This should concern you regardless of party

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law. It would be so if this were Kagan or Sotomayer. In this case it’s Thomas. It’s outrageous and warrants action. 
 

“For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

[Son of A Tiger 561]

If this is true he should be removed from the court. IF true why hasn't this been a concern for a long  time by Republicans, Democrats. other gov't officials, POTUSs, etc? Could it be the hens guarding the hen house? Surely there are still some ethical politicians.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[AU9377 5,024]

47 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

If this is true he should be removed from the court. IF true why hasn't this been a concern for a long  time by Republicans, Democrats. other gov't officials, POTUSs, etc? Could it be the hens guarding the hen house? Surely there are still some ethical politicians.

So much of why our government has worked historically has depended on individual honor and respect for the institutions.  I'm not certain that this is enough to impeach a justice.  That is the only way to remove a justice that I know of and their appointments are for life.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

12 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

So much of why our government has worked historically has depended on individual honor and respect for the institutions.  I'm not certain that this is enough to impeach a justice.  That is the only way to remove a justice that I know of and their appointments are for life.

I'm not a lawyer but I think a SCOTUS can be impeached by the same procedure as impeaching a POTUS. It's never been done but some things are being done today that have never been done.

[AU9377 5,024]

1 hour ago, Son of A Tiger said:

I'm not a lawyer but I think a SCOTUS can be impeached by the same procedure as impeaching a POTUS. It's never been done but some things are being done today that have never been done.

It is the same process, which means that Thomas could openly brag about the lavish gifts he receives and there would still be no chance that 2/3 of the Senate would vote to remove him.  As it is, it wouldn't even get that far, because the House Speaker wouldn't entertain a motion to impeach.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It is the same process, which means that Thomas could openly brag about the lavish gifts he receives and there would still be no chance that 2/3 of the Senate would vote to remove him.  As it is, it wouldn't even get that far, because the House Speaker wouldn't entertain a motion to impeach.

So if these ethics violations have been going for while why didn't the Dems at least bring impeachment hearings against him while they had the chance like they did Trump. As you say it might be hard to get 2/3 of the Senate but it would have made the Republicans go on record and would for sure have called a lot of attention to Thomas's crap.

[AU9377 5,024]

6 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

So if these ethics violations have been going for while why didn't the Dems at least bring impeachment hearings against him while they had the chance like they did Trump. As you say it might be hard to get 2/3 of the Senate but it would have made the Republicans go on record and would for sure have called a lot of attention to Thomas's crap.

Likely because it is an ethics violation and the outcome was predetermined.  Every decision made isn't simply for politics.  Too many are, but not all.  Would the country have been better off to have gone thru that and Thomas still be on the court? I doubt it.  In Trump, there was a President that was abusing the power of his office.  That is much more serious than getting fancy trips.  They would have never impeached Trump for taking gifts.  They impeached him because he was using the power of his office to bribe another country to harm his political rivals.  That is much more serious, yet it still failed due to politics.

Edited April 7, 2023 by AU9377

[Son of A Tiger 561]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Likely because it is an ethics violation and the outcome was predetermined.  Every decision made isn't simply for politics.  Too many are, but not all.  Would the country have been better off to have gone thru that and Thomas still be on the court? I doubt it.  In Trump, there was a President that was over abusing the power of his office.  That is much more serious than getting fancy trips.  They would have never impeached Trump for taking gifts.  They impeached him because he was using the power of his office to bribe another country to harm his political rivals.  That is much more serious, yet it still failed due to politics.

I won't go there but strongly disagree about the example of Trump.

[AUDynasty 585]

This is a prime example on why lifetime appointments are rubbish. Anyone can be bought and sold for a Supreme Court vote. Ridiculous.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

15 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

This is a prime example on why lifetime appointments are rubbish. Anyone can be bought and sold for a Supreme Court vote. Ridiculous.

I agree and wish there was some way to take politics out of it. But I don't know how to do that.

[AUDub 11,175]

8 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

If this is true he should be removed from the court. IF true why hasn't this been a concern for a long  time by Republicans, Democrats. other gov't officials, POTUSs, etc? Could it be the hens guarding the hen house? Surely there are still some ethical politicians.

Much like Trump, there are few guard rails because nobody thought anyone would abuse the office quite so brazenly.

[AU9377 5,024]

3 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

This is a prime example on why lifetime appointments are rubbish. Anyone can be bought and sold for a Supreme Court vote. Ridiculous.

The twist is the fact that they have lifetime appointments in order to insulate them from politics and outside influence.  Like many things, this works only if the person holding the position respects the position enough to do the honorable thing.  To be honest, even without these gifts, Thomas would have voted the same way he has always voted.  It is just a bad look.

[SaltyTiger 7,853]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law. It would be so if this were Kagan or Sotomayer. In this case it’s Thomas. It’s outrageous and warrants action. 

Disappointing. Read Thomas book last year. This type of thing goes on at every level of government in varying degrees. Note that most people in an elected or appointed position sure hate to relinquish it.

[AUDynasty 585]

15 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The twist is the fact that they have lifetime appointments in order to insulate them from politics and outside influence.  Like many things, this works only if the person holding the position respects the position enough to do the honorable thing.  To be honest, even without these gifts, Thomas would have voted the same way he has always voted.  It is just a bad look.

That makes sense, but we’re now ushering in an era where common decency and respect are now a thing of past if it means being in power. What’s the mechanism to defend against this kind of corruption? There is none, and frankly I do not see any true solution that would include collaboration by both parties. What now? Are we okay with a brazen display of stuff like this and say “oh well that’s the way it goes these days,”? 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The government is for sale.  The ultimate "capitalism". 

Nothing will change as long as we have this manipulated political division. 

The "government of the people", the government of our founding is dead.  The capital class owns us.

[DKW 86 7,440]

10 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

The government is for sale.  The ultimate "capitalism". 

Nothing will change as long as we have this manipulated political division. 

The "government of the people", the government of our founding is dead.  The capital class owns us.

Indeed. Carlin was so right...

[creed 1,645]

Not disputing the specifics, but where exactly on your federal tax forms do you indicate the price of trips paid for by friends?

[CoffeeTiger 5,165]

38 minutes ago, creed said:

Not disputing the specifics, but where exactly on your federal tax forms do you indicate the price of trips paid for by friends?

Its not an IRS tax form. Supreme Court justices do a separate Financial Disclosure Report as required by the Ethics and Government Act of 1978. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-gifts-disclosure-court/

According to the WAPO, about 2 decades ago Thomas used to report receiving a lot of gifts on his disclosure report (more than any other Supreme court Justice), but the LA Times ran a story on his lavish gifs in 2004, and after he stopped reporting any gifts on his report.

Thomas went from reporting tens of thousands of dollars in yearly gifts in 2004 to reporting receiving hardly no gifts at all since 2004 till now. 

Either he stopped accepting gifts from his 'friends' or he just decided to break the law and stop reporting them....looking more like he just decided to just stop disclosing them. 

 

Such ethical lapses isn't something you want in a supreme Court Justice. 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[aubiefifty 16,888]

i posted something similar on the trash talking board and the only response i got was he used to be a dem and why did it take so long to bust him? he is in their pocket now so to speak and they want that vote he brings to remain. tip of the hat to Son for acknowledging it.

[aubiefifty 16,888]

Following furor over GOP-donor luxury trips, Joe Biden reckons with another Clarence Thomas scandal

Michael Collins and Josh Meyer, USA TODAY

10–13 minutes

---

WASHINGTON – Anita Hill’s riveting testimony alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas was still fresh on Joe Biden’s mind when he gaveled the Senate Judiciary Committee back to order.

“Tough day – tough night for you,” Biden told the Supreme Court nominee. “Do you have anything you’d like to say?”

Over the next few minutes on that evening of Oct. 11, 1991, Thomas would denounce Hill’s allegations as “sleaze,” “gossip” and “lies” and characterize the committee’s confirmation hearing helmed by Biden as “a circus” and “a national disgrace.”

“As far as I’m concerned,” Thomas concluded of the televised hearing, “it’s a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks.”

Thomas’ confirmation hearing would set the stage for the decades-long, complicated relationship between the two men – one who would eventually become president, the other who would go on to win confirmation to the Supreme Court but would face multiple ethics controversies, including his wife’s involvement in a campaign to overturn the 2020 election that sent Biden to the White House.

More questions about Thomas’ actions arose Thursday amid a published report that he accepted lavish trips from a billionaire Republican donor for more than 20 years without disclosing them, a possible violation of federal law. The revelations prompted calls for an overhaul of court ethics laws and requirements.

The White House would not comment on the report. “There are other bodies of government that should be dealing with this – I’m just not going to comment from here,” White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said.

Biden, who was a Democratic senator from Delaware at the time, has faced decades of criticism over the Thomas confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden was chairman of the all-male, all-white committee and was responsible for running the hearing, which today is seen as an inflection point in the nation’s reckoning over sexual harassment in the workplace.

 

Then-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gestures while talking with Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, during a break in Thomas confirmation hearing in 1991.

 

What happened between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas: A summary

Hill was a young law professor who had worked with Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he was her supervisor. In testimony that mesmerized the nation, she calmly accused Thomas of sexual harassment, including sexual overtures and episodes of crass behavior and vulgar language – allegations that Thomas vehemently denied.

Hill’s supporters criticized Biden for allowing Republican senators on the committee to portray her as mentally unstable, bombard her with intimate questions about her sex life and even suggest she was suffering from a disorder that led her to believe Thomas was in love with her.

Thomas’ supporters blamed Biden for allowing the hearing to spin wildly out of control and become a televised spectacle.

Biden voted against confirming Thomas to the Supreme Court. Over the years, he would publicly express his regrets multiple times over the way Hill was treated by the committee and stress that he believed her from the beginning. Hill was victimized again by the process, Biden said during a 2018 interview with NBC’s “Today” show, adding that he wished he could’ve done more to prevent the deeply personal questions she was asked.

In 2019, as he was gearing up for the presidential campaign that would send him to the White House, Biden called Hill and expressed his regret “for what she endured and his admiration for everything she has done to change the culture around sexual harassment in this country," his campaign said.

Hill, however, wasn’t appeased. She told the New York Times she doesn’t believe Biden understands the harm caused to her during the hearing. "I cannot be satisfied by simply saying I’m sorry for what happened to you,” she said. “I will be satisfied when I know there is real change and real accountability and real purpose."

Thomas also has been unwilling to forgive. In a 2020 documentary, he suggested racism was a factor in the hearing.

"I felt as though in my life I had been looking at the wrong people as the people who would be problematic toward me,” he said. “We were told that, 'Oh, it's going to be the bigot in the pickup truck; it's going to be the Klansmen; it's going to be the rural sheriff.'

"But it turned out that, through all of that, ultimately the biggest impediment was the modern day liberal," he said, complaining that “they have the power to caricature you."

Who is Clarence Thomas? Thomas' principles showcase how he approaches big matters of constitutional law

 

Head and shoulder shots of Anita Hill, University of Oklahoma Law Professor, who testified, that she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas. 1991 photo.

 

Ginni Thomas' efforts to thwart 2020 election

Three decades after the Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Biden’s and Thomas’ paths would cross again in the chaotic aftermath of the 2020 elections.

Biden beat the Republican incumbent, Donald Trump, who refused to accept defeat and set out to overturn the election results. One of the players in that effort: Thomas’ wife, conservative activist Virginia Thomas.

In the aftermath of the election, Virginia Thomas – known as Ginni – sent several text messages to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and urged him to stand firm with Trump as he falsely claimed widespread fraud in the election. She also emailed lawmakers in Arizona and Wisconsin and urged them to overturn Biden’s election.

Her actions raised questions because the Trump campaign was pursuing a number of election legal challenges that could have potentially ended before the Supreme Court. Emails provided to congressional investigators showed that Trump’s legal team regarded an appeal to Justice Thomas as their only chance to get a favorable ruling and overturn the election.

Ginni Thomas downplayed her involvement in the campaign to overturn the election in testimony before the congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol.

“You know, it was an emotional time,” she said in explaining the text messages to Meadows. “I’m sorry these texts exist.”

Ginni Thomas insisted that while she was interested in pursuing claims of voter fraud, she had largely stepped aside during the aftermath of the election because she was the wife of a Supreme Court justice. She insisted she operated separately from her husband and called it “laughable” that anyone would think she could influence his jurisprudence.

“The man is independent and stubborn,” she said.

Fact check:Trump lost the 2020 presidential election

 

Then-Supreme Court Justice Nominee Clarence Thomas and his wife Virginia listen during his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington in this file photo from 1991.

 

Biden warns of 'extreme and dangerous path' following Roe v. Wade ruling

Biden took aim at Thomas last summer after the justice wrote that the Supreme Court should revisit and overturn decisions legalizing the right to contraception and same-sex marriage. Thomas made the remarks in a concurring opinion to the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion.

Speaking at the White House just hours after the court’s decision was announced, Biden warned that the ruling would jeopardize “rights that we’ve come to take for granted, that are ingrained in the fabric of this country.”

"Justice Thomas said as much today,” he said, warning that the court was taking the country on an "extreme and dangerous path."

Thomas’ opinion prompted Congress to pass legislation writing protections for same-sex and interracial couples into federal law. Biden again jabbed at Thomas when he signed the legislation into law during a ceremony on the White House South Lawn last December. Thomas, he said, thinks lawmakers should reconsider Americans’ right to access contraception and marry whomever they love – “and that’s not the only challenge ahead,” he said.

Thomas under fire over luxury trips funded by GOP donor

The revelations Thursday that Thomas has taken a series of lavish trips funded by billionaire and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow over the past two decades raised new questions about his actions and charges of impropriety.

The disclosures, first reported by ProPublica, are the latest ethics controversy to dog Thomas, who also has faced tough questions about his incomplete financial disclosure forms and appearances at other political gatherings of wealthy conservative donors and influencers.

Thomas has accepted lavish gifts from the billionaire Dallas businessman nearly every year, which had included vacations on Crow’s superyacht and trips on the billionaire’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet as well as a week each summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks, ProPublica reported, citing flight records, internal documents and interviews with Crow’s employees.

The investigation comes as the nation's high court fends off requests for a code of ethics, which would likely address similar instances.

Thomas didn’t respond to ProPublica’s request for comment, but Crow in a statement said he and his wife’s “hospitality” to Thomas and his wife “is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends.”

“This secrecy is toxic and wrong. The court should not protect it any longer,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a close ally of Biden’s and longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Whitehouse, D-R.I., a longtime advocate for more transparency and accountability on the court, said the disclosures once again raise serious questions about all of the connections between conservative groups with access to Thomas and whether they are improperly influencing the court.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen. D-Md., also weighed in as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which has jurisdiction over the Court’s appropriations.

“Americans’ confidence in our highest court is tanking because of this kind of conduct. We need answers. And the court needs a code of ethics,” said Van Hollen, another close colleague of Biden’s who has worked with him on many judicial reform measures.

“It is unacceptable,” Van Hollen added, “that the Supreme Court has exempted itself from the accountability that applies to all other members of our federal courts, and I believe Congress should act to remedy this problem.”

Contributing: Sarah Elbeshbishi and The Associated Press

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Biden confronts

[AU9377 5,024]

36 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

Following furor over GOP-donor luxury trips, Joe Biden reckons with another Clarence Thomas scandal

Michael Collins and Josh Meyer, USA TODAY

10–13 minutes

---

WASHINGTON – Anita Hill’s riveting testimony alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas was still fresh on Joe Biden’s mind when he gaveled the Senate Judiciary Committee back to order.

“Tough day – tough night for you,” Biden told the Supreme Court nominee. “Do you have anything you’d like to say?”

Over the next few minutes on that evening of Oct. 11, 1991, Thomas would denounce Hill’s allegations as “sleaze,” “gossip” and “lies” and characterize the committee’s confirmation hearing helmed by Biden as “a circus” and “a national disgrace.”

“As far as I’m concerned,” Thomas concluded of the televised hearing, “it’s a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks.”

Thomas’ confirmation hearing would set the stage for the decades-long, complicated relationship between the two men – one who would eventually become president, the other who would go on to win confirmation to the Supreme Court but would face multiple ethics controversies, including his wife’s involvement in a campaign to overturn the 2020 election that sent Biden to the White House.

More questions about Thomas’ actions arose Thursday amid a published report that he accepted lavish trips from a billionaire Republican donor for more than 20 years without disclosing them, a possible violation of federal law. The revelations prompted calls for an overhaul of court ethics laws and requirements.

The White House would not comment on the report. “There are other bodies of government that should be dealing with this – I’m just not going to comment from here,” White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said.

Biden, who was a Democratic senator from Delaware at the time, has faced decades of criticism over the Thomas confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden was chairman of the all-male, all-white committee and was responsible for running the hearing, which today is seen as an inflection point in the nation’s reckoning over sexual harassment in the workplace.

 

Then-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gestures while talking with Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, during a break in Thomas confirmation hearing in 1991.

 

What happened between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas: A summary

Hill was a young law professor who had worked with Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he was her supervisor. In testimony that mesmerized the nation, she calmly accused Thomas of sexual harassment, including sexual overtures and episodes of crass behavior and vulgar language – allegations that Thomas vehemently denied.

Hill’s supporters criticized Biden for allowing Republican senators on the committee to portray her as mentally unstable, bombard her with intimate questions about her sex life and even suggest she was suffering from a disorder that led her to believe Thomas was in love with her.

Thomas’ supporters blamed Biden for allowing the hearing to spin wildly out of control and become a televised spectacle.

Biden voted against confirming Thomas to the Supreme Court. Over the years, he would publicly express his regrets multiple times over the way Hill was treated by the committee and stress that he believed her from the beginning. Hill was victimized again by the process, Biden said during a 2018 interview with NBC’s “Today” show, adding that he wished he could’ve done more to prevent the deeply personal questions she was asked.

In 2019, as he was gearing up for the presidential campaign that would send him to the White House, Biden called Hill and expressed his regret “for what she endured and his admiration for everything she has done to change the culture around sexual harassment in this country," his campaign said.

Hill, however, wasn’t appeased. She told the New York Times she doesn’t believe Biden understands the harm caused to her during the hearing. "I cannot be satisfied by simply saying I’m sorry for what happened to you,” she said. “I will be satisfied when I know there is real change and real accountability and real purpose."

Thomas also has been unwilling to forgive. In a 2020 documentary, he suggested racism was a factor in the hearing.

"I felt as though in my life I had been looking at the wrong people as the people who would be problematic toward me,” he said. “We were told that, 'Oh, it's going to be the bigot in the pickup truck; it's going to be the Klansmen; it's going to be the rural sheriff.'

"But it turned out that, through all of that, ultimately the biggest impediment was the modern day liberal," he said, complaining that “they have the power to caricature you."

Who is Clarence Thomas? Thomas' principles showcase how he approaches big matters of constitutional law

 

Head and shoulder shots of Anita Hill, University of Oklahoma Law Professor, who testified, that she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas. 1991 photo.

 

Ginni Thomas' efforts to thwart 2020 election

Three decades after the Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Biden’s and Thomas’ paths would cross again in the chaotic aftermath of the 2020 elections.

Biden beat the Republican incumbent, Donald Trump, who refused to accept defeat and set out to overturn the election results. One of the players in that effort: Thomas’ wife, conservative activist Virginia Thomas.

In the aftermath of the election, Virginia Thomas – known as Ginni – sent several text messages to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and urged him to stand firm with Trump as he falsely claimed widespread fraud in the election. She also emailed lawmakers in Arizona and Wisconsin and urged them to overturn Biden’s election.

Her actions raised questions because the Trump campaign was pursuing a number of election legal challenges that could have potentially ended before the Supreme Court. Emails provided to congressional investigators showed that Trump’s legal team regarded an appeal to Justice Thomas as their only chance to get a favorable ruling and overturn the election.

Ginni Thomas downplayed her involvement in the campaign to overturn the election in testimony before the congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol.

“You know, it was an emotional time,” she said in explaining the text messages to Meadows. “I’m sorry these texts exist.”

Ginni Thomas insisted that while she was interested in pursuing claims of voter fraud, she had largely stepped aside during the aftermath of the election because she was the wife of a Supreme Court justice. She insisted she operated separately from her husband and called it “laughable” that anyone would think she could influence his jurisprudence.

“The man is independent and stubborn,” she said.

Fact check:Trump lost the 2020 presidential election

 

Then-Supreme Court Justice Nominee Clarence Thomas and his wife Virginia listen during his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington in this file photo from 1991.

 

Biden warns of 'extreme and dangerous path' following Roe v. Wade ruling

Biden took aim at Thomas last summer after the justice wrote that the Supreme Court should revisit and overturn decisions legalizing the right to contraception and same-sex marriage. Thomas made the remarks in a concurring opinion to the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion.

Speaking at the White House just hours after the court’s decision was announced, Biden warned that the ruling would jeopardize “rights that we’ve come to take for granted, that are ingrained in the fabric of this country.”

"Justice Thomas said as much today,” he said, warning that the court was taking the country on an "extreme and dangerous path."

Thomas’ opinion prompted Congress to pass legislation writing protections for same-sex and interracial couples into federal law. Biden again jabbed at Thomas when he signed the legislation into law during a ceremony on the White House South Lawn last December. Thomas, he said, thinks lawmakers should reconsider Americans’ right to access contraception and marry whomever they love – “and that’s not the only challenge ahead,” he said.

Thomas under fire over luxury trips funded by GOP donor

The revelations Thursday that Thomas has taken a series of lavish trips funded by billionaire and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow over the past two decades raised new questions about his actions and charges of impropriety.

The disclosures, first reported by ProPublica, are the latest ethics controversy to dog Thomas, who also has faced tough questions about his incomplete financial disclosure forms and appearances at other political gatherings of wealthy conservative donors and influencers.

Thomas has accepted lavish gifts from the billionaire Dallas businessman nearly every year, which had included vacations on Crow’s superyacht and trips on the billionaire’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet as well as a week each summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks, ProPublica reported, citing flight records, internal documents and interviews with Crow’s employees.

The investigation comes as the nation's high court fends off requests for a code of ethics, which would likely address similar instances.

Thomas didn’t respond to ProPublica’s request for comment, but Crow in a statement said he and his wife’s “hospitality” to Thomas and his wife “is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends.”

“This secrecy is toxic and wrong. The court should not protect it any longer,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a close ally of Biden’s and longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Whitehouse, D-R.I., a longtime advocate for more transparency and accountability on the court, said the disclosures once again raise serious questions about all of the connections between conservative groups with access to Thomas and whether they are improperly influencing the court.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen. D-Md., also weighed in as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which has jurisdiction over the Court’s appropriations.

“Americans’ confidence in our highest court is tanking because of this kind of conduct. We need answers. And the court needs a code of ethics,” said Van Hollen, another close colleague of Biden’s who has worked with him on many judicial reform measures.

“It is unacceptable,” Van Hollen added, “that the Supreme Court has exempted itself from the accountability that applies to all other members of our federal courts, and I believe Congress should act to remedy this problem.”

Contributing: Sarah Elbeshbishi and The Associated Press

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Biden confronts

As much as I dislike Thomas and his lazy tenure on the Court, I just don't know that ethics violations on the part of a Supreme Court Justice add up to an impeachable offense.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 hours ago, creed said:

Not disputing the specifics, but where exactly on your federal tax forms do you indicate the price of trips paid for by friends?

For justices it falls under "personal hospitality" or it was until end of last month (I think they tightened the rules) so technically it fell outside of the gift reporting requirement as long as the person providing the hospitality does not have a case in front of the court. 

Not saying I agree they should be able to accept trips like this and not report them....or accept trips at all. But, as far as rules goes...........looks like there was nothing wrong with what he did. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

For justices it falls under "personal hospitality" or it was until end of last month (I think they tightened the rules) so technically it fell outside of the gift reporting requirement as long as the person providing the hospitality does not have a case in front of the court. 

Not saying I agree they should be able to accept trips like this and not report them....or accept trips at all. But, as far as rules goes...........looks like there was nothing wrong with what he did. 

Yeah, it looks like the sort of thing (as far as I can tell, which admittedly I'm not well versed on) that he probably ought to have known should be disclosed but wasn't explicitly spelled out in the legal requirements.  And if that loophole is true, it needs to be closed now.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, it looks like the sort of thing (as far as I can tell, which admittedly I'm not well versed on) that he probably ought to have known should be disclosed but wasn't explicitly spelled out in the legal requirements.  And if that loophole is true, it needs to be closed now.

That is the thing.......from what I have found he did not technically have to disclose them. This is something they updated a couple of weeks ago. I bet he is not the only one using the previous loophole. 

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/after-whitehouse-spotlights-loopholes-federal-judiciary-announces-tightening-of-personal-hospitality-exceptions-strengthening-ethics-standards-for-justices-and-judges

[TitanTiger 20,510]

21 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

That is the thing.......from what I have found he did not technically have to disclose them. This is something they updated a couple of weeks ago. I bet he is not the only one using the previous loophole. 

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/after-whitehouse-spotlights-loopholes-federal-judiciary-announces-tightening-of-personal-hospitality-exceptions-strengthening-ethics-standards-for-justices-and-judges

If what he did wasn't illegal or didn't violate the ethics rules at the time, I don't see how it could rise to something actionable (impeachment or censuring).  But it should trigger a tightening of the rules to cover things like this.

I do think from just a personal integrity standpoint, judges (especially a SCOTUS justice) should seek to be above reproach and avoid things such as this without having to be told to or required by law.