So, the question is whether it was reported as a gift and the giver paid appropriate taxes on it.
I assume it was greater than $16,000, anyway.
Probably the best response to that is keeping Thomas “in line” to make sure the right has their judge remaining in their hip pocket. Thomas remains “their judge”.
I just watched the PBS Frontline documentary “Clarence and Ginni Thomas, Politics, Power and the Supreme Court.”
Talk about putting the right wing’s “he’s our guy” into perspective!
Baby steps. Alberta’s well on its way.
Anti vaxxer, pro-trucker rally, Qanon loonie-tune Danielle rub you the wrong way? 
I’m so disgusted with this province I’ve taken up littering out of spite.
That’ll show 'em!
For all we know, Thomas has been doing this his entire career. He got the nomination because he was a reliable if not automatic vote for whatever side the right wing wanted him to take and maybe he got that reputation because he had been selling his rulings from his first judicial experience. We now have the best Supreme Court that money can buy.
We don’t know for sure but it seems there is more:
And it just keeps coming (although this is not Thomas it is pretty darn close):
And yet more (August 10 article)…
There is no way someone can say this was a once or twice oopsie. Thomas seems deeply corrupt.
But they were all gifts from his oldest and dearest friends! 
Who of course would have been his oldest and dearest friends even if he weren’t on the Supreme Court!
“To the best of my knowledge, if I had not occupied a space on 38 vacations, 26 private jet flights, eight flights by helicopter, a dozen sporting events or stays at luxury resorts, no one would have gone in my stead and seats would have been empty and gone to waste.” (Imagined quote.)
Could someone remind me of what the argument is of those who say the USSC doesn’t need a code of ethics (with consequences)? Exactly, how would such a code “destroy” the USSC?
I am only guessing at a possible argument (not sure if it has been made before…probably has somewhere):
I think the notion is you can’t saddle the Supreme Court with rules they must abide by because, then, litigants before the court could pull legal maneuvers to get a justice off a case or political enemies could bring endless complaints against the justices (as we see happening in congress with things like Hunter Biden or how many Benghazi inquires into Hillary Clinton?). This would ruin the independence of the court. Instead, we must rely on the justices being high-minded and comporting themselves properly.
Yeah, that’s basically the argument. And see how well that has worked!
There are plenty of discussions available: here’s one.. Some argue no other body has authority to regulate the Ct, and they argue that they are such upstanding folk that it is sufficient that they voluntarily agree as to each others’ “unimpeachable” morality.
I’m not sure that has ever been sufficient - for justices of any political leanings. But it clearly is not sufficient nowadays. But these fuckers are so uniquely powerful, that they have great ability to just flip everyone else off and do things however they want.
Cleaning spewed tea off my keyboard now.
In a way the POTUS and SCOTUS are similar. They can comport themselves however they want without consequence, unless you impeach them. And that’s a really difficult thing to do, requiring a big bipartisan effort, so good luck.
The difference is that the POTUS is up for reelection after their first 4 years, and can only serve a maximum of 8 years. A SC justice never has to worry about reelection, and can serve for the rest of their life. So they aren’t equivalent. There really isn’t anything like the untouchability of the SCOTUS in our country.
It’s ridiculous. It brings to mind whatever cockamamie law we have that allows Tuberville to hold up all military promotions until he gets his way on the abortion issue.
It’s fucking ridiculous.