This should concern you regardless of party

[homersapien 11,428]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Cite one ethics code, regulation and/or law that you believe Justice Thomas violated. 
 

Or facepalm me.

So, you think his behavior was ethical?

Edited April 15, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

18 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

1) ProPublica = Potemkin journalism at its finest. 

2) This is no "scandal," and you damn well know it. 

Your side wants Justice Thomas gone for one, simple reason: He is an originalist. 

1) So, you think all this news about Thomas is false or fake?

2) Actually, I think any SCOTUS judge receiving benefits such as Thomas received - and not disclosing them - is scandalous. As well as his refusal to recuse himself from cases in which his wife has vested interests.  I think he's unprofessional and biased.

Republicans clearly support an oligarchical, authoritarian government. (Fascist in short.)  Thomas is clearly a prime mover in that effort.

In total - and since you didn't answer directly -  I'll take your answer as a "yes", you're perfectly OK with Thomas's behavior.

Dark money for politicians.  Dark money for judges.  What could go wrong? 

Edited April 15, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

13 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

But until then the left and media need to cool it.

So, we're better off simply not knowing about this sort of thing, or just not caring?

Do you think we can rely on Republicans to address ethical guidelines in the SCOTUS?

Edited April 15, 2023 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,853]

20 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Ok. Thanks. You’ve confirmed you’re corrupt as all get out. Thanks for the clarification. I always want to assume most folks are better than they appear. Even a right wing apologist who’s not totally beyond redemption should understand this one. How about you, @SaltyTiger you gonna let me down, too?

And btw, he can’t be removed. He & Trump could literally take Target practice on folks walking down 5th avenue and Republicans would excuse it. 

I don’t know as much as “corrupt” lawyers but the Crow/Thomas relationship sounds a bit sketchy. Then again nothing wrong in being “dear friends” with billionaires. I am sure every Justice has questionable relationships.

The real estate thing does not sound overly scandalous and appears to have turned out well. Suppose Justice Thomas could have been transparent with it. 

 

 

[TexasTiger 13,000]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I don’t know as much as “corrupt” lawyers but the Crow/Thomas relationship sounds a bit sketchy. Then again nothing wrong in being “dear friends” with billionaires. I am sure every Justice has questionable relationships.

The real estate thing does not sound overly scandalous and appears to have turned out well. Suppose Justice Thomas could have been transparent with it. 

 

 

What was Crow’s business interest in that property?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I don’t know as much as “corrupt” lawyers but the Crow/Thomas relationship sounds a bit sketchy. Then again nothing wrong in being “dear friends” with billionaires. I am sure every Justice has questionable relationships.

The real estate thing does not sound overly scandalous and appears to have turned out well. Suppose Justice Thomas could have been transparent with it. 

 

 

Poor rationalizing.  Even by the standards of children.

[homersapien 11,428]

19 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Cite one ethics code, regulation and/or law that you believe Justice Thomas violated. 
 

Or facepalm me.

The real estate transaction (at least) violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/pdf/USCODE-2010-title5-app-ethicsing.pdf

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/15/clarence-thomas-full-disclosure/

Justice Thomas should make full disclosure, as the law requires

Edited April 15, 2023 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,853]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

What was Crow’s business interest in that property?

Preserving it for historical reasons according to him.

[Didba 5,256]

On 4/7/2023 at 9:52 AM, AU9377 said:

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.

If you could lose your bar license over it than I’d say it’s impeachable. Breaking the law repeatedly in flagrant disregard with knowledge is definitely something that will get you disbarred. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 4/14/2023 at 9:19 PM, icanthearyou said:

That is exactly the problem.  You need a code to tell you what is ethical/unethical. 

I'm not the one making the bald assertion . . . 

Your credibility is lacking. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 4/15/2023 at 10:20 AM, homersapien said:

So, you think his behavior was ethical?

Point to some standard, any standard; a single one. Can you?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 4/15/2023 at 10:37 AM, homersapien said:

1) So, you think all this news about Thomas is false or fake?

2) Actually, I think any SCOTUS judge receiving benefits such as Thomas received - and not disclosing them - is scandalous. As well as his refusal to recuse himself from cases in which his wife has vested interests.  I think he's unprofessional and biased.

Republicans clearly support an oligarchical, authoritarian government. (Fascist in short.)  Thomas is clearly a prime mover in that effort.

In total - and since you didn't answer directly -  I'll take your answer as a "yes", you're perfectly OK with Thomas's behavior.

Dark money for politicians.  Dark money for judges.  What could go wrong? 

You're the one making unsupported allegations concerning his behavior. You say it's scandalous, but cannot articulate why, other than because "you believe it to be so." Again, please point to a single standard of conduct he violated. Just one. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 4/15/2023 at 1:40 PM, homersapien said:

The real estate transaction (at least) violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/pdf/USCODE-2010-title5-app-ethicsing.pdf

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/15/clarence-thomas-full-disclosure/

Justice Thomas should make full disclosure, as the law requires

Which part of the Act did he violate? Cite it specifically. Are you adopting this "Opinion" piece as your own? What was the capital gain? What was the dividend? What was the rent? What was the interest? What proof do you have? Cite some form of support. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm not the one making the bald assertion . . . 

Your credibility is lacking. 

Bald?  I'm not sure what that means.

Credibility???  How so?  This is the best argument you can make? It took days to come up with this?

Edited April 17, 2023 by icanthearyou

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Bald?  I'm not sure what that means.

Credibility???  How so?  This is the best argument you can make? 

I'm not making an argument. As a matter of objective fact, your assertion is "bald." 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm not making an argument. As a matter of objective fact, your assertion is "bald." 

Again, how so?  You clearly demand a codified basis for ethical behavior, the lowest bar for truly ethical behavior.  Certainly a standard beneath the highest court.

 

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You're the one making unsupported allegations concerning his behavior. You say it's scandalous, but cannot articulate why, other than because "you believe it to be so." Again, please point to a single standard of conduct he violated. Just one. 

There is no reason to believe the stories reported on Thomas are false.  In fact, he confirmed them himself. They are obviously not "unsupported allegations."

If you are OK with SCOTUS judges accepting such "gifts" then just say so instead of trying to dispute the facts.

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm not the one making the bald assertion . . . 

Your credibility is lacking. 

What "bald assertion" are you referring to exactly?

[homersapien 11,428]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Point to some standard, any standard; a single one. Can you?

Look I get it. 

You think it's fine for a SCOTUS justice to accept gifts worth over $500,000 dollars without disclosing them - no violation of ethical behavior there.  It's good for the country for SCOTUS judges to receive unlimited gifts from whomever.... right?

Apparently, you also think it's OK for SCOTUS to simply ignore laws regarding the reporting of real estate transactions, as stipulated in the referenced act.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Which part of the Act did he violate? Cite it specifically. Are you adopting this "Opinion" piece as your own? What was the capital gain? What was the dividend? What was the rent? What was the interest? What proof do you have? Cite some form of support. 

He didn't report the real estate transaction when Crow bought his house as the law stipulates. 

I agree with the opinion piece.

Why don't you explain how they got it wrong - after all you're the lawyer. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm not the one making the bald assertion . . . 

Your credibility is lacking. 

What "bald assertion" are you referring to exactly?

[CoffeeTiger 5,165]

Quote

 “I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it,” ProPublica quoted Thomas as saying in a recent documentary financed in part by Crow. “I come from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.”

......

A ProPublica report Thursday said that Thomas and his wife traveled through Indonesia aboard Harlan Crow’s 162-foot yacht, vacationed almost every summer at his luxurious New York resort and flew on his private plane around the world on trips worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

 

So the Billionaire Elitist that showers Clarence Thomas in luxury and riches also financed a documentary about Thomas for him to brag about how he prefers 'regular people and Walmart parking lots' over the finer things in life  Cant make this stuff up. 

 

How anyone can take anything Clarence Thomas says seriously is beyond me at this point. 

[AU9377 5,025]

On 4/17/2023 at 11:31 AM, Didba said:

If you could lose your bar license over it than I’d say it’s impeachable. Breaking the law repeatedly in flagrant disregard with knowledge is definitely something that will get you disbarred. 

It may be impeachable, but the reality is that he can't be removed.  That would take a 2/3 vote and those votes aren't there.  As of today, he isn't in danger of being impeached, due to the control of the House.

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

It may be impeachable, but the reality is that he can't be removed.  That would take a 2/3 vote and those votes aren't there.  As of today, he isn't in danger of being impeached, due to the control of the House.

True, but it's just another indicator of how Republicans are dragging the standards of this country down.  This sort of thing will have long lasting impact on the reputation of the supreme court.

My hope is that this will eventually allow Democrats to reverse the legislative dynamics in the country, starting with the younger generation. Democrats need to capture the levers to nullify the power of gerrymandering that keeps the minority in control.

Edited April 18, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,000]