In 1968 Lyndon Johnson nominated Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but the nomination failed because Republicans, along with some Southern Democrats, filibustered it. The Southerners didn't like the fact that Fortas was Jewish. Republicans, however, pointed to Fortas's receipt of $15,000 in private funds to give nine speeches at a local law school.
Today, ProPublica reported that Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted millions of dollars worth of vacations and yacht voyages from a billionaire friend over the past few decades. He has reported none of this. As near as I can tell, not a single serving Republican has said anything about this.
As usual these days, IOKIYAR.
Really? Republicans obviously ARE hypocrites, but reaching out to an example from 1968 does not make for a very strong case. I know the Senate is old and Senators serve forever, but there's still not a single current Republican Senator who was in the Senate back then.
"reaching out to an example from 1968 does not make for a very strong case. "
He's not making a case for hypocrisy; this is more a "the times, they are a-changin'" sort of historical juxtoposition, as I read it.
IOKIYAR = It's OK If You Are Republican
That implies that it would not be OK if it was a Democrat and therefore a charge of hypocrisy.
Do you enjoy being obtuse? Of course Kevin is charging the Republicans with being hypocritical to their professed values,The reference to 1968 is just an historical reference to show how far they have fallen.
It would seem your reply should have been to aldoushickman
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
"IOKIYAR"
Is there a reason to compare a nomination from 1968 to a sitting Justice today? Is it customary for Justices to refuse hospitality from friends? Is it required, or customary, for Justices to report the value of hospitality they've enjoyed? Is there any reason to try to turn this into an issue?
Hospitality is not the same as extravagant gifts. So, yes. Were Trammell a foreigner, say a Chinese national, I think some who would have look past this would see his actions differently. My good friend, Guo Wengui, anyone?
Yes. Again, there is a difference between hospitality -- stay with us tonight -- and lavish gifts -- fly on my private jet to my private luxury yacht where we'll sail to my private luxury estate where you can mix with other political donors.
Such coziness breeds nepotism and cronyism. If you value even the notion of meritocracy, what Clarence Thomas did was anathema.
I get that you're "just asking questions", but they're rhetorically misguided.
"Were Trammell a foreigner, say a Chinese national, I think some who would have look past this would see his actions differently. My good friend, Guo Wengui, anyone?"
That would require a searching look at the books of Ginni's non-profit, except we don't look at dark money now.
The code of Federal Regulations, which applied to Thomas for the years in which he was a district judge, cannot possibly be stretched to allow the level of largesse Crow heaped upon him.
Which leaves two possible conclusions: (i) upon elevation to the Supreme Court, which is not bound by the same regulations, Thomas exclaimed "hot damn! private jets here we come Ginny", or (ii) Thomas really could care less about what the run of the mill Federal district and Appellate judges have to report or not report, because he is a member of the Supremes now, and everyone else can F right off.
Any Democrat who did something similar would be hounded out of office by other Dems so fast it would be before the article hit the news. But that is what Kevin was getting at with his IOKIYAR.
If it's only hospitality, then the Republicans should say it. Out loud. Right?
Is there a reason to compare a 1968 $15,000 speaking fee with a 2019 $550,000 joyride to Indonesia? And yes the Supremes are required (more accurately are supposed to be required) to report gifts and gratuities.
Quibble, Fortas was a sitting justice in 1968. The nomination was to be elevated to Chief Justice. He had been previously nominated to the court by Johnson and confirmed thereto in 1965.
And in Tennessee, you no longer have First Amendment protections if you are a Black legislator.
At the real risk of a yeah but moment, or perhaps my getting schooled on an actual occurrence, but assume for a moment it was a trio of MAGA legislators on the floor with a megaphone exhorting their supporters in the gallery. Would you truly be asserting a First Amendment issue in their defense?
"assume for a moment it was a trio of MAGA legislators . . . Would you truly be asserting a First Amendment issue in their defense?"
FWIW, I would. Explusion seems like a pretty extreme sanction for bullhornery. I get that rules of decorum are important-ish, but the bar for expelling duly-elected members of the legislature should be pretty freaking high, and much higher than mere indecorous speech, since legislators are sent to the legislature for the whole and single purpose of *speaking on behalf of their constituents*.
Also it's very important to note that the GOP controlled body turned off the microphones whenever the three tried to speak about gun control. The bullhorn was only because they were denied the microphones that the GOP were allowed to use to pontificate on their bigotries.
You mean like MTG screaming "Liar" at Biden during the State of the Union? Did any Dems call for her expulsion for that? Trying to both sides this blatant, racist act of power tripping is not a good look.
Clarence Thomas actions smell really wrong and of corporate capture. I don't know, do other Supreme Court Justices take similar gifts: before someone jumps down my throat, honestly do we know?
I will say that some of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments about Hillary Clinton, or even her comment's who which President should select her successor, also felt inappropriate to me.
https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-says-macho-atmosphere-us-election-hindered-hillary-clinton-802906
Curious: what do you find concerning about her comments reported in that article?
Yes, it’s inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to try to to influence an election that concluded more than a year previous to her comment.
Nothing compared to O'Connor's siding with Bush because she wanted to retire and didn't want Gore to pick her replacement.
That's what I like about history. In 50 or 100 years all the gatekeepers/villagers will be dust and the truth can be said aloud and written about these scoundrels.
The irony is that O’Conner detested Alito and regularly savaged his opinions when they reached the Supreme Court, yet W. ended up appointing him to take her seat.
The Republican party has sold out, and work in the interests of the very same transnational globalists they claim to oppose (well, not the very same). Corrupt through and through, manipulating faith folk and denying science.
Always adjust for inflation!
$15,000 in 1968 is worth more than $130,000 today.
Besides, what if Thomas counted his vacations as a series of smaller increments, each conveniently below the $415 reporting threshold?
Yes, $150,00 is still less than $550,000, the cost of Clarence’s 2019 Indonesian trip, Fortas received payment for giving speeches. Thomas claims he received payment for doing nothing.
When do "gift taxes" kick in??? And were they paid? (The gifter pays, right?)
Honestly, I don't care either. Thomas is not voting conservatively because he's getting gifts. He's voting conservatively because... he's extremely conservative (albeit a weird and idiosyncratic conservative).
The main thing that annoys me about this is that, if it were a liberal judge, it would be the top story on Fox for a week.
(And obviously, it doesn't look good and should be illegal.)
" Thomas is not voting conservatively because he's getting gifts. He's voting conservatively because... he's extremely conservative"
While it's true that you can nearly always predict Thomas's votes in advance, I don't think that all these lavish gifts are thereby harmless/wasted money--they may not be bribes, but something akin to maintenance fees, which is still pretty bad.
I'm not so sure about that. Thomas' entire career has been about supporting conservatism but it could well be that it is because *that's where the money is*. It's impossible to tell whether his "true" views are about anything other than personal profit maximization.