And those disclosures would provide his colleagues with the information to request his recusals on cases where there is a potential conflict.
not having access to that information means no one knows there is even a conflict.
Clarence Thomas
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
And those disclosures would provide his colleagues with the information to request his recusals on cases where there is a potential conflict.
not having access to that information means no one knows there is even a conflict.
I think I’ve made it clear that I think the rules need to be changed, but I won’t fault someone for following rules.
I have spent years in finance and have dealt with auditors quite often. The very first rule when dealing with auditors is to give them exactly what they ask for and nothing more, nothing less. This is the same with taxes and such. Provide the detail that is required and that is all. NEVER give them anything more that will raise more questions.
I’ve defended Trump and criticized him. I’m not on team Trump, never voted for him. I will call out BS when it’s a lie (ex. drinking bleach), but that less about defending Trump and more about facts.
Except he didn't follow the current inadequate rules. He just issued a statement basically claiming ignorance of the law (insert lawyer or Thomas joke here), and that he would try to follow the rules in the future.
The items he didn't report could be construed as being not reportable,.. don't really see the infraction here.
Forget whether or not he followed the existing guidelines - someone in his position should go out of their way to avoid anything that might damage the court. Accepting gifts worth millions to hang around with right wing architects would certainly fall under that. He is, and always has been a political hack.
Guidelines apparently changed just recently...
Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered “personal hospitality.”
Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts’ policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or other private retreats owned by a company, rather than an individual. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet. In his statement, Thomas noted those changes to the guidelines, which took place March 14.
“And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” he said".
Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered “personal hospitality.”
Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts’ policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or other private retreats owned by a company, rather than an individual. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet. In his statement, Thomas noted those changes to the guidelines, which took place March 14.
“And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” he said".
It’s a new law created this year. You can’t hold the past to current laws.
They just reduced the speed limit by my house because of a new school. Should we all get speeding tickets now for going 55 last summer before it was reduced from 55 to 35?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 96,717
- 199,473
- 113
He cashed in. That doesn't mean that he went against his politic values.
The problem with the way a lot of people use "uncle tom" is that there is an implicit assumption that the only reason a black person would associate with conservative politics is that they're selling out -- they don't really have those values.
And that's what is ridiculous.
Ethics and law are not the same. If the law says you have to disclose ABC, but not D then no one will disclose D.
Did he report those gifts on his taxes? Seems a high enough dollar amount to be taxable income.
It really is just completely easy.....ask yourself, how would this look to everyone else? If the answer is bad, you have chosen poorly
You may be correct, but I'm challenging this.
He may not have said drinking bleach per se, but he did imply using bleach internally. So, his stupidity is not defensible. Find your facts where you can, but as we know in the world other than yours, hiding things usually clouds the truth.
I agree the rules are either ambiguous or nonexistent. But he operates in an environment of proprieties. Ethics are not verbatim. You expect a SC justice to have personal character above and beyond question. I personally would not solicit or accept constant or unlimited gifts from my best friend. What kind of person would?
This is bullshit and unbelievable. A person with no pride or self-respect. This was an arrangement made for and of trade-offs and decisions.
Edit: If any decisions involved any business activities of this guy the question is moot. He is compromised.
Last edited:
Once or twice would be one thing, but this has happened for years, with the total value well Into the millions. You can’t sell that to me as “personal hospitality “.
@Aardvark86
Where are you on this one? You are kind of the SCOTUS thread guy. On a scale of Lib hand wringing, to it’s cool because he’s on my team, where does this land?
Where are you on this one? You are kind of the SCOTUS thread guy. On a scale of Lib hand wringing, to it’s cool because he’s on my team, where does this land?
Rules or not, the legal ethics guidelines on this are very very clear: if you have any potential conflict of interest, you disclose it and - if necessary - you recuse yourself.
Thomas has completely failed on this point. Which is easily an ethical lapse for ANY judge, let alone a SC one.
Ethical guidelines are expected to be followed by judges. They are supposed to know better and disclose when they have any potential conflict. Also, lawyers. Like the lawyer who represented Stormy Daniels, at the same time he was a Trump lawyer - that's a major violation for any lawyer and big no-no.
Thomas does not get a pass, here, because he knows those ethics rules, and is expected to follow them.
In Clarence’s defense he earned all of it through his willingness to whore himself out.
I’m glad we have these new guidelines so that professional judges will now realize there’s a difference between someone cooking you dinner at their house and accepting millions of dollars in resort stays, private jet flights, and yacht travel.
Last edited:
Ive been out of the loop a bit with Holy Week activities.
In terms of where I am, the simple fact is he’s right as to earlier disclosure obligations, and in general, recusal only comes into a play where financial interests are with parties. My understanding is that has not been the case.
I have no problem with enhanced reporting obligations for the justices, if for no other reason than that they improve mechanisms for recusal evaluation. I don’t buy the idea that scotus is irregulable on these matters.
But while I recognize many don’t like the justice, and that’s fine, hanging with rich conservative friends who pay for your dinner is no more a basis for stepping down than hanging with poor conservative friends where you pay for dinner. Bad look? Sure. Actionable corruption? Sorry.
The justices have side gigs. Regardless of whether they are ostensibly neutral (eg, teaching a class or writing a book), the reality is they tend to get arranged by people who like the cut of the justices jib.
Wanna buy a bridge? That’s a pretty giant stretch of the law you are making. You don’t see the conflict of interest? $500k gift trips are normal to you?
Seriously?
Accepting millions in "free vacations" doesn't imply any "financial interests" here?
Put you legal ethics cap on.
And those judges disclosed payments received for those "side gigs".
This is not a "side gig". These are handouts that can reasonably be assumed to impact someone's judgement when something is before the Court that might impact his "good friends".
A couple of occasions I could see your argument here. But we’re not talking about a couple of trips, rather, DOZENS of essentially paid vacations to various properties, transport via private jet to these properties, valued in the millions of dollars.
perhaps not legally due to lax governing rules of the SC, but morally and ethically dubious as hell, and creates the perception of a conflict of interest by Thomas, especially after the stuff surrounding his wife and her relationships with the Trump administration and the election.
Seems like most people are taking issue with the perceived value. None of these appeared to be commercial, that is the difference. Placing a value on air travel or time spent on a boat a friend owns is irrelevant to the matter of law as it was written. Maybe that changed now with the rule change a couple months ago. People wanting him to disclose these things out of the kindness of his heart need a reality check.
Sotomayor didn’t disclose hers until 5 years later. Where are you on that?
“These are handouts that can reasonably be assumed to impact someone's judgement”— this says all we need to know about you.
If he were a judge for pretty much any other court I think he’d be in very murky grounds legally speaking.
the perception as you call it, is that Thomas accepted millions in gifts/hospitality from a GOP megadonor who has been involved in numerous cases that Thomas sat in on.
this, along with the stuff surrounding his wife, very much creates the perception of a justice whos ethically compromised and further demolishes the perception of legitimacy that the Court is struggling to hang on to.
So many in this thread seem to have trouble grasping that our government officials have always been held to a higher ethical standard than the letter of the law.
No; the statutes the disclosure "hospitality" rules are based upon, refer to "property", as in staying at someone's house.
NOT for transportation/travel. That is clearly defined as a perk that requires disclosure.
Clarence Thomas was not partying at someone's home for the Super Bowl here, getting "free food". Which is an example of what those hospitality laws DO exclude from reporting.
Transportation is required for reporting, per the statutes those original guidelines are based upon.
Thus, private jet travel AND traveling on the yachts would imply required reporting as "perks".
The Justice’s close friend apparently likes Hitler.
I really did Nazi that coming.
I really did Nazi that coming.
