You already know about Clarence Thomas and his lavish vacations. But check out this addition to the story from LA Times reporter David Savage, who wrote about all this stuff 20 years ago:
Thomas refused to comment on the article, but it had an impact: Thomas appears to have continued accepting free trips from his wealthy friend. But he stopped disclosing them.
That's our Clarence! When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't pull out your hand and apologize. Instead, do a better job of making sure the plebs can't catch you.
Supreme Court justices sure do live in a weird, lawless netherworld where they can do anything they want. That's sort of ironic since they're folks who make up the law for the rest of us.
I imagine it's easy to convince yourself that you are hopelessly underpaid when the private lawyers bowing to you in court are pulling in millions.
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
Okay, so get Clare and Ginni jobs with "Google". Huh??
Thank you Eve. Your input is greatly appreciated by all who do not like spam filters.
The people that treat Thomas to expensive vacations say that it would never even occur to them to talk to Thomas about any case that might come before him. However that misses the rather obvious point that Thomas knows that the only reason he gets free vacations from wealthy people is that he consistently rules in favor of the interests of wealthy people. If he were consistently ruling against gerrymandering and voter suppression and in favor of limits on election spending, it is unlikely those free trips would be frequent.
👍👍👍👍
The cost of things Thomas is routinely given by the billionaire are breathtaking. For instance:
https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1643973544857178114?cxt=HHwWhMDQldPOyNAtAAAA
The billionaire’s $50 million plane that costs about $8k per hour to maintain was dispatched to Washington from Dallas where it picked up Thomas and brought him to Dallas then took him back. At least 12 hours of flight time.
Saying Thomas gets “expensive vacations” is really minimizing the truth. My wife and I are going on what I would call an “expensive vacation” for a week that will cost about 1 hour of flight time on the billionaire’s jet.
And while the billionaire who paid for these trips "insists" he never talked to Thomas about cases before the court, what about the other billionaires who also along the ride?
Oh for heaven's sake, Harlan doesn't have any dear friends who are progressive judges or politicians or lobbyists because he just hasn't met any he likes. If he ever meets one, he won't hesitate to invite them along with Clarence and Leo and the rest of the boys. Honest!
There's no way he gets impeached for this, although he truly deserves it. Is it too much to hope for that he gets hauled before Congress and testifies in a hearing about judicial ethics reform? And that Congress actually exercises its oversight authority and institutes a real set of ethical guidelines for the court?
If the Republicans can make Hillary sit for over a dozen hours of Benghazi hearings, surely the Democrats can make Thomas, under oath, explain himself for the legitimate cause of exploring judicial ethics rules reform.
If I could bet on this, I'd take the side that says he just completely blows off a congressional subpoena.
Yep. And I bet if a case ever came before the court involving this Crow guy, Thomas wouldn't bother to recuse himself, either.
The fucking balls on this guy.
I know what you're getting at, but it doesn't really even take balls. Balls are required to do things that are dangerous. Thomas knows full well he's untouchable. There's no imaginable, foreseeable universe in which 67 votes exist in the Senate to remove him.
Well we surely know about his balls hair…am I right?
Looks to me like he's broken the law. If Congress won't impeach him, charge him and try him:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/clarence-thomas-broke-the-law-harlan-crow.html
I am thinking CT is a sort of nihilist. "Burn it all down."
Hasn't he always said affirmative action demeans the people who benefit from it? Must be so much better just to take welfare.
"Supreme Court justices sure do live in a weird, lawless netherworld where they can do anything they want."
You wouldn't believe what the Eyes Wide Shut parties are like.
When I see stuff like this it makes me think Madison Cawthorn’s comment about Republican cocaine fueled sex parties is true.
Seriously.
They're better since that movie came out.
It's just insane to give lifetime tenure with almost no recourse to ANYONE.
Maybe, the constitution-writers really did not understand what a flop impeachment and congressional oversite would turn out to be (our era is
not completely unique) and didn't foresee people living so long. John Marshall must've surprised them (if they were still alive to be surprised).
More on target than you probably imagined: https://dallasexpress.com/national/trammell-crow-jr-named-in-human-trafficking-case/
Sounds pretty swampy to me. John Roberts gonna check in about all the dignity the court has?
All this is just so much worse when you realize that Thomas was the justice who replaced the great Thurgood Marshall.
Too much political capital was used on Trump's indictment. It would be an epic shit show if Dems pushed to impeach Thomas. But, to be honest, if we impeached for this sort of thing, who but the staffers would still remain in DC?
Not going to happen as Democrats don't conrol the House.
No (do you go by "fishfish"?). I'm sure there's plenty of small-time graft, free dinners and what not, but Thomas's greed is on a different plane altogether.
For instance, I go back and forth to DC for work pretty frequently, and I've been on flights with my senator Patty Murray three times. She's always sitting in coach, like me and the rest of her constituents. Never passed her in first.
So let's not take cheap shots. Some of these folks are honest.
Supreme Court justices sure do live in a weird, lawless netherworld where they can do anything they want.
Isn’t this the same Kevin Drum who just the other day was remarking about how Trump should get a slap on the wrist for 34 counts for lying on his business records? Complaining that the charges were trumped up from misdemeanor to felony for political reasons?
And now you’re upset that Thomas hasn’t been filling out his ethics forms accurately for 20 years? I mean this infuriated me too, but I’m also in favor of charging Trump with every law he’s broken that hasn’t run out of time yet. You aren’t (or at least you weren’t the other day).
It’s easier to enforce the rules when you enforce them on everyone promptly. Letting stuff slide just encourages other people to cheat. Eventually, maybe the centrist Kevin Drums of the world will learn this.
"Eventually, maybe the centrist Kevin Drums of the world will learn this."
Centrist = skeptical + open minded = capable of learning.
Not centrist = close minded = cynical + naïve = in a pre-learning phase.
Centrists of the world ... unite!
"And now you’re upset that Thomas hasn’t been filling out his ethics forms accurately for 20 years?"
Don't be shitty. It's very clear that Kevin thinks that Thomas shouldn't be getting fabulously expensive gifts from politically connected people and that this post is about how it's also bad that Thomas's reaction to getting called on quasi-bribes two decades ago was not to stop but to conceal (that's the whole point of his hand-in-the-cookie-jar analogy). If you seriously think that Kevin's arguing that the real crime is paperwork, you should reread the post with a less jaded/excitable eye.
And Republicans will carry on as if this is how everyone else acts.
Isn't time Democrats ran against Republicans? Aren't they the real issue here?
They certainly think they're the real issue. Maybe they're right about it.
Let's take them at their word and run against them, as a group, as a population that has no place in public life.
Clarence and the Chief Justice of the most powerful nation on the planet should have their kindergarten graduation certificates rescinded. A kindergarten graduation certificate is ostensibly indicative of your status as a person that has proven your ability to get along with others. Maybe we can all get together and develop a remedial "kindergarten for grownups" program.
You have to admit, for a guy holding a law degree from Yale that he described as “worthless, not worth the paper it is printed on”, Clarence has done rather well.
Given that Crow and Thomas enjoy each others company so well and they never discuss any judicial issues anyway, maybe Thomas should resign so they can spend more time together.
Is Crows first name Jim? No wonder Clarence has no hostility to anything Jim Crow related.
Gift taxes.
From the IRS page:
"What is a gift?
Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return."
So I guess no gift tax if Thomas's friend got his money's worth. But wouldn't that then be income for Thomas?
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes
Annual exclusion range from $13K to $17K from 2011.
That's a very good point.
Another small point: what is our man Crow's bookkeeping for these gifts?
iamr4man points out that the plane Crow uses to shuttle our man Thomas around so liberally costs $8000 an hour to fly. Is he paying for this flying-carpet service out of his own pocket, or does one of his presumed multitude of corporate entities expense it as routine business? Same questions to varying extents about the other bennies he seems to shower on his buddy Clarence (who reportedly became his bff only *after* being gifted by the people with his position of high honor and trust).
As a taxpayer I would be mighty unhappy if it turns out that my taxes are being used to make up for expenses this guy Crow incurs corrupting one of the nine.
Taxes on gifts are to be paid by the person GIVING the gift.
Guess Clarence Thomas is no Abe Fortas…
"That's sort of ironic since they're folks who make up the law for the rest of us."
I can't tell if Kevin was just inaccurate in his wording here or was making a sly comment about the corrupted way that our political system is currently working, but of course at least in principle the Supreme Court does not "make up the law". But in this instance the point is well taken: For all their whining about "activist judges", the Republicans -- the alleged "conservatives" -- sure have worked hard to stack the courts with people who will make law from the bench.
Conservatives will make things up out of thin air because that's what they think other people do, because they can't follow why other people do things.
Essentially that's why it's wrong for them to be involved in government.
Referring to people that make things up out of thin air as "conservatives" is the moral equivalent to referring to people like Mehmet Oz and Phil McGraw as doctors.
The Republican Party is not conservative. They went so far down and to the right that they passed 3 o'clock, then they started going down and to the left. Now, along with the folks that went too far to the left, they're all together at 6 o'clock demanding a defunding of the authorities.
"but of course at least in principle the Supreme Court does not 'make up the law'"
That's not remotely true even in principle. Judges absolutely make law--that's sort of the point of the courts, in fact--which is why law school is mostly reading judicial opinions and very rarely reading statutes.
Now, they aren't supposed to legislate from the bench, and they are supposed to adjudicate within the sphere of authority granted to the courts, but that doesn't mean that the courts, not least the Supreme Court, are not charged with making law.
Point taken. However, we seem to be rather deep into semantics here, with a distinction between "make law", which you say that judges do all the time, and "make laws", the common definition of "legislate", which you say they shouldn't do. So which one did Kevin mean by "make up the law"?
For what it's worth -- and this goes back to my original point -- here's someone who apparently would agree with my statement: "A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law." -- Brett Kavanaugh, July 9, 2018.
At the risk of missing snarcasm, they ostensibly interpret the law “made up” by Congress tough we do seem from time to time to look to them to “interpret” in new directions when we cannot get Congress to take law where we want.
Some court has to be supreme, if we made a Supremer Court to make rules for these guys, we'd have the same problem.
The bigger problem is a combo of political cowardice and information environment that makes impeachment-removal impossible. You will always be able to convince 34 Republican Senators that whatever someone did either didn't happen, or was Actually Good, or maybe both.
Desi Lydic watched Fox News for a week and summarizes it,
https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1644087591241752580
All of the criticism should be directed at Roberts. He owns SCOTUS and Is supposedly concerned about how it’s perceived (it ain’t good right now). Maybe it’s time to put the heat on him and force him to apply some basic ethics to his justices.
I know, right? Roberts is well-connected in GOP circles. He *has* to have known over the years that Thomas was taking these lavish junkets with Crow and other big Republican machers and never say anything. Probably gave Thomas the confidence that he could get away with it.
Didn't Scalia die while on a hunting trip at some rich Texan's luxury game ranch?
Well, since Roberts's whole thing is to make the court the acceptable face of plutocracy/kakistocracy, I'd say you're right-- it should be at least a little burr under his saddle. But the most he could do would be to plead, beg, and try to cajole; he has no disciplinary authority, only procedural (we'll set aside the power of his example ...).
Thomas's basic position seems to be that he's invulnerable for life since he's so right-wing that nothing he can do will get 34 goopers to vote to remove him, and being Black shields him from the Ds. So he's got affirmative action protections on both flanks.
Thomas seems to have a pretty serious case of contempt for the entire world. Maybe including himself, but if so that shouldn't be the country's burden no matter how well-deserved it is.
I'm just going to start calling them Clarence and Ginny Hunt.
Because Harlan is totally their daddy.
And another example of why it's ludicrous that our betters and elites bitterly complain that the peasants don't respect the institutions of this nation anymore.
We need a constitutional amendment to term - limit Federal judges & apportion periodic appointments. It's too bad we can't have an amendment - writing process focused just on this problem & nothing else.
I'm not really sure we need a supreme court but maybe re-thinking its role is worthwhile.
The right solution is to expand the Supreme Court enough that the result will not be dependent on single individuals (ate least in most of the case). At least 30 are needed. Something like 3-5 judges from each appeal court.
Some people worry about logistics, but there are various solutions. Obvious one would be to get few judges selected by some process to sit in each case, do the hearings and write the arguments, and then the rest vote after reading the arguments.
That seems like a momentary solution but an invitation to an arms race. Also, you still have no way of getting rid of incompetents, clowns and bandits save a process that doesn't work (impeachment). I like term limits - they're gone eventually no matter what. Perhaps if you like them, you can allow them to be reappointed.
The Germans have an interesting system for their supreme court. The German federal government system is worth our while studying.
I'm skeptical about the motivation for this court regardless. It doesn't seem to solve problems, it makes problems, & it makes problems that can't be easily solved. Let's get rid of it. Or at least recharter it.
Clarence Thomas' sugar daddys' collection of Hitler memorabilia, Nazi artifacts, statues of famous dictators and Margaret Thatcher, Hitler napkins, paintings by Dubya, Norman Rockwell, Renoir, Monet and Hitler,
https://www.washingtonian.com/2023/04/07/clarence-thomass-billionaire-benefactor-collects-hitler-artifacts/
If you ask yourself, "What is the absolute best spin that could be put on this for Clarence Thomas' sake?" what do you get?
I think, first of all, that you have to accept that he truly believed that all of his benefactor's largess fit into the "except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported" clause of the relevant statute.
Now, if we accept this, his belief could either be genuine -- he thought everything fit into the exception within the intent and spirit of the law -- or cynical -- he knew it was a ridiculous loophole but was happy to make use of it anyway.
If his belief was cynical, he shouldn't be on the Court: the last person anyone should want on the Supreme Court is someone who is willing, cynically, to exploit legal loopholes out of his own interests.
So the best possibility is that his belief is genuine.
But I don't think that passes the "reasonable man" standard: no reasonable person would think that the statute intended to exclude lavish vacations and travel from the reporting requirement. Surely, if someone rented out an entire luxury cruise liner and invited you to go along, that's pretty clearly providing you with a free vacation, a vacation with a fairly determinable value. And that would be reportable. That the free vacation was on a luxury megayacht that the person already owned should not make a difference: this was not fixing up the guest room for you while you're in town; this is a luxury vacation you've been invited on.
So even if he was not cynically exploiting a loophole that he knew was contrary to the spirit of the law, he must then have really poor JUDGEment ... which is also a quality that no one should want in a Supreme Court Justice.