark said...
I expect talk of the 'Soros funded' NY DA will finally stop now that we have decided this is OK.
No, lefty Mark. Soros funded DAs are destroying the cities. I have tried to figure out his motive and have finally concluded he must be a nihilist.
Just call it reparations, mutaman. Black folks are entitled to reparations aren't they?
The white racist left demand he stop taking vacations.
"The funny is watching all of the lefties on Twitter explode with this all within a half hour of each other this afternoon. Why...it's almost as if they get marching orders from some centralized location."
Or read an article in Propublica.
Temujin, does Hunter Biden's supposed crimes make the paper trail of corruption in the Supreme Court irrelevant? Just how corrupt does Hunter Biden have to be to render irrelevant the Thomas' years of accepting gifts and donations from a major Republican donor?
I'm aware that you think Democrats have no principles (and you might be right). But do you?
Jaime says...
"Yup. In the same way that tax avoidance is not a crime (is, in fact, what any reasonable person ought to do), I am just fine with any of the justices' accepting hospitality from their rich and influential friends."
Wow. So there's actually no such thing as judicial corruption. Well, at least you're consistent. (So am I, but in the other direction.)
Dumb Lefty Mark: "I expect talk of the 'Soros funded' NY DA will finally stop now that we have decided this is OK."
Why should anyone stop pointing out the destruction Soros has wrought when the lefties spent years and years screaming about Sheldon Adelson?
Dumb Lefty Mark will have no answer for that because its more Civilty BS from our resident lefties/LLR-democraticals.
As always.
I should have bought some of those RGB workout calendars as an investment.
I eagerly await Chuck!'s scrutiny of Biden, inc. and the accomplice media's squelching of that info.
His Eddy Haskell schtick is getting wobbly re Althouse.
Conserving Conservatism! (a li'l pedo stuff here and there)
I remember the lawsuit 'gadfly' mentions. As I recall, lawyers at the time explained that anyone can file any charge they want against anyone with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, but after a certain period (2-3 weeks, I think it was) you have to come in and make specific accusations about where and when and how the supposed crime occurred, under penalty of perjury, and the accused can sue you if he can prove you lied. As I recall, the supposed victim timed her accusation so the date on which she would have to put up or shut up was the day after the election, at which time she came in and withdrew her accusation. The withdrawal, and the timing of it, showed that the charges were bald-faced inflammatory lies timed for maximum effect (2 or 3 weeks minus 1 day) on the election. Only a swine like 'gadfly' would pretend they were valid.
Let's determine how Congressjerks go from rags to riches.
Finding rich friends of Clarence Thomas is much more important than finding rich friends of Jeffrey Epstein.
This type of disclosure was not previously required to be reported, that's a new requirement.
=========''
so it is a trans-report!
when and why and by whom 'report' aaffiirming care ?
This type of disclosure was not previously required to be reported, that's a new requirement.
=========''
so it is a trans-report!
when and why and by whom 'report' aaffiirming care ?
"For those saying meh it's fine, would you say the same if it were Kagan or Sotomayor?"
========
none reported by them? or just not publicized?
This is the same criticism that Democrats have had for Justice Thomas all along.
He's just plain uppity. He doesn't know his place.
If you need a space to reflect on beauty instead of the ugliness of these allegations, try the Crow Museum of Asian Art in Dallas, Tx. It was established by Harlan Crow's parents.
Bill R said...
"This is the same criticism that Democrats have had for Justice Thomas all along.
He's just plain uppity. He doesn't know his place."
DinkyDau is outraged.
Racist WHITE LEFT Demand that uppity Clarence not be allowed to know rich people and he should never go on vacation.
Don't forget the white wife--that drives a lot of lefties insane.
"Under the new regulations, judges still do not have to disclose gifts that include food, lodging or entertainment extended by an individual for a non-business purpose. Reuters
"Still."
Why would wealthy persons continually pay for vacations (and amenities) for their "friends" in government and the judiciary? How may we determine whether vacation trips, including "gifts that include food, lodging or entertainment" taken by judges and politicians and paid for by their wealthy "friends" are for business or non-business purposes? When wealthy people gather, there is always business being conducted on some level, formally and informally.
Wealthy people--many or most of whom are high-ranking business persons, owners and CEOs of businesses, are likely eventually to be involved in lawsuits that may come before the courts, or to have vested business interests in legislation that will become before Congress and/or the courts in the wholeness of time. Judges are no less susceptible to covert or overt influence by the people they know than are Congresspersons, and there are enough people in Congress who have entered as relative paupers and who have left wealthy that we know improper behavior of various kinds does take place.
Our government--of which the courts and their presiding judges are a part--is rotten with the mutually beneficial intertwining "friendships" between the wealthy and the supposed "servants of the people."
Any social associations between powerful persons in government and wealthy persons in the private sphere are by definition, and must be treated as, "business" gatherings.
In an amazing coincidence, today's SF Chronicle also published a piece on Justice Thomas' visits to the Bohemian Grove - that secret men-only enclave where members apparently run the nation and, most unforgivably, "urinate on trees".
Any social associations between powerful persons in government and wealthy persons in the private sphere are by definition, and must be treated as, "business" gatherings.
So they should only hang out with Antifa types huh?
I will have to speak to my billionaire friends. Why am I not invited along on their tasteful, low-key, just-us-pals jaunts?
Post a Comment