If John Roberts wanted to reform the ethics rules for the Supreme Court, free from any political and media pressure, he’s had 17 years to do so.
Yes.
It was not a secret. Propublica didn’t crack some conspiracy when they reported this. It was just journalism and fact finding.
This wasn’t an envelope of money that passed hands under a table.
This was hospitality publicly provided by Harlan Crow.
Should he have disclosed? Yes. Can anyone point to any actual corruption? Not in any traditional sense of corruption.
Here is a breakdown by the Brookings Institute that I think is reasonably fair.
Er, you realize that the old story about a judge who found two envelopes slipped under his office door: one with $200 from the plaintiff and one with $300 from the defendant, who addressed the matter by refunding $100 to the defendant’s lawyer and declaring that he would rule on the merits, was a joke?
Given the facts revealed to date, it seems to me that his corruption is particularly blatant and has therefore attracted particular attention.
Does breaking financial disclosure laws require proof of corruption or just proof that finances were not disclosed?
Agreed! While the argument that “Clarence Thomas will ALWAYS rule in favor of the conservative viewpoint regardless of the facts of the case or the nuances of the underlying legal and Constitutional issues, therefore no amount of cash or gifts handed to him by fellow conservatives could possibly sway his opinion” may very well be true, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of his judicial principles.
And I keep thinking of this friend of mine that’s an elected judge in Pennsylvania. She used to own a licensing business, a place where people could, for a fee, apply for and obtain things like hunting and fishing licenses.
She had to sell the business when she was elected, because it wasn’t a good look for her to be in business with the state, no matter how innocuous the business was.
These things used to be taken seriously before the Republicans started chipping away at the laws, rules and traditions that were put in place to minimize corruption. Because they are all nothing more than lying, cheating grifters.
It wasn’t just hospitality. Were you not aware that Crow owns Thomas’s mother’s house but lets her live rent free? That he paid for Thomas’s foster son’s private and very expensive education?
How many gifts and how much money would it take?
Not reporting gifts is corruption.
I know some people think the warren court was ideologically driven. I can’t remember the last time a Republican appointed a pro-choice justice or when a democrat appointed a pro-life one. The social issues seem to be the issues where personal opinions seem to seep into judicial opinions.
If you don’t like the composition of the court then you should endeavor to win elections over a long period of time so you can appoint people whose judicial philosophy are hospitable to your views.
Or, have a Senate majority leader who is willing to engage in shenanigans related to whether or not a SC vacancy can/should be filled in the run-up to a presidential election.
(But, frankly, it’s been a well-established strategy of the GOP, for several decades, to engineer placing reliably conservative judges at various levels of the judiciary, as a long-term approach to ensuring their political and ideological goals.)
This has nothing to do with whether Thomas accepted gifts and then didn’t report them. That’s the new information that’s causing the current kerfuffle.
Did she accept gifts from the ACLU without reporting them?
We know that all kinds of groups and individuals pay for Justices’ travel to give speeches or whatever. Hopefully, all the Justices are reporting those gifts.
The gifts from Crow to Thomas went unreported, and they seem different from other freebies that Justices usually get. I’m sure I could be wrong and maybe none of the SCOTUS justices ever pay for private school and none of their parents ever pay rent. Who knows?
Yes, and this doesn’t conflict with pointing out and trying to fight corruption on the court.
I can’t figure out your position here. Is it that Democrats and progressives should just shut up? Not criticize Thomas? Or what?
If you cannot point to a single case that was influenced by the gifts, then a trillion gazillion bajillion dollars.
What exactly did Harlan get in exchange for all this?
Only in the broadest possible sense.
Corruption is almost always characterized by quid pro quo.
What’s the quo here?
Yes Merrick Garland was the victim of shenanigans but constitutionally permissble shenanigans.
Mitch McConnell has done more to ruin the comity of the senate than any other senator in history and I think there was a time when they used to shoot each other.
This has nothing to do with the corruption problem. This is basically just a form of “too bad so sad, try harder next time loser”.
Zero to do with the the topic of the thread and the issue at hand.
Deleting my reply, as this has become a thread hijack.
It takes a truly beautiful mind to point to the fact that Clarence Thomas has been insanely conservative throughout his judicial career as a defense against the proposition that Clarence Thomas has offered something in return for the unreported financial windfalls bestowed upon him by conservative billionaires for his entire judicial career.
My position is that there isn’t corruption in this particular case just a puzzling lack of disclosure of permissible gifts.
I think ethics reform is necessary at scotus.
I think it is impossible in the current climate without the judiciary appearing to relinquish independence.
I think that the rhetoric surrounding this is undermining the legitimacy of one of the pillars of democracy and is only a little bit better than injecting doubt into voting results.
And who’s been doing exactly that for decades?
Do you not feel that a Supreme Court Justice, who accepts expensive gifts and favors from a well-known conservative benefactor and contributor for decades without reporting them, also undermines the legitimacy of one of the pillars of democracy?