SCOTUS

[old_gregg]

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.

links? the purchase price is small dollars and not the issue in any event

[old_gregg]

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.

he had a choice to buy the property subject to her remaining to some occupancy interest. he had the choice to not extract rent. he had the choice to improve the property. all of this is stupid, though—are you really making the case that a billionaire real estate developer is in the business of writing reverse mortgages for $100k, that people should disregard the context here of crow spending 20 years lavishing thomas, a lifetime public servant, with vacations on his yacht, private jet travel, at will use of private resort facilities, etc? this is not a reverse mortgage in a vacuum.

[old_gregg]

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.

this is not the real problem at all, and the assertion that it hasn’t changed his jurisprudence is unprovable, dumb and irrelevant. the problem is that laws requiring disclosure exist for a reason: the appearance of impropriety at all undermines institutions. sunlight and disinfectant and all that. there is zero reason for a sitting, lifetime-appointed scotus judge to not report not just in compliance with federal law, but to overdisclose if there is any shade that’s not black or white. thomas’s entire legacy is built on strict construction and application of the rule of law. give a principled reason why a guy who has never made any real money in his life should not disclose his jetsetting around the world for 20 years with a republican mega donor. rbg whataboutism is similarly irrelevant. what this really sets up is empowering a future justice who has engaged in actual malfeasance to feel uncompelled as a matter of law and duty to disclose facts that are relevant to exposing that malfeasance.

[Pelado]

this is not the real problem at all, and the assertion that it hasn’t changed his jurisprudence is unprovable, dumb and irrelevant. the problem is that laws requiring disclosure exist for a reason: the appearance of impropriety at all undermines institutions. sunlight and disinfectant and all that. there is zero reason for a sitting, lifetime-appointed scotus judge to not report not just in compliance with federal law, but to overdisclose if there is any shade that’s not black or white. thomas’s entire legacy is built on strict construction and application of the rule of law. give a principled reason why a guy who has never made any real money in his life should not disclose his jetsetting around the world for 20 years with a republican mega donor. rbg whataboutism is similarly irrelevant. what this really sets up is empowering a future justice who has engaged in actual malfeasance to feel uncompelled as a matter of law and duty to disclose facts that are relevant to exposing that malfeasance.

Good point.

[All-American]

Good point.

Is it? Seems to me what it shows is that people will make your lives miserable if you err on the side of nondisclosure, and so you should disclose.

which seems fine to me.

[All-American]

he had a choice to buy the property subject to her remaining to some occupancy interest. he had the choice to not extract rent. he had the choice to improve the property. all of this is stupid, though—are you really making the case that a billionaire real estate developer is in the business of writing reverse mortgages for $100k, that people should disregard the context here of crow spending 20 years lavishing thomas, a lifetime public servant, with vacations on his yacht, private jet travel, at will use of private resort facilities, etc? this is not a reverse mortgage in a vacuum.

He certainly would not have had that choice if the Thomases wouldn’t agree to it. And since keeping Mom in a home seems to have been important to them, I kind of doubt that was on the table.

No, this isn’t a reverse mortgage in a vacuum. But if this is supposed to be dirty dealing and corruption, selling Mom’s house at a loss and subject to a life estate is a real missed opportunity.

[old_gregg]

Is it? Seems to me what it shows is that people will make your lives miserable if you err on the side of nondisclosure, and so you should disclose.

which seems fine to me.

only if they find out

[old_gregg]

He certainly would not have had that choice if the Thomases wouldn’t agree to it. And since keeping Mom in a home seems to have been important to them, I kind of doubt that was on the table.

No, this isn’t a reverse mortgage in a vacuum. But if this is supposed to be dirty dealing and corruption, selling Mom’s house at a loss and subject to a life estate is a real missed opportunity.

she lives for free in a house that’s been materially improved and from which her family got liquidity. that’s a pretty good deal.

[All-American]

only if they find out

Which they did, within days of anyone believing there was cause to be interested in transactions involving Crow and Justice Thomas, because real estate transactions are publicly recorded and have everyone’s names all over them.

All of which suggests they weren’t really trying to keep it hidden. Or, at a minimum, anyone in the future hoping to keep their deals with big moguls secret had better try a lot harder than they did.

[All-American]

she lives for free in a house that’s been materially improved and from which her family got liquidity. that’s a pretty good deal.

She still pays taxes, insurance, etc., so she doesn’t live for free.

But true, she does not pay anyone for the right to occupy the house. Why should she? She owns the right to occupy it, same as you do for your house.

[Non Sequitur]

She still pays taxes, insurance, etc., so she doesn’t live for free.

But true, she does not pay anyone for the right to occupy the house. Why should she? She owns the right to occupy it, same as you do for your house.

The bit that you keep leaving out of the equation is that Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice, and should be held to a much different standard than everybody else in the world. One of the core imperatives of his position is that he be impervious to political influence. He should be vigilant to avoid even the appearance of political compromise. It's like a Stake President who goes to strip clubs. It's not illegal, and millions of people do it every day, but maybe the guy should aspire to a lesser calling.

[All-American]

The bit that you keep leaving out of the equation is that Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice, and should be held to a much different standard than everybody else in the world. One of the core imperatives of his position is that he be impervious to political influence. He should be vigilant to avoid even the appearance of political compromise. It's like a Stake President who goes to strip clubs. It's not illegal, and millions of people do it every day, but maybe the guy should aspire to a lesser calling.

I’m not leaving that out at all. That fact is why he should have disclosed it.

[Moliere]

This all feels Hunter Bidenish to me. Someone gives a financial favor to the relative of a high ranking political individual in the hopes of getting favors in return. Funny how the left is turning into what they despised for so long.

[Commando]

This all feels Hunter Bidenish to me. Someone gives a financial favor to the relative of a high ranking political individual in the hopes of getting favors in return. Funny how the left is turning into what they despised for so long.

Hunter Biden-ish? Isn't the 'financial favor' rendered to Clarence Thomas himself? Isn't the violation in question Justice Thomas' failure to disclose gifts/transactions?

[Uncle Ted]

This all feels Hunter Bidenish to me. Someone gives a financial favor to the relative of a high ranking political individual in the hopes of getting favors in return. Funny how the left is turning into what they despised for so long.

Yeah, but don't forget...