I would be calling for his impeachment. Can't have a compromised judge at any level.
Clarence Thomas
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
AOC has a couple of ass-ets that are priceless
Partially offset by the cankles, though.
Per Thomas' own admission, this "friendship" and sponging off the rich guy ONLY started 5 years AFTER he became a SC justice. Not during any other tenure of his legal career. Ergo, this is "NOT" a "longtime" friend, it's someone who buddied up to him AFTER he was in a position of power and influence.
Seems like @herkyhawk00 can only respond with laughy-emojis when his "talking points" are debunked.
Legality is all that matters in this instance. If they did business on the trips that specifically is outlined in the law.
The value, whether it be $1 or $1M is moot as the rules don’t specify. Mind you, Crow spending $1M to fly friends or go yachting with friends (sunk costs ignored) is like someone making $100K a year paying $30 for a friends meal. $1M and $30 is a big difference no doubt, but its all relative.
No. Legality is not all that matters here. People are fired for the perception of impropriety without having done something illegal. And the amount spent relative to the donor's wealth is completely irrelevant - it wasn't $30 to Thomas. That's nonsense.
No. It is not.
There are basic ethics principles that lawyers and judges are expected to abide by.
They can be impeached or disbarred when violating those ethics standards.
JFC, that's not what I said. The first issue is if Thomas broke any laws which it's clear he didn't. The second issue, which is of ethics, and I clearly stated they ALL are doing it, which I don't like in any way. The third issue is the hypocrisy of libtards feigning outrage when conservatives do things vs. when libtards do them.
But they are NOT "all doing it". Which means you're either just lying here (again), or misinformed.
Well, first I’m not sure it’s as clear as you think that he didn’t break any laws - but I think at best he’s parsing existing laws/rules finely enough that proving it legally is difficult.
Second, no you went straight to “these other people do it to” which either means you think it’s okay what he did because other people do it to or that you’re just fine with it regardless. You kinda sorta said you don’t like it…but that’s not the same thing as saying it’s wrong no matter what.
Third, name-calling one side again deflects from what you’re trying to argue. I don’t care whether you’re conservative or liberal, what Thomas has done is shady as hell, all but destroys his credibility as an ethical, responsible jurist; and further damages what integrity the SC has left.
There’s sadly a lot that politicians do that we mostly accept and move on because it’s just how you have to play the game to get things done. But Thomas is NOT a politician, he’s a Judge, and not just any judge but a Supreme Court Justice. We have every reason to hold him (and all other judges/justices) to a higher moral/ethical standard than politicians - after all they’re supposed to be part of the mechanism that holds them in line. Trying to equate him and his actions with that of any other politician erodes that mechanism.
Agreed he broke a norm. It's up to us to decide how to punish these folks. One way maybe to start demanding better from all of the elites in Washington. These individuals are acting like feudal lords.
It does address the issue, you've provided zero reason why it didn't idiot. Just like your 1978 argument which is idiotic. You were all on board with 1978 law when it came to the Presidential records act.
Actually no, it's not up to us,... As is the norm, "we" will have no say in how any of this ultimately gets resolved...
Below is what I said. I did not say "these other people do it to", I gave examples, I didn't list out everything which seems to be what you'd rather me have done instead which isn't going to happen. I clearly implicated the entire government in DC.
"Is it really any different from what happens in DC every damn day? How did Pelosi, Feinstein, McConnell, AOC, Bernie, etc get rich on their salaries? Has that all been disclosed over the years? The whole damn government is nothing but elbow rubbing, money exchanging, "hospitality", etc."
It actually is pretty clear he didn't do anything against the law. The 1978 law is ambiguous about travel, despite what bonehead Joe thinks and hospitality is included. 2021 & 2023 are not laws, but guidance. It's also up for debate if Congress can tell an equal branch what to do. SC should have set their own standards for reporting and ethics and that's a failure on their part.
I didn't name call anyone specific and this board is exhausting with the level of liberals on here who do nothing but call people names that go against their narratives. I tried playing nice long ago, not doing it. I'm not running for Congress, local office, school board, or glee club president.
And I disagree completely about the SC not being like a politician. It absolutely has stooped to that level now and it doesn't look like it will change. So, call a spade a spade. And taking trips with a very close friend of 25 years where there has been no clear COI is very different from other examples such as what Biden did with his son as VP. Yes, it doesn't look good that he didn't report it, ethically. Totally agree with that and he should have known better.
It's not relative to the person ACCEPTING the "gift". Most wouldn't compromise their values for a $30 meal. A whole hell of a lot of people would for $1M. Especially for MULTIPLE gifts in that range.
What YOU want to do is excuse it based on your "everybody does it" claim. How about this? You FORGET what others do and approach this on it's own. As a stand-alone, not-related-to-anything-else issue. Take a f'n stand. Should there be repercussions for this or not? Simple question. Can you answer it? And if your answer is there should be none...justify that based on it's own merits.
I don’t agree that SC justices should be treated the same as others in government, not accept that as permanent when stuff like this happens.
This is unacceptable behavior, especially on top of everything else Thomas has had going on. Especially when it’s not “he was taking trips with his close friend for 25 years”! His “close friend” PAID FOR EVERYTHING!
It’s also noteworthy that they weren’t friends, or at least the paid vacations didn’t begin until AFTER he joined the Supreme Court,
When similar stuff happens to members of Congress; they ARE required to report that, admittedly not all of them do, and Al too often it’s no more than a slap on the wrist when they do get caught.
A SC justice can't be voted off the court for this kind of thing. They have a life-time contract. The standard has to be FAR higher for them than for someone who has to face voters. What say you, @your_master5 ?
This was answered in post #365. I'll re-post just for you.
Bernie has a net worth of $3M, hardly rich at his age. AOC has assets less than $100K. Pelosi came from money and has a rich husband as does Feinstein.
How about I don't do what YOU want me to do. I will also absolutely claim that it happens everywhere in DC and bring up Biden. You are one of the people on here that is 100% a narrative builder who is a complete hypocrite. What about not breaking the law do you not understand? Liberals want him impeached and I don't agree with that.
LOL! Oh yeah, I'm going to believe the Pro Publica writer who states zero statutes that Thomas broke.
Nope still no laws broken.
Wow, bought and paid for. I guess that's why his nickname is Uncle Tom.
What about Independents and moderates that think this is unethical? I don't give a crap about his race.
Was me posting that again in reference to your answer? No, it wasn't, yet you post again, probably because you think you're clever.
Let AOC explain this to you herself. The definition of "rich" comes in many facets. And no, you can't claim Pelosi/Feinstein married into the wealth they have now. You and I know that's not true as they've used their positions to expand greatly on that wealth. Same thing with Ditch. How about you just admit there's plenty of shady shit in DC instead of the garbage you peddle.....
As mentioned, I don't disagree that those things should have been reported, ethically.
I am certainly no expert in judicial disclosure requirements, but a quick Google search shows that Section 315.40 of the judicial disclosure regulations requires judges/justices to disclose transactions involving the purchase or sale of property or assets in excess of $1,000.
Yep.
ONLY exception is if it is your own personal, primary residence.
On top of this:
2 other properties on the street, adjacent, were purchased; those (I believe) went for about 1/3rd (each) of what he paid Thomas.
Thomas' mother still resides in the residence; there are no records that she is paying any rent.
$36k of "upgrades" and renovations have been made to the property (to the direct benefit of Thomas' mother). No mention of any "similar upgrades" to the other two purchased properties.
Uh...yeah. That's actually a statute he broke the law on here. Along with (apparently) his mother getting free rent and major property renovations done, for free.
But seven legal ethics experts we spoke to, including former ethics lawyers for Congress and the White House, said the law clearly requires that gifts of transportation, including private jet flights, be disclosed.
I've pointed this out about a half-dozen times, already in this thread.
Judges - and lawyers - are governed by ETHICAL standards. They can be disbarred for ETHICS violations that have not one thing to do with breaking the law. That's not a "narrative"...it's a fact that you refuse to address. Maybe you don't understand "ethical standards". I wouldn't find that at all surprising.
YOU are the one building a narrative to avoid addressing the issue - that's exactly what your "everybody does it"..."look at Biden" is all about. THAT'S a "narrative".
All I'm asking you to do is look at this one instance and comment on it independent of all the other horseshit you want to bring to the table to excuse it and you refuse.
Good. Then we’re agreed he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. Glad to have the discussion.
Lol - you made another ignorant post. I simply answered your question. Bernie nor AOC are rich. Feinstein and Pelosi have rich husbands. Those are facts. As far as Mitch goes, I don't know.
Your tantrums are funny.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 95,820
- 196,093
- 113
I love those idiots. All it does is make your ratio better!
