SCOTUS

[Non Sequitur]

My exact words were: "If he didn’t follow disclosure rules, that’s troubling."

It sounds like Mitt agrees with me.

The problem with your exact words is that they minimize the seriousness of the issue. "That's troubling" is what you say when you find out your kid has cheated on a math quiz. It's not what say when you find out your kid has dismembered the neighbor's dog. The proper response is "that's horrifying". If Clarence Thomas is on the take, that's horrifying.

[All-American]

The problem with your exact words is that they minimize the seriousness of the issue. "That's troubling" is what you say when find out your kid has cheated on a math quiz. It's not what say when you find out your kid has dismembered the neighbor's dog. The proper response is "that's horrifying". If Clarence Thomas is on the take, that's horrifying.

I guess I should have said “stinks” instead of “troubling.” Maybe then fus and non seq would love me.

[Non Sequitur]

I guess I should have said “stinks” instead of “troubling.” Maybe then fus and non seq would love me.

You could have said "curious" and I would still love you.

[frank ryan]

So how strong of a response would be sufficient?

So apparently that Crowe billionaire also owns the home where Thomas' mother lives and is staying there rent free.

He needs to exit the court

[Moliere]

So apparently that Crowe billionaire also owns the home where Thomas' mother lives and is staying there rent free.

He needs to exit the court

I agree thomas’ mom should not be on the Supreme Court

[All-American]

So apparently that Crowe billionaire also owns the home where Thomas' mother lives and is staying there rent free.

He needs to exit the court

I thought that was part of the transaction. Buyer owns the house, subject to seller right of occupancy. That in and of itself isn’t terribly unusual.

[Applejack]

So apparently that Crowe billionaire also owns the home where Thomas' mother lives and is staying there rent free.

He needs to exit the court

For this?

The Crowe affair reeks of Thomas lining his pockets with conservative money, but I don’t think the fact that his mom lives rent free on land owned by Crowe is justification for him to step down.

[All-American]

For this?

The Crowe affair reeks of Thomas lining his pockets with conservative money, but I don’t think the fact that his mom lives rent free on land owned by Crowe is justification for him to step down.

Reports are that the house sold at a loss and that the proceeds were used to refurb the home. That doesn’t really sound like pocket lining.

[Applejack]

Reports are that the house sold at a loss and that the proceeds were used to refurb the home. That doesn’t really sound like pocket lining.

But a $19000 bible does!!

[Non Sequitur]

Reports are that the house sold at a loss and that the proceeds were used to refurb the home. That doesn’t really sound like pocket lining.

Clarence Thomas' mother lives rent free in a house owned by a conservative political activist and you see nothing out of the ordinary with that? I struggle to understand why you strain so hard to try and normalize something that is clearly not normal.

[USUC]

The problem with all of this is none of this shows that Thomas' jurisprudence has changed due to Crowes money. A conservative justice rubs shoulders with a billionaire conservative is nothing new. I read an article a week ago, which I conveniently can't find now of course, that the court doesn't really have rules or oversight on trips/speaking events/etc and the impropriety isn't a partisan issue as RBG had a lot of rich friends she socialized and stayed with. I have no doubt that Thomas probably took it further than the others, but he's not going anywhere just because he gets favors from rich friends.

[All-American]

Clarence Thomas' mother lives rent free in a house owned by a conservative political activist and you see nothing out of the ordinary with that? I struggle to understand why you strain so hard to try and normalize something that is clearly not normal.

An old woman sells her home subject to the right to occupy for the rest of her life. That sounds like a reverse mortgage—not at all uncommon.

This isn’t a situation where a wealthy benefactor is allowing her to occupy his property, all free of charge. He doesn’t have a choice; he acquired the property from her, subject to her ongoing right to continue to occupy it. The right of occupancy is not his to give.

It would be a bit more alarming if it was sold at above-market rates. That seems not to be the case either, especially if it is true that the proceeds of the sale largely went to returning the home and Justice Thomas himself lost money on the whole transaction.

He still should have disclosed it, though.

[frank ryan]

For this?

The Crowe affair reeks of Thomas lining his pockets with conservative money, but I don’t think the fact that his mom lives rent free on land owned by Crowe is justification for him to step down.

No, it's just another additional piece or corruption.

[Uncle Ted]

An old woman sells her home subject to the right to occupy for the rest of her life. That sounds like a reverse mortgage—not at all uncommon.

Those reverse mortgages are usually a rip off that take advantage of old people... If Thomas disclosed this people would laugh at him for letting his mother get taken by some rich Texan.

[All-American]

As I think about it, more likely than reverse mortgage is that the home was sold but the mother retained a life estate. Also not terribly uncommon, from what I understand, though our estate lawyers would have to weigh in on that.

https://www.skiptonlaw.com/blog/2019...a-life-estate/