SCOTUS

[frank ryan]

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

Thomas gives a lot of reasons to be disliked and perceived as unfair.

[frank ryan]

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.

With genuine respect, I think if you read up on the scope of his wife's activism and failures to distance herself from awful causes and her engaging in trying to keep Trump in power after an election loss, you wouldn't see it as a non-problem or something so pedestrian or trivial that only liberals should care about. It softens things to just call her a Trump supporter, that's not what I care about.

[Joe Public]

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.

For what it’s worth, in my (limited) dealings with federal ethics and gift acceptance/reporting matters, “not reportable” is interchangeable with “not required to be reported.” There are two buckets: reportable and not reportable. There is no “prohibited from reporting” bucket. There is a “prohibited from accepting” category, but that isn’t what is being discussed here.

[All-American]

I will trust your opinion that his jurisprudence has been supposedly constant.

It's not even that he is constant-- though he is, and to a remarkable extent. It is that he is famously intractable. You're talking about a guy who still maintains that constitutional rights are protected under the privileges and immunities clause-- a position that was all but abandoned back in 1873, and which no one (not even Scalia) would entertain. You can get some real sticklers for judges, but he is unrivaled in that regard. You can love or hate the positions he takes, but whatever those positions are, he is unyielding in maintaining them.

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?

Of course not. That's why I like the rules on disclosures.

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.

Sure, but he doesn't care about what the patricians think either.

[All-American]

With genuine respect, I think if you read up on the scope of his wife's activism and failures to distance herself from awful causes and her engaging in trying to keep Trump in power after an election loss, you wouldn't see it as a non-problem or something so pedestrian or trivial that only liberals should care about. It softens things to just call her a Trump supporter, that's not what I care about.

I definitely would oppose Justice Thomas's wife being on the Supreme Court.

[Copelius]

I definitely would oppose Justice Thomas's wife being on the Supreme Court.

That goes without saying. I mean, a Creighton Law grad on SCOTUS. You have to have come from at least a top 25 school. (Sorry Quinney grads)

[Uncle Ted]

Good news, Frank! AOC may be drafting impeachment articles if no one else does: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc...chment-article

Did AOC’s pronouns used to be he/him? I swear she is the only one that has balls among all the Dems in Congress.

[Moliere]

I definitely would oppose Justice Thomas's wife being on the Supreme Court.

[Maximus]

I definitely would oppose Justice Thomas's wife being on the Supreme Court.

Thomas has definitely voted based on his wife though.

[Northwestcoug]

Clarence Thomas: remarkably consistent conservative SC voice, not so consistent discloser of gifts:

“Justice Thomas Reports Wealth of Gifts” was the title of a December 2004 front-page story in the Los Angeles Times, detailing how Clarence Thomas had received gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars over the prior six years — far more than the other justices on the Supreme Court at the time.

The story appears to have marked a turning point for Thomas and his public disclosures of gifts. Since the news account was published 18 years ago, Thomashas reported receiving just two gifts, according to a Washington Post review of his financial disclosure forms posted online by nonprofit groups Fix the Court and OpenSecrets.

So early on he 'sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary' before the LA Times article was published. That guidance must have been disclose everything since he did it more than any other justice. And obviously a colleague took him aside and gave him different guidance that just happened to coincide with the article, since he went cold turkey after. Otherwise his "I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines" statement would seem quite unbelievable.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...closure-court/

[Uncle Ted]

It's another one of those "high-tech lynchings" by the democrats...

The Smearing of Clarence Thomas
The left gins up another phony ethics assault to tarnish the Supreme Court.

By The Editorial Board

The left’s assault on the Supreme Court is continuing, and the latest front is the news that Justice Clarence Thomas has a rich friend who has hosted the Justice on his private plane, his yacht, and his vacation resort. That’s it. That’s the story. Yet this non-bombshell has triggered breathless claims that the Court must be investigated, and that Justice Thomas must resign or be impeached. Those demands give away the real political game here.
[...]
The liberal press—pardon the redundancy—has climbed onto its ethical high horse and is demanding “reform” at the Court. “All of this needs robust investigation,” demanded Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin dutifully saluted upon Mr. Whitehouse’s order and said his committee “will act” to impose a new “enforceable code of conduct” for the Court.

This ethics talk is really about setting up an apparatus that politicians can then use against the Justices if there is any transgression, however minor or inadvertent. The claims of corruption are intended to smear the conservative Justices and tarnish the Court to tee up case recusals, impeachment or a Court-packing scheme if Democrats get enough Senate votes to break the filibuster.

It’s all ugly politics, but the left is furious it lost control of the Court, and it wants it back by whatever means possible.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/clarenc...-crow-1c4c2f41
https://apple.news/ARqcLK3mWSDGHEECl8vHPzQ

Why does Joe Biden and the Democrats hate Uncle Thomas and black people, in general, so much?

[frank ryan]

It's another one of those "high-tech lynchings" by the democrats...


https://www.wsj.com/articles/clarenc...-crow-1c4c2f41
https://apple.news/ARqcLK3mWSDGHEECl8vHPzQ

Why does Joe Biden and the Democrats hate Uncle Thomas and black people, in general, so much?

Cause they don't or they would vote in a way that would reflect it when the opposite is true.

Also, you don't seem to be very concerned with racism in general .

[Moliere]

Thomas has definitely voted based on his wife though.

I'm no expert on this like AA, but I'd be curious to see an example of the time he voted based on his wife, which I'd then expect to be something outside of his historical jurisprudence. Maybe it exists but it would be good to see evidence of what you are saying.

[Bo Diddley]

I'm no expert on this like AA, but I'd be curious to see an example of the time he voted based on his wife, which I'd then expect to be something outside of his historical jurisprudence. Maybe it exists but it would be good to see evidence of what you are saying.

I wouldn't be surprised to find she's had a reinforcing effect on him, but I really don't think his philosophy has changed has it? Plus, even if she did have an effect on him, so what? Should we say he's no longer fit to be on the Court? I really don't like him or his wife, but it is what it is.

[Non Sequitur]

It's not even that he is constant-- though he is, and to a remarkable extent. It is that he is famously intractable. You're talking about a guy who still maintains that constitutional rights are protected under the privileges and immunities clause-- a position that was all but abandoned back in 1873, and which no one (not even Scalia) would entertain. You can get some real sticklers for judges, but he is unrivaled in that regard. You can love or hate the positions he takes, but whatever those positions are, he is unyielding in maintaining them. Of course not. That's why I like the rules on disclosures.



Sure, but he doesn't care about what the patricians think either.

I'm not buying it. If you had to predict his opinion on a specific case, would you have more luck basing your prediction on his overarching judicial philosophy or whether his decision would be endorsed by the Freedom Caucus? Case in point: If the recent decision by the Texas MAGA judge to halt FDA approval of mifepristone is appealed and reaches the Supreme Court, is there a chance in hell that Thomas would not uphold the ban on mifepristone? It would have nothing to do with judicial philosophy and everything to do with political partisanship.