SCOTUS

[frank ryan]

Yeah, I'm no more bothered by this than all the other shenanigans that take place in politics. Seems like business as usual. Maybe I'm appealing to relativism, but here we are. And I don't like him as a justice.

A justice being flown around on luxury trips, even if nothing shady occurs looks horribly bad. Thomas has been one of the more divisive justices, and his wife is an unhinged activist who tried to support Trump's coup attempt. Compare him to Roberts and ask yourself if he would do this. He wouldn't.

[Pelado]

There are three things here: the trips, the non-disclosures, and the impact on the Court's operations.

Frankly, I have a hard time caring about the trips. Yeah, whatever. He went on trips. Big whoop.

The non-disclosure? For all I know, not having looked into it extensively or at all really, there is some justification for why it didn't actually have to be reported and he hasn't violated any rule at all. But for the discussion here, I assume it should have been disclosed. That does bother me. I think most complaints about gifts and trying to buy influence tend to be pretty shallow, but I am all for disclosure obligations; at least give us a chance to decide if we should be bothered by it.

On the last point, though, is there anybody who thinks that these trips had any affect whatsoever on how he decides cases? I've heard the wallet described as a big-time GOP donor, which maybe he is. But is there any reason to think that this somehow affected a single vote?

I had done some review of the subject of judicial ethics, disclosure, and recusal years ago, and in the course of it, came to the conclusion that however much of an argument there ever is that a judge ought to recuse himself/herself from a case, that obligation is much less compelling at the level of SCOTUS. At the lower levels, you get a random judge who, if an issue arises, is replaced with some other random judge, who was just as likely to be your judge as the first one that was recused. So, the cost of replacing a recused judge is pretty slight. That is obviously not true on the SCOTUS level; recusal affects the composition of the deciding body and stacks the cards differently. Given that, my opinion is that Supreme Court justices ought to consider recusal or any other action that concerns composition only in extreme cases. (And lest anyone accuse me of being a complete partisan hack, the first time I voiced that opinion was in the context of Justice Kagan, where I said I thought calls for her to recuse herself from cases that involved former colleagues were unjustified.)

If he isn't following the rules, he needs to start following the rules. Fine. If the hope was he could be ousted while there is a sitting Democratic President and a majority in the Senate, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Thanks for that write-up.

As to whether these trips and perks affected his positions on decisions over the years, I don't think we'll ever know. Since he probably shares very similar viewpoints to Crow anyway, the largess that Thomas enjoyed at Crow's expense may have changed little to nothing on how he would have decided cases anyway. That said, it isn't that hard to imagine Thomas - whether consciously or not - deciding cases in a way that would be most beneficial to his generous benefactor.

[Uncle Ted]

A justice being flown around on luxury trips, even if nothing shady occurs looks horribly bad. Thomas has been one of the more divisive justices, and his wife is an unhinged activist who tried to support Trump's coup attempt. Compare him to Roberts and ask yourself if he would do this. He wouldn't.

You should send an email to the speaker of the house, Kevin McCarthy, and demand that Thomas be impeached! Be sure to post a copy of your letter here.

[Applejack]

There are three things here: the trips, the non-disclosures, and the impact on the Court's operations.

Frankly, I have a hard time caring about the trips. Yeah, whatever. He went on trips. Big whoop.

The non-disclosure? For all I know, not having looked into it extensively or at all really, there is some justification for why it didn't actually have to be reported and he hasn't violated any rule at all. But for the discussion here, I assume it should have been disclosed. That does bother me. I think most complaints about gifts and trying to buy influence tend to be pretty shallow, but I am all for disclosure obligations; at least give us a chance to decide if we should be bothered by it.

On the last point, though, is there anybody who thinks that these trips had any affect whatsoever on how he decides cases? I've heard the wallet described as a big-time GOP donor, which maybe he is. But is there any reason to think that this somehow affected a single vote?

I had done some review of the subject of judicial ethics, disclosure, and recusal years ago, and in the course of it, came to the conclusion that however much of an argument there ever is that a judge ought to recuse himself/herself from a case, that obligation is much less compelling at the level of SCOTUS. At the lower levels, you get a random judge who, if an issue arises, is replaced with some other random judge, who was just as likely to be your judge as the first one that was recused. So, the cost of replacing a recused judge is pretty slight. That is obviously not true on the SCOTUS level; recusal affects the composition of the deciding body and stacks the cards differently. Given that, my opinion is that Supreme Court justices ought to consider recusal or any other action that concerns composition only in extreme cases. (And lest anyone accuse me of being a complete partisan hack, the first time I voiced that opinion was in the context of Justice Kagan, where I said I thought calls for her to recuse herself from cases that involved former colleagues were unjustified.)

If he isn't following the rules, he needs to start following the rules. Fine. If the hope was he could be ousted while there is a sitting Democratic President and a majority in the Senate, I wouldn't hold my breath.

If you want to excuse thomas receiving the equivalent of a $500000 luxury cruise to Indonesia or a $19000 bible (?) as merely gifts from one friend to another, be my guest.

But the idea that there is absolutely no way that this influence “affected a single vote” is bonkers. This is why no federal judge (except the nine) could accept any of the gifts that Thomas received; because it would affect the way they vote!

[All-American]

A justice being flown around on luxury trips, even if nothing shady occurs looks horribly bad. Thomas has been one of the more divisive justices, and his wife is an unhinged activist who tried to support Trump's coup attempt. Compare him to Roberts and ask yourself if he would do this. He wouldn't.

Now, why should it matter that he has been divisive or his wife is a Trump supporter? What does that have to do with the trip, or the non-disclosure?

I suspect the fact that he has been one of the more divisive justices contributes to the outrage. Compare him to Roberts and ask if there would be this much uproar if it was Roberts and not Thomas taking the trips. There wouldn't.

[Pelado]

There would be plenty of outrage on the right if Soros were funding getaways for any of the justices - even if it didn't affect their decisions on cases before the court.

[All-American]

There would be plenty of outrage on the right if Soros were funding getaways for any of the justices - even if it didn't affect their decisions on cases before the court.

Of course it would. That would be a politically convenient argument to make. And goodness knows my fellow rightists have made dumber arguments than that.

But just in case this actually happens, somebody can absolutely bring me back to this conversation and remind me that my position for the Soros hypothetical was that those things should be disclosed but are not grounds for impeachment or removal.

[falafel]

Now, why should it matter that he has been divisive or his wife is a Trump supporter? What does that have to do with the trip, or the non-disclosure?

I suspect the fact that he has been one of the more divisive justices contributes to the outrage. Compare him to Roberts and ask if there would be this much uproar if it was Roberts and not Thomas taking the trips. There wouldn't.

I think there would be plenty of outrage against Roberts. Maybe not as much (because the left hates Thomas).

[Northwestcoug]

On the last point, though, is there anybody who thinks that these trips had any affect whatsoever on how he decides cases? I've heard the wallet described as a big-time GOP donor, which maybe he is. But is there any reason to think that this somehow affected a single vote?

Well money does corrupt even the noblest of us. Given what we know of humanity, shouldn’t we reframe the question as: is there any evidence whatsoever that his vote wasn’t tarnished by the lavish gifts?

This is the whole point of disclosure: to bolster trust and accountability in those we’re supposed to trust.

[Applejack]

Now, why should it matter that he has been divisive or his wife is a Trump supporter? What does that have to do with the trip, or the non-disclosure?

I suspect the fact that he has been one of the more divisive justices contributes to the outrage. Compare him to Roberts and ask if there would be this much uproar if it was Roberts and not Thomas taking the trips. There wouldn't.

Yes Thomas is divisive. But the issue here is that he (1) accepted HUGE gifts and (2) didn’t report them. That smells like influence peddling. This would be a big story regardless of the justice.

[All-American]

Well money does corrupt even the noblest of us. Given what we know of humanity, shouldn’t we reframe the question as: is there any evidence whatsoever that his vote wasn’t tarnished by the lavish gifts?

This is the whole point of disclosure: to bolster trust and accountability in those we’re supposed to trust.

That is the kind of question I would ask if I were completely unfamiliar with Justice Thomas's jurisprudence.

[All-American]

By the way, filing this in the "for what it's worth" category: Thomas claims he was advised the gifts didn't have to be reported.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/07/u...rt-travel.html

“Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable,” Justice Thomas said. “I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.”

Posting for sake of relevance and not to support or detract from argument.

[Northwestcoug]

That is the kind of question I would ask if I were completely unfamiliar with Justice Thomas's jurisprudence.

I will trust your opinion that his jurisprudence has been supposedly constant. But can’t you envision a scenario where someone matures with experience or ‘softens’ with age, and then some mega donor comes along to bolster a conservative/constitutionalist philosophy? Or Vice versa for that matter? Should we just ignore that possible influence and just trust justices for the rest of their lives?

I chuckle at presenting pathologists who share a page of conflicts of interests, from the more pertinent to the 2-3 figure honorariums that have no practical value in what they’re discussing. But it shows how committed they are to be viewed as honest and trustworthy. By his omissions, Thomas showed that he really doesn’t care what us plebs think.

[Applejack]

By the way, filing this in the "for what it's worth" category: Thomas claims he was advised the gifts didn't have to be reported.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/07/u...rt-travel.html



Posting for sake of relevance and not to support or detract from argument.

I think he is correct that the Supreme Court places virtually (or actually) no restrictions on gifts received nor requires disclosure of those gifts. That should be changed, imho.

but that statement in his quote that the gifts were “not reportable” rather than merely stating that the gifts did not have to be reported strikes me as obviously wrong. Even if he had wanted to report the fancy bible, yacht cruises, luxury accommodations etc he would not have been allowed to? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

[Uncle Ted]

If you want to excuse thomas receiving the equivalent of a $500000 luxury cruise to Indonesia or a $19000 bible (?) as merely gifts from one friend to another, be my guest.

But the idea that there is absolutely no way that this influence “affected a single vote” is bonkers. This is why no federal judge (except the nine) could accept any of the gifts that Thomas received; because it would affect the way they vote!

Hey Applejack!

So supreme court justices shouldn't be allowed to hang out with their friends (rich or poor)? I take my friends fishing or hunting or to grab some BBQ and usually don't expect them to pay or don't expect anything from them. I have given them books too. Not $19,000 bibles but maybe a $10 BoM (which in one instance my friend considered it priceless because it changed his life). But if you thing that supreme court justices shouldn't be able to hang out with friends, ride on their boat, or receive books maybe we need a new constitutional amendment, man. Let me know what your congressman says about this.

Good to see you posting.