SCOTUS

[Applejack]

Yeah, I saw that. If only they had cited FIVE anonymous legal experts, then I’d have been convinced.

Haha. Ok. I guess we’ll never know

[All-American]

Haha. Ok. I guess we’ll never know

I imagine we will learn more soon enough. The allegations certainly merit investigation and I hope we get answers.

[Non Sequitur]

I imagine we will learn more soon enough. The allegations certainly merit investigation and I hope we get answers.

It's pretty clear-cut that Clarence broke the law by not disclosing the sale of the house, but in fairness to him there are a lot of laws out there and a lot of those laws are kind of confusing, so it's a little unreasonable to expect someone to be aware of and understand all that legal stuff involved in knowing what to disclose and what not to disclose. The law is complicated. I think we should cut Justice Thomas some slack.

[Uncle Ted]

Congrats! Trips to the Court are always a highlight.

fun fact: when I got sworn into the Supreme Court bar, I did so alongside one of the greatest legal minds on the century: Nancy Grace!

Whoa. LOL

[Commando]

It's pretty clear-cut that Clarence broke the law by not disclosing the sale of the house, but in fairness to him there are a lot of laws out there and a lot of those laws are kind of confusing, so it's a little unreasonable to expect someone to be aware of and understand all that legal stuff involved in knowing what to disclose and what not to disclose. The law is complicated. I think we should cut Justice Thomas some slack.

[All-American]

It's pretty clear-cut that Clarence broke the law by not disclosing the sale of the house, but in fairness to him there are a lot of laws out there and a lot of those laws are kind of confusing, so it's a little unreasonable to expect someone to be aware of and understand all that legal stuff involved in knowing what to disclose and what not to disclose. The law is complicated. I think we should cut Justice Thomas some slack.

Very clever.

But, respectfully, have you ever read the law that you think Thomas so clearly violated?

[Uncle Ted]

It's pretty clear-cut that Clarence broke the law by not disclosing the sale of the house, but in fairness to him there are a lot of laws out there and a lot of those laws are kind of confusing, so it's a little unreasonable to expect someone to be aware of and understand all that legal stuff involved in knowing what to disclose and what not to disclose. The law is complicated. I think we should cut Justice Thomas some slack.

Oh no... I sold my house and didn't disclose the sale or the price I sold my house for. I once was an expert consultant to the DoJ for a (somewhat famous) supreme court case. Did I break a law?

[old_gregg]

Very clever.

But, respectfully, have you ever read the law that you think Thomas so clearly violated?

yes. it is clearly reportable under (a)(5):

(5)Transactions.—Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000—
(A)
in real property, other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse; or
(B)
in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities.
Reporting is not required under this paragraph of any transaction solely by and between the reporting individual, the individual’s spouse, or dependent children.

[old_gregg]

Oh no... I sold my house and didn't disclose the sale or the price I sold my house for. I once was an expert consultant to the DoJ for a (somewhat famous) supreme court case. Did I break a law?

good news, uncle ted: unless you're one of the people listed below, your consultancy work will continue to be wholly irrelevant for federal disclosure requirement (and other) purposes:

(f)Individuals Required To File.—The officers and employees referred to in subsections (a), (d), and (e) are—
(1)
the President;
(2)
the Vice President;
(3)
each officer or employee in the executive branch, including a special Government employee, as defined in section 202 of title 18, who occupies a position classified above GS–15 of the General Schedule or, in the case of positions not under the General Schedule, for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS–15 of the General Schedule; each member of a uniformed service whose pay grade is at or in excess of O–7 under section 201 of title 37; and each officer or employee in any other position determined by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to be of equal classification;
(4)
each employee appointed pursuant to section 3105 of this title;
(5)
any employee not described in paragraph (3) who is in a position in the executive branch which is excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character, except that the Director of the Office of Government Ethics may, by regulation, exclude from the application of this paragraph any individual, or group of individuals, who are in such positions, but only in cases in which the Director determines such exclusion would not affect adversely the integrity of the Government or the public’s confidence in the integrity of the Government;
(6)
the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General, each Governor of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service and each officer or employee of the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission who occupies a position for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS–15 of the General Schedule;
(7)
the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and each designated agency ethics official;
(8)
any civilian employee not described in paragraph (3), employed in the Executive Office of the President (other than a special Government employee) who holds a commission of appointment from the President;
(9)
a Member of Congress as defined in section 13101 of this title;
(10)
an officer or employee of the Congress as defined in section 13101 of this title;
(11)
a judicial officer as defined in section 13101 of this title; and
(12)
a judicial employee as defined in section 13101 of this title.

[All-American]

yes. it is clearly reportable under (a)(5):

Thanks for that.

Another weird wrinkle in this is that it was not just Justice Thomas's house; he was one of several co-owners, including his mother (who apparently still lives in the house). Assuming his interest in the home was valued at above $1,000, which is hard to imagine it wouldn't be, then yeah, it sure looks like this should have been disclosed.

[BlueK]

Thanks for that.

Another weird wrinkle in this is that it was not just Justice Thomas's house; he was one of several co-owners, including his mother (who apparently still lives in the house). Assuming his interest in the home was valued at above $1,000, which is hard to imagine it wouldn't be, then yeah, it sure looks like this should have been disclosed.

Why wouldn't he have disclosed? I don't get that. Mere inconvenience? Doubtful he didn't know the law. He's above the law or doesn't agree it should apply to him?

[Non Sequitur]

Why wouldn't he have disclosed? I don't get that. Mere inconvenience? Doubtful he didn't know the law. He's above the law or doesn't agree it should apply to him?

It's pretty obvious that if the sale had been to anyone but Harlan Crow he would have disclosed it. He clearly didn't want to draw attention to his relationship with Harlan Crow.

[Applejack]

good news, uncle ted: unless you're one of the people listed below, your consultancy work will continue to be wholly irrelevant for federal disclosure requirement (and other) purposes:

But you just a semi-anonymous legal expert.

[Bo Diddley]

Why wouldn't he have disclosed? I don't get that. Mere inconvenience? Doubtful he didn't know the law. He's above the law or doesn't agree it should apply to him?

I think he knew he could get away with it. It'll all blow over soon enough.

[All-American]

But you just a semi-anonymous legal expert.

Who actually cited the statute.