Clarence Thomas secretly accepted luxury vacations from GOP donor without disclosing

Book advances are really different, IMO, from the gifts. They are at least a normal expense. If it turns out that the publishers are not only losing a shitload of money off the book deals, but are expecting to lose a shitload of money, that’s different; but if the publishers think a memoir from a SC justice will sell, I don’t see it in the same category.

I’m still uneasy with it. Overall I’d like us to look to the Benedictine monks for guidance on all elected offices: while there doesn’t need to be a vow of obedience or chastity, that “vow of poverty” is gonna be good guidance. When you take the oath of office, you should live in strict conditions for the duration of your term: you should have specific housing, no gifts, no outside work, and a credit card on which you put all your expenses, with the option of paying cash only if you bring the receipts. At the end of your term you can go back to private life. Violation of these rules should result in jailtime.

But it might dissuade good people from running for office, you say? My friend, good people are already dissuaded from running for office. I don’t think we have a dearth of people running already, and cutting down on the greedy folk sounds all to the good to me.

I don’t think it would. Good people don’t run for federal office to make money out of the office.

You want to dissuade the ones who are in it for the money.

I do not see how you can be in any office and accept as much as a fruit basket without, at the very least, being forced to resign to disgrace, but I must be missing a lot of the fine points of high office. (Which Duke or Prime Minister or whatever replied to accusations of corruption by saying that if you can’t cash in, what’s the point?)

I’m beginning to think that justice and politics might turn out to be the best applications for AI - after all, how much worse could ai do?

On the opposite side, an experienced old legislator is explaining how the lobbying works to the idealistic newly elected guy:

“Son, if you can’t take their money, drink their whisky, and then go in and vote against them, you don’t belong here.”

[Rich Guy checking his other pocket]

“Uh, okay?”

[/Rich Guy checking his other pocket]

I’m not elected, but am a career federal employee. For as long as I can recall, the annual ethics training said $10 - basically a coffee mug or inexpensive pen. Which has been no big deal, as no one has been lining up to cast gifts my way.

But I realized a couple of years ago I likely failed to report a “gift.” Our best friends wanted to go to an expensive restaurant. We didn’t care to spend that much for a meal - eventually they asked if we could come with them if they treated, I think ostensibly tied to my wife’s birthday. After hearing about these gits to the Supremes, I realized I might have supposedly been required to disclose this gift - even tho it had ZERO to do with any aspect of my job.

Now, our longtime best friends taking us to a meal on my wife’s birthday might seem a far cry from an RV or a free trip to Bali, but it gave me some insight into possible differing interpretations of the (IMO) often onerous disclosure requirements.

Whether it’s out of a misguided sense of decorum or collegiality or something else – the justices who are not on the take, especially Chief Justice Roberts, are only hurting themselves by not addressing this in some way. The reputational damage is real.

I’m sure Thomas and Alito will gladly provide their tax returns which will show everything was reported and on the up and up. That should address my and Senator Collins deep concerns.

It might take them a little while to put the information together. Say two weeks?

Actually, I think the notable thing about the disclosures isn’t, “These people are getting free shit from everywhere.” It’s, “Wow, Thomas really went apeshit compared to everyone else.”

I’m a county employee. A BIG no no is recommending any type of private contractor to anyone for any reason while on the job. It would be frowned on off the clock I’m sure.

We do all the licensing and permitting for building. And all kinds of other stuff.

A friend of mine’s husband was a plumbing inspector for the town for many years. He would not recommend a plumber to me, on or off the clock.

I fully agree, and I think Roberts legitimately cares about the court’s reputation. In general, though I don’t think the right cares about reputation anymore. They’ve discovered that it doesn’t seem to matter. No matter how low they go, their voters just don’t seem to care. The problem is two-fold. I legitimately fear that knowing this they’re going to make right-wing victory (even more) systemic. And if the left ever decide to join them, then … the country is done for. The only thing keeping democracy alive right now are the Democrats commitment to democracy. If they ever decide that power is more important than democracy …

This article popped up on my news feed. I think it’s a good summary of the Clarence Thomas ethics scandals.

(Might be paywalled – it looks like you can get 4 Forbes articles for free, so may not be available to you if you’ve reached the limit.)

The item that stood out for me particularly was this one (my emphasis):

Is everyone associated with the Republicans connected to Russia, or is it just me misremembering?

In case anyone can’t see it, here’s why this has popped up in the news:

I think it’s safer to say that for the current crop of Republicans/MAGA in power, they’re entirely in it for money and/or power. And Russia is happy to help them secure both (for favors, but more likely to just sow chaos), but certainly isn’t the only one.

It’s just that the same current crop (of course including Thomas) have been increasingly uncaring of any effort to keep up appearances, especially when their own do not hold them accountable in ANY way.