Clarence Thomas may soon be ousted

a reply to: Xtrozero

What about Alito who had a luxury fishing trip to Alaska covered by a wealthy "friend" that included a stay at a commercial fishing lodge?

By the way, it's not just violations of the Ethics in Government Act that's the issue. It's that these billionaires are lavishing gifts upon these judges, then having business in front of the courts, and these justices aren't recusing themselves. Do you not see any potential for conflict of interest?

originally posted by: Threadbare
It's that these billionaires are lavishing gifts upon these judges, then having business in front of the courts, and these justices aren't recusing themselves. Do you not see any potential for conflict of interest?

There you go with the "lavish" again...lol What were the cases you are talking about and what were the rulings? Just generalizations mean little, as to Crow... He and his business has had ZERO cases before the SC, so what about that?

When we compare justices we see Thomas has a net worth of about a million while Sotomayor's net worth is 6 to 10 million in a much shorter period of time while starting at around 100k for her. I make more money than she did in the last 10+ years and I don't even have a million.

a reply to: Threadbare

Judges can have friends. Why does everything they do have to be nefarious?

a reply to: Xtrozero

It looks like the bulk of Sotomayor's wealth have come from her book deals.

However, I have no problem with overhauling oversight over the SCOTUS so we can potentially weed out any corruption.

a reply to: matafuchs

When those friends then have business before the court and the justice doesn't excuse themself, then it becomes nefarious.

originally posted by: Threadbare

It looks like the bulk of Sotomayor's wealth have come from her book deals.

However, I have no problem with overhauling oversight over the SCOTUS so we can potentially weed out any corruption.

The big question is how hard did they push the book deals? Do you think a billionaire couldn't "buy" 100k of her books as they have a case in front of the SC? Sounds like Hunter's art scam...lol

One thing I can say for the liberals, they have better ways to get paid off legally. After the big Whitewater scandal of the Clintons, they went from being broke leaving the office to being worth like 400 million today. What they do is just get paid ridiculous amounts of money to come and talk for 5 mins. Hi Hillay, have Bill come and talk to my group and we will pay him 1 million in lecture fees, please tell him not to talk over 3 mins...

Much of all this makes Thomas' friend visits seem like much of nothing, doesn't it?

I do believe they are changing the language in the Ethics in Government Act to account for events like what Thomas has basically legally done.

a reply to: Threadbare

They would recuse, not excuse. This can happen in lower courts and it does all of the time. I agree in many cases, i have had some personally, this can occur. Nepotism is rampant in the law field.

However, if something goes to the SCOTUS it has generally been through the lower courts so why would anyone need to recuse themselves? Did Thomas make a ruling that Harlan Crow benefited from? He has never personally been before the court I am aware of or have read about. The only thing I have read was a case brought in 2004 and it was regarding architectural rights. Crows name was not even on the docket or mentioned in the case.

This is about, just like Trump, a rooting out of those who do not agree with the BS Progressive Agenda.

originally posted by: matafuchs

However, if something goes to the SCOTUS it has generally been through the lower courts so why would anyone need to recuse themselves? Did Thomas make a ruling that Harlan Crow benefited from? He has never personally been before the court I am aware of or have read about. The only thing I have read was a case brought in 2004 and it was regarding architectural rights. Crows name was not even on the docket or mentioned in the case.

This is about, just like Trump, a rooting out of those who do not agree with the BS Progressive Agenda.

The left screaming about removing him is what really gets me here. We can Whataboutism for days with the hyperbole they seem to spew out every time they find anything they can spin to their advantage while their side can do 10x worst events all the time and that is all good.

In Thomas' case, he legally didn't need to claim any of it according to the Ethics in Government Act, and Crow or his companies have never had anything associated with an SC case, so what is actually the problem here?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Gotta love when they get cleared but for some reason they are still accused and vilified by the left.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Xtrozero

Gotta love when they get cleared but for some reason they are still accused and vilified by the left.

It is all about the message to get the initial accusation out to the news and social media with zero care about where it ends up. So far it's been 100% for all these events to just die on the vine and then they either just stop talking about it, or they do a page 12 retraction for one day, but the damage is done. 2 years later you could ask a liberal what about Thomas and they will say oh he is corrupt and is paid off all the time. That is all they are trying to accomplish as we have also seen with the never-ending attacks on Trump as an example.

During the summit, the justice went to a private dinner for the network’s donors. Thomas has attended Koch donor events at least twice over the years, according to interviews with three former network employees and one major donor. The justice was brought in to speak, staffers said, in the hopes that such access would encourage donors to continue giving.

That puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has brought cases before the Supreme Court, including one of the most closely watched of the upcoming term.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events

Do you still see nothing wrong with Thomas' behavior?

originally posted by: Threadbare

Do you still see nothing wrong with Thomas' behavior?

Literally no. Justices have to live normal lives. They aren't monks. They have historically recused themselves many times.

If a case comes up where he has a clear conflict of interest due to gifts or ties to orgs (actual ties, not I went there a couple of times) and he doesn't address it, then there is a problem. That's how conflict of interest works.

RBG officiating a wedding is no different than a justice giving a speech at the NRA. Conflict of interest is about tangible conflicts, like being on a board or direct family involved with money at stake etc. , not feelings, or personal beliefs and interests. .

A justice can't be expected to anticipate every case that might come up in the future. That is why recusal exists. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to go to church or pride rallies or own guns etc. etc.

a reply to: Halfswede

The Koch network is among the largest and most influential political organizations of the last half century, and it’s underwritten a far-reaching campaign to influence the course of American law. In a case the Supreme Court will hear this coming term, the justices could give the network a historic victory: limiting federal agencies’ power to issue regulations in areas ranging from the environment to labor rights to consumer protection. After shepherding the case to the court, Koch network staff attorneys are now asking the justices to overturn a decades-old precedent. (Thomas used to support the precedent but flipped his position in recent years.)

Two years ago, one of the network’s groups was the plaintiff in another Supreme Court case, which was about nonprofits’ ability to keep their donors secret. In that case, Thomas sided with the 6-3 conservative majority in the Koch group’s favor.

So then we have a problem?

a reply to: Threadbare

What money did he get from them? It sounds like he attended a charity and any money was in their favor.

But yeah, if he has financial interest in the org or got some significant gift from the plaintiff, he should recuse.

thomas should start calling it what it is the dem ones racist attempt to rid a black conservative from the court to stack it in their favor again.

cause everybody knows that's what it is.

This is all about making Conservatives look bad before other things drop....does this compare to this guy?

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Link

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and his wife, Nadine Menendez, each face three federal counts stemming from a 39-page indictment alleging they accepted bribes from New Jersey businessmen “in exchange for using Menendez’s power and influence as a Senator” not only to “protect and enrich” the men, but to “benefit the Arab Republic of Egypt.”

This is treason if he was benefiting other countries while taking bribes.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Halfswede
So then we have a problem?

No.

If you think there is, p[lease. by all means, use specific language and explain in detail exactly where the specific conflicts are evident.

General incidental association(s) or casual acquaintance(s) are not conflicts of interest.