No I don’t think they should be accepting free travel/vacations from big donors—be it from individuals or businesses or universities.
Clarence Thomas
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
Exactly. This should probably be looked into. I don't care his political affiliation.
It should be changed, and there have been calls for it, but it can’t be post-fact. All of them are following the same rules and have accepted hospitality trips or gigs from donors.
Well in this case he is obviously within the law so no investigation needed on this one. Change the rules if this isn't the way it should be. I am unclear where I would stand on this because I don't think supreme court justices should be expected to be monks locked in their cell.
To answer your question I would think the Senate might have that oversight?
This is not being a monk. This is accepting too much from one person. You can agree with this right? Most people would look at this as too much influence on a judge.
Define too much. There is a reason the rule is written broadly. Too easy as we see here to try and play gotcha after the fact.
What? Do you think C. Thomas should be doing what he did? This isn't hard. Is it ethical .. yes or no?
Depends doesn't it? Should he be restricted to who you believe he should spend time with and where rhat happens?
Haha. Should ANY Supreme Court judge be able to accept extravagant vacations from ANYONE .. individual or corporate?
Did you see the vacations CT went on with the donor? Indonesia? Even the NY Post has articles on it.
You are better than this. I hope this was meant to be a joke.Deplorable thread
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!www.dictionary.com
It's his MO. When he can't find a "both sides" whattaboutism, he shifts to a completely irrelevant position as a distraction. Good times.
They were all disclosed. Thomas’ trips were not.This doesn’t seem to be new or exclusive to any one Justice.
Supreme Court justices bolstered by free travel, royalties, rental income
Before inspiring celebration, debate and dictionary searches last week, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court managed to squeeze in some globetrotting — on someone else’s dime. Six of the court’s nine members received paid trips to Europe in 2014, including to Berlin, London and Zurich, as...publicintegrity.org
This isn’t about who he spends time with. It’s about an Uber-rich guy, who is directly connected to many cases that have gone to the SC, financing the vacations of one of those judges, who never disclosed any of those trips.
I don’t see how anyone can say that’s remotely ethical at the very least.
No they weren’t. Sotomayor didn’t disclose her 6 trips paid by universities until 5 years later. The difference is those 6 were required by current law to be disclosed. Thomas’ trips with the Crow guy are exempt and don’t need to be disclosed per current laws/rules. There is a huge difference.
Those benefits would seem to go well beyond basic "hospitality".
I’m not a legal beagle, but no where in my search does the rule/law define a difference between individual hospitality and basic individual hospitality. Since you are clearly an expert in law (and COVID, and train brakes, and SCOTUS, and ethics, and many others) you can elaborate on what is and isn’t legal in terms of basic and non-basic hospitality. Please show sources.
Except for the "reporting" part.
Which would open the door for Roberts to ask him to recuse himself on cases where the reported benefits were related to an entity who may have an interest in a case before the court.
When there's no reporting, there's no ability for that oversight.
There's still a reporting requirement. Which other justices have used EVEN FOR paid appearances and travel for those appearances.
I don’t think there is a reporting requirement for individual hospitality. Not for SCOTUS. There is for other members of political sphere though.
Supreme Court justices face new disclosure requirements for gifts, free trips
Supreme Court justices must follow strengthened financial disclosure requirements surrounding gifts and free hotel stays, which follows rising pressure from lawmakers about the high court’s ethics …
thehill.com
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.
But the regulations clarify that judges must disclose stays at commercial properties, like hotels and resorts, and gifts of hospitality paid for by an entity or third-party other than the person providing it.
Un - plucking - believable.
And these guys are actually considered smart enough to vote.
And drive cars.
And buy guns.
No wonder we get dickheads like Orange Turds and DieSantis.
The things that he didn't report, appear to be exempt from the reporting requirement,... again, perhaps the current rules need to be looked at.
How so? Both of the examples provided fall under individual hospitality which don’t need to be disclosed. Hate the law, not one following the law.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 95,869
- 196,282
- 113
Agree. Not sure why they get more lax reporting requirements than other members in politics.
Not a lawyer, but I would think someone paying for your vacation would be considered a “gift” at best, wouldn’t it?
And due to the lax or flat out nonexistent rules for the SC; this likely isn’t illegal per se , but it sure seems unethical as hell.
I don’t think there is a reporting requirement for individual hospitality. Not for SCOTUS. There is for other members of political sphere though.
Supreme Court justices face new disclosure requirements for gifts, free trips
Supreme Court justices must follow strengthened financial disclosure requirements surrounding gifts and free hotel stays, which follows rising pressure from lawmakers about the high court’s ethics …thehill.com
Not sure either, which if nothing else is the point. This is the SC - they SHOULD be held to the highest standards.
This guy literally paid for his vacations. That goes beyond mere hospitality I would think. It’s not like he put him up for a few days cuz a hotel reservation fell thru.
The caveat seems to be that they weren’t on commercial jets or commercial properties. Since these are owned by his friend— plane, boat, properties, he doesn’t need report these per current law/rules.
I'll admit no to research on the matter, but media reports of decades of provided vacations, international flights, island trips, yacht stays, etc. do not quality as individual hospitality.
As a former government employee who has seen fellow employees lose careers for comparatively microscopic situations, this is a condition of scandalous behavior. I'll reserve judgement until more information comes out, but for christ sake, decades of paid for vacations by parties he was involved SC decisions?
My question is: Why do you defend behavior such as this? Even if "rules" or "codes" are not in place there is a personal ethical standard one would expect from a SC Justice.
You defend the Orange Turd regardless of evidence.
Right so he appears to not TECHNICALLY be in the wrong, but certainly seems to be ethically dubious at best.
Again demonstrating that SC needs better oversight.
