ProPublica today provides us with the fullest accounting yet of the endless largesse provided over the years to Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas from his cadre of billionaire friends:
Their gifts include: At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.
....The pattern exposes consistent violations of judicial norms, experts, including seven current and former federal judges appointed by both parties, told ProPublica. “In my career I don’t remember ever seeing this degree of largesse given to anybody,” said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for years on the judicial committee that reviews judges’ financial disclosures. “I think it’s unprecedented.”
The gifts were provided by David Sokol, a former top executive at Berkshire Hathaway; the late H. Wayne Huizenga, founder of AutoNation and Waste Management; Paul “Tony” Novelly, an oil baron; and, of course, the ubiquitous Harlan Crow, a real estate magnate.
But did Thomas violate any laws by hoovering up all these private gifts? Maybe! Can anyone do anything about it? Probably not. As near as I can tell, a Supreme Court justice could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and then just disappear safely into his chambers and refuse to ever talk about it.
This whole story gets sleazier and harder to believe with every new revelation. Thomas makes Hunter Biden look like a piker. But apparently nobody either can or will do anything about it. Welcome to America.
Every Democratic politician should be calling for his resignation. I know he won't but it helps focus people on the corrupt Republican court who don't pay attention and who ultimately decide elections.
My first check was $27,000. It's my first time winning something and I'm really happy about it. q I will work even harder from now on and can't wait to get paid next week. "y6 For more information, click the Home tab. ..
Use here................. https://richwork24.blogspot.com
Huh. Sort of vaguely on topic.
I dislike Thomas for his judicial rulings. As for his personal activities, while likely worse than the rest, all the justices seem to have a series of less than ideal money making ideas or receive a LOT of gifts.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/scotus-justices-rack-up-trips/
https://time.com/3945044/supreme-court-justices-free-trips/
So that makes it a bipartisan issue and Congress should be able to pass some legislation imposing a code of ethics on the SCOTUS.
While there is a bipartisan issue to it in the sense that the liberal justices disclosed things...
There is a problem with the Republican-appointed justices, particularly Thomas and apparently also Alito, accepting lavish gifts and NOT disclosing them.
Yes, I recognize that there are material differences in the extent of the problem with liberal vs conservative justices. But for the purposes of doing anything about it besides fruitless complaining, we should call conservatives' bluff on this and use this as an opportunity to limit gifts to all justices.
They make enough money with their lifetime appointments. They don't need additional income or gifts.
Absolutely.
So you've got no problem that he just refuses to disclose something? He clearly knows it's wrong, and believes (correctly, apparently) that he can simply get away with it.
It's hardly a bipartisan or equally problematic issue when the very links you're citing are based on disclosures.
Refusing to disclose (beyond simply failing to disclose) is beyond the pale. How is that OK with you?
cmayo - yes a lot more disclosure, less profit seeking etc would be great. HOWEVER, Thomas disclose is still not my core issue with him, its his rulings. Further, I doubt that requiring more disclosure will change Thomas's future rulings.
Sure, it won't change it.
But it's interesting that you just care about his rulings, not his ethical conduct (which can't really be separated from his rulings, but alright).
Justice Stephen Breyer took at least 225 subsidized trips from 2004 to 2018, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics
Lets imagine Thomas took zero subsidized trips, ever
I still would rather have Breyer over Thomas (even if Breyer failed to maintain proper disclosure etc)....
I'd prefer to have no subsidized trips at all, but there is a big difference between a university paying for a SCOTUS judge take a commercial flight to give, say, a commencement speech and accepting flights on a private jet to go on vacation. The WSJ and others will say that this doesn't influence Thomas at all as he has always been a "conservative" but it is just as likely that Thomas is a "conservative" for the same reason that Willie Sutton jobbed banks; he figured out early on that that's where the money is.
^ pretty sure this is it. It's the Occam's Razor explanation of Clarence Thomas.
I'm reminded of this scene from Last Action Hero. Conservative politicians are basically Charles Dance in this scene, and nobody gives a fuck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3g8GHkxppI
"Hello? I've just shot somebody. I did it on purpose. ... I said, I've murdered a man and I want to confess."
"HEY SHUT UP DOWN THERE"
But apparently nobody either can or will do anything about it.
Certainly somebody CAN. Congress has the Constitutional power to impose "regulations" on the Supreme Court (the silly squeals of Sammy Alito notwithstanding). But the REPUBLICANS in Congress oppose it, so it won't happen. And the Court itself could adopt a code of ethics, or place itself under the same rules as the rest of the Federal judiciary, but the REPUBLICANS on the Court won't do it, so it won't happen.
So the second part of the sentence is true, but we should be clear WHY it's true and who is responsible for it.
"who is responsible for it"
Well, CLEARLY the Democrats. Sez every newspaper editorial and teevie talking head. Regardless of fault or malice or incompetence, the Democrats must always clean up the messes of the other side -- it's the Iron Law of Journalism.
Where is the IRS in all this?
Good catch! Surely, there's some unpaid back gift taxes in all of this?
"At least 38 destination vacations"
Jeebus. I realize that I'm not nearly as old as the right honorable Thomas, but the idea of taking 38+ destination vacations during a professional lifetime seems mind-boggling to me.
Between sleeping through oral arguments, summer recesses, speaking gigs, and apparently jetting off dozens of times on the dime of folks who love having a pocket Justice, does this guy actually do any work?
The thing I find noteworthy is that Thomas was appointed by GHW Bush, whom I consider the most upright and dedicated Republican president since Eisenhower. If you want to start pushing back on that statement, just remember what a low bar I've set.
(Ok, maybe Gerald Ford could beat him. Discuss.)
GHWB's other appointment, David Souter, worked out pretty well, IMHO.
There's not a snowballs chance in Desert Center that we will be able to get Thomas off the court, but I think we can pretty solidly make the case that Republicans cannot be allowed to appoint justices. This is solid political material, hit that weak spot.
It goes along with the pro choice stuff that is winning for Democrats. I forsee the possibility of Democrats strongly outperforming in 2024. But only with focus and work.
I agree that you've set a low bar; who was the least bad of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump? I would disqualify Ford for the Nixon pardon, which means you're right; it was Bush Sr.
I work in .gov, I can't imagine anyone accepting gifts like this. It's mind-blowing.
Also, the idea that both sides do this, OK, fine, but let's stop the both-siderism long enough to realize that he did, in fact, do this. But, officer, everyone else was speeding too, doesn't change the fact that you were, in fact, speeding.
Yah. I work in .mil, and I have to take ethics training annually, which always covers the obligation to disclose outside sources of income and potential conflicts of interest.
And then I had to watch Trump for four years, and now Thomas.
Using the speeding analogy, the other guys were doing 65 in a 60 zone, while Thomas had it cranked up to 120 in a school zone.
Again, I was told to stifle my cynicism, rein in my sarcasm, reilluminate my faith in the institutions of the country - in other words, back into line.
Fed just enough to blunt the pangs of hunger for justice with low hanging fruit, meanwhile I watch my betters feast.
I agree with KD.
America.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What angers me is the argument that gifts are fine as long as the giver has no business before the court. It's bull crap. SCOTUS decisions affect everyone in the country. Everyone has an interest in the things the court has decided.
Congress should tell SCOTUS that they can't accept any gifts over a nominal amount period.
No, it's more than "affects the whole country".
It's that Thomas knows that he gets the trips because he votes the right way. And if he stopped voting that way the trips would stop.
As near as I can tell, a Supreme Court justice could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and then just disappear safely into his chambers and refuse to ever talk about it.
This isn't strictly true, as most murders are state-level crimes. Since Supreme Court justices aren't flanked by Secret Service agents at all times, I'm sure local/state police forces could get close enough to them to take them into physical custody if they were really suspected of killing someone with hundreds of witnesses. (Secret Service likely would prevent local/state police from getting close enough to a sitting president to arrest him.)
That said, I'm sure that SCOTUS will invent some reason to usurp state supreme courts in their attempts to impose any sort of penalty on justices accused or convicted of state-level crimes.
Dick Durbin and senate dems are zeta cucks.
I think the entire purpose of the gifts is misplaced. It isn't any attempt to sway the justice's vote, it is that Ginni is such a fun travel companion.
Anyone think the travel offers will dry up after his eventual retirement?
Why not do what Trevor Noah has suggested? Have some liberals give Justice Thomas some freebies in exchange for liberal rulings. If he's truly as corrupt as they say he is, this should work, no? Seems to be a waste of resources for conservatives to lavish conservative judges with gifts since they would normally rule in their favor without them.
When Thomas will simply argue that any ruling he's made catering to the deep wants of the billionaire class in fact reflects his clear judicial philosophy who can argue?
Rather than term limits for justices I'd suggest that after some period of time, perhaps 20 or 25 years, they should have to be re-confirmed.
Re-confirmation I think would make a better national argument and provide a public accountability for them.
1) I like the reconfirmation idea.
2) What I don't get about bribery: why pay off an official who would've acted in your favor regardless?
In Alaska, an oil industry boss confessed to bribing Republicans who never vote against the oil industry anyway. (The legislators, including Sen. Ted Stevens, argued that he was just friendly.) In this case, the bribery might've been insurance for when his underage prostitution was uncovered.
Excellent question, I'd say the answer is because they can.
It's style, grandiosity and the thrill of getting away with it.
Because they're a superior race unencumbered by the trivial bothers that law inflicts on the feeble existence of anyone who actually needs money, and it keeps the bribed away from any momentary lapses that might accidentally occur.
"2) What I don't get about bribery: why pay off an official who would've acted in your favor regardless?"
I think it is like the difference between having a sympathetic referee in sports who you know will always make close calls go your way, and a referee that will flat out come out with bogus or phantom calls to favor you.
It merely gives them the assurance that they can be way out of bounds and still get rulings in their favor.
Personally, I don't see these "gifts" to Thomas as bribes. Payoffs. Or tips for a loyal retainer To Insure Promptness.
The repulsives continue to go after Hunter, even with all of this slop in their own yard....
If only the Constitution provided some way for Congress to remove a federal judge …