SCOTUS

[Seacoaster(1)]

Thomas’ frequent vacations at Topridge have brought him into contact with corporate executives and political activists. During just one trip in July 2017, Thomas’ fellow guests included executives at Verizon and PricewaterhouseCoopers, major Republican donors and one of the leaders of the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business conservative think tank, according to records reviewed by ProPublica.

The Ginny Effect.

I think CJ Roberts's pushback against claims that the Court's legitimacy is in peril hasn't aged particularly well.

[ggait]

I think CJ Roberts's pushback against claims that the Court's legitimacy is in peril hasn't aged particularly well.

I'm sure that the speeches given by Roberts, ACB, Breyers, etc. are honest. We're just applying our "judicial philosophy", not playing partisan legislator. I heard Scalia give that basic speech in person years ago

Problem is, no one cares. And no one should care.

If the Court was a partisan, outcome oriented institution, what would it look like? It would look exactly like how the Court operates today. So no one should give a shirt if the justices (i) say they aren't doing that or (ii) really believe they aren't doing that. So long as the Court consistently does ABC in line with partisan outcomes, doesn't matter by what mechanism that happens.

18 year term limits. Wouldn't be a total solution, but it would be better. Because lifetime tenure plus partisan timed retirements are an abomination. Didn't used to be like this.

[SCLaxAttack]

I think CJ Roberts's pushback against claims that the Court's legitimacy is in peril hasn't aged particularly well.

I'm sure that the speeches given by Roberts, ACB, Breyers, etc. are honest. We're just applying our "judicial philosophy", not playing partisan legislator. I heard Scalia give that basic speech in person years ago

Problem is, no one cares. And no one should care.

If the Court was a partisan, outcome oriented institution, what would it look like? It would look exactly like how the Court operates today. So no one should give a shirt if the justices (i) say they aren't doing that or (ii) really believe they aren't doing that. So long as the Court consistently does ABC in line with partisan outcomes, doesn't matter by what mechanism that happens.

18 year term limits. Wouldn't be a total solution, but it would be better. Because lifetime tenure plus partisan timed retirements are an abomination. Didn't used to be like this.

I don’t know what the answer might be, but I’d fear a mandatory retirement when one party has the president’s office while the other held Congress would result in even longer standoffs - not just the recent “we won’t confirm during a president’s last year in office.”

[OCanada]

Meanwhile SCoTUS refuses to adopt an ethics code and has abandoned tge rule of law as practiced in this coontry

Thomas has been violating ethical concernd for decades.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clarence ... ef00c7c392

[OCanada]

Meanwhile SCoTUS refuses to adopt an ethics code and has abandoned the rule of law as practiced in this coontry. Justice is no longer the goal if it ever was

Thomas has been violating ethical concernd for decades.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clarence ... ef00c7c392

[Seacoaster(1)]

Nice shot of Ginnie and Clarence, who prefers Walmart parking lots, with a bottle of Echezeaux:

https://twitter.com/kathrynresister/sta ... 11/photo/1

Do you think they paid for it? Or got it from "very dear friends" from the Right?

[ardilla secreta]

Nice shot of Ginnie and Clarence, who prefers Walmart parking lots, with a bottle of Echezeaux:

https://twitter.com/kathrynresister/sta ... 11/photo/1

Do you think they paid for it? Or got it from "very dear friends" from the Right?

Not any Echezeaux (Grand Cru Burgundy), but a Domaine de la Romanée-Conti Echezeaux. Among the most expensive of wines. Depending on vintage it could be in high hundreds to $3,000. It’s the wine to have to show you’re rolling in it. I’d be curious of the vintage year. If it’s recent then it’s all for show.

[ggait]

So Clarence says you don’t need to disclose “hospitality” as gifts. Fair.

No need to disclose if I invite a judge friend over for a cook out.

So all good if the cook out that Clarence goes to is in New Zealand and so involves private jet travel, and a 50 meter yacht, and $3k bottles of wine. Probably not an accident that all this $$$ largesse was structured to avoid disclosure.

FYI, new rules clearly require disclosure of this stuff. I’m guessing Clarence and Ginni are gonna be back to RVs and Walmart this summer. Good gig while it lasted.

One reason to vote dem is to make it tough on Clarence. You know he’d retire the minute a gop president
is elected. Then back to jets and yachts without restriction.

Term limits please.

[MDlaxfan76]

So Clarence says you don’t need to disclose “hospitality” as gifts. Fair.

No need to disclose if I invite a judge friend over for a cook out.

So all good if the cook out that Clarence goes to is in New Zealand and so involves private jet travel, and a 50 meter yacht, and $3k bottles of wine. Probably not an accident that all this $$$ largesse was structured to avoid disclosure.

FYI, new rules clearly require disclosure of this stuff. I’m guessing Clarence and Ginni are gonna be back to RVs and Walmart this summer. Good gig while it lasted.

One reason to vote dem is to make it tough on Clarence. You know he’d retire the minute a gop president
is elected. Then back to jets and yachts without restriction.

Term limits please.

Shame on John Roberts and the rest of the Court.

[OCanada]

More Thomas BS. Ethics call for even the appearance of impropriety. True especially for the highest court. His attempted self exoneration is crashing.

ProPublica, Vox and Slate all have stories featuring Thomas

[Seacoaster(1)]

More Thomas BS. Ethics call for even the appearance of impropriety. True especially for the highest court. His attempted self exoneration is crashing.

ProPublica, Vox and Slate all have stories featuring Thomas

Here is an excerpt of an opinion article (Ruth Marcus) in the Post Friday:

"The ethics law that governs disclosure required of federal judges and other senior government officials makes an exception for “hospitality extended for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that individual or his family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or his family.” You’d have to stretch pretty far to consider a globe-spanning plane ride “hospitality” in the ordinary sense of that word, or to call Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet a “facility.” But if you did, you’d have to deal with this provision, specifying that “any food, lodging or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.”

The Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s policy-setting body, made the requirement to report transportation explicit last month, in amended guidance specifying that hospitality did not include “gifts other than food, lodging or entertainment, such as transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation.”

And consider the interpretation of the court’s preeminent textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia. In 2004, Scalia rejected arguments that he should recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney after they flew together on Air Force Two to a hunting trip in Louisiana. Scalia wrote that other transportation did have to be reported, but not government flights.

“That this is not the sort of gift thought likely to affect a judge’s impartiality is suggested by the fact that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 … which requires annual reporting of transportation provided or reimbursed, excludes from this requirement transportation provided by the United States,” Scalia wrote. (Emphasis added.)


Indeed, Thomas himself apparently used to think Crow-paid travel was, in fact, “reportable.” In 1997, Crow flew Thomas on his plane to the exclusive Bohemian Grove club in California. But after the Los Angeles Times reported on the Thomas-Crow relationship in 2004, Thomas stopped reporting such gifts. What changed, other than the unwelcome publicity?

This isn’t the first time Thomas has been heedless of reporting requirements. In 2011, he amended years of financial disclosure forms because he had failed to list his wife’s employment with the Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College “due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Seriously? The instructions aren’t difficult: You don’t have to report the amount of your spouse’s income, but you do have to say who’s writing the check.

The point — one seemingly lost on Thomas — is transparency and the underlying goal of generating trust in the judiciary. “Assuming that there is some ambiguity in the former version of the regulations, what is the more prudent course for a judicial officer who is interested in promoting public confidence in the judiciary?” asked Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for seven years on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure. “In that context I would err on the side of reporting more rather than less,” added Fogel, now executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute.

Focusing on that point gets to the heart of how Thomas’s conduct is similar to that of his colleagues — and how it is different. All justices accept trips with travel and lodging reimbursed, and that is not a bad thing. Teaching law students, attending bar conferences, giving lectures — all of these are important activities that help educate the public about the too-opaque proceedings of the high court.

And all justices, let us hope, have friends. Often, unsurprisingly, these are friends who share their political and ideological outlook; birds of a feather get to flock together. Often, again unsurprisingly, these are friends in high places. As the years unfold, and careers prosper, the kind of people who make it to the Supreme Court have friends who reach other pinnacles of government or the private sector.

Donning a judicial robe does not require discarding these long-standing relationships; justices aren’t monks. But it does counsel taking care about appearances. Moreover, justices aren’t condemned to their preexisting social circles, but they need to take care that they’re not being lavished with favors and are not being used because of their exalted positions. The Crow-Thomas friendship — “Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends,” Thomas said in his statement — didn’t begin until after he joined the court. Beware new friends bearing yachts.

The wisdom of this advice was underscored last year, after reports about an Ohio couple recruited to befriend Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and his wife, Martha-Ann, as part of a Christian conservative organization’s “Operation Higher Court.” Defending the Alitos, the court’s legal counsel, Ethan V. Torrey, wrote Democratic lawmakers, “Relevant rules balance preventing gifts that might undermine public confidence in the judiciary and allowing judges to maintain normal personal friendships.”

Let’s be serious. Maintaining “normal personal friendships” doesn’t require spending nine days touring the Indonesian islands on a private yacht with a man who has spent millions promoting conservative causes. This torrent of largesse wouldn’t sit well if it were flowing from a Democratic activist to a liberal justice. It would be accurately understood for what it does: undermine public confidence in the judiciary."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... rt-ethics/

[OCanada]

More Thomas BS. Ethics call for even the appearance of impropriety. True especially for the highest court. His attempted self exoneration is crashing.

ProPublica, Vox and Slate all have stories featuring Thomas

Here is an excerpt of an opinion article (Ruth Marcus) in the Post Friday:

"The ethics law that governs disclosure required of federal judges and other senior government officials makes an exception for “hospitality extended for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that individual or his family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or his family.” You’d have to stretch pretty far to consider a globe-spanning plane ride “hospitality” in the ordinary sense of that word, or to call Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet a “facility.” But if you did, you’d have to deal with this provision, specifying that “any food, lodging or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.”

The Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s policy-setting body, made the requirement to report transportation explicit last month, in amended guidance specifying that hospitality did not include “gifts other than food, lodging or entertainment, such as transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation.”

And consider the interpretation of the court’s preeminent textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia. In 2004, Scalia rejected arguments that he should recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney after they flew together on Air Force Two to a hunting trip in Louisiana. Scalia wrote that other transportation did have to be reported, but not government flights.

“That this is not the sort of gift thought likely to affect a judge’s impartiality is suggested by the fact that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 … which requires annual reporting of transportation provided or reimbursed, excludes from this requirement transportation provided by the United States,” Scalia wrote. (Emphasis added.)


Indeed, Thomas himself apparently used to think Crow-paid travel was, in fact, “reportable.” In 1997, Crow flew Thomas on his plane to the exclusive Bohemian Grove club in California. But after the Los Angeles Times reported on the Thomas-Crow relationship in 2004, Thomas stopped reporting such gifts. What changed, other than the unwelcome publicity?

This isn’t the first time Thomas has been heedless of reporting requirements. In 2011, he amended years of financial disclosure forms because he had failed to list his wife’s employment with the Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College “due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Seriously? The instructions aren’t difficult: You don’t have to report the amount of your spouse’s income, but you do have to say who’s writing the check.

The point — one seemingly lost on Thomas — is transparency and the underlying goal of generating trust in the judiciary. “Assuming that there is some ambiguity in the former version of the regulations, what is the more prudent course for a judicial officer who is interested in promoting public confidence in the judiciary?” asked Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for seven years on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure. “In that context I would err on the side of reporting more rather than less,” added Fogel, now executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute.

Focusing on that point gets to the heart of how Thomas’s conduct is similar to that of his colleagues — and how it is different. All justices accept trips with travel and lodging reimbursed, and that is not a bad thing. Teaching law students, attending bar conferences, giving lectures — all of these are important activities that help educate the public about the too-opaque proceedings of the high court.

And all justices, let us hope, have friends. Often, unsurprisingly, these are friends who share their political and ideological outlook; birds of a feather get to flock together. Often, again unsurprisingly, these are friends in high places. As the years unfold, and careers prosper, the kind of people who make it to the Supreme Court have friends who reach other pinnacles of government or the private sector.

Donning a judicial robe does not require discarding these long-standing relationships; justices aren’t monks. But it does counsel taking care about appearances. Moreover, justices aren’t condemned to their preexisting social circles, but they need to take care that they’re not being lavished with favors and are not being used because of their exalted positions. The Crow-Thomas friendship — “Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends,” Thomas said in his statement — didn’t begin until after he joined the court. Beware new friends bearing yachts.

The wisdom of this advice was underscored last year, after reports about an Ohio couple recruited to befriend Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and his wife, Martha-Ann, as part of a Christian conservative organization’s “Operation Higher Court.” Defending the Alitos, the court’s legal counsel, Ethan V. Torrey, wrote Democratic lawmakers, “Relevant rules balance preventing gifts that might undermine public confidence in the judiciary and allowing judges to maintain normal personal friendships.”

Let’s be serious. Maintaining “normal personal friendships” doesn’t require spending nine days touring the Indonesian islands on a private yacht with a man who has spent millions promoting conservative causes. This torrent of largesse wouldn’t sit well if it were flowing from a Democratic activist to a liberal justice. It would be accurately understood for what it does: undermine public confidence in the judiciary."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... rt-ethics/

+1. Nice post

I dated the daughter of the Chief Justice of the 4th US Circuit who also was Chair of the Ethics Committee. He would have been appalled by Thomas. Heck i have an ethics code to observe far stricter than what SCOTUS use as a standard. I assume the assumption was only people w high ethical standards would serve on the Court. I doubt SCOTUS will have a rigorous ethics code anytime soon.

Not long ago i housed the sister of the Chief Justice’s clerk. Dhe had s stronger erhical code

[molo]

And Thomas is a gift from the “moderate” Republican GHW Bush.

[Seacoaster(1)]

And Thomas is a gift from the “moderate” Republican GHW Bush.

Yup, he was a reaction to the "disappointment" of Conservatives to David H. Souter. At least HW got one of them right.

[Kismet]

And Thomas is a gift from the “moderate” Republican GHW Bush.

Yup, he was a reaction to the "disappointment" of Conservatives to David H. Souter. At least HW got one of them right.

As an added bonus, Justice Thomas' benefactor buddy also collects Nazi memorabilia. How appropriate.

[Seacoaster(1)]

More dollars from Harlan Crow:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

[MDlaxfan76]

More dollars from Harlan Crow:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

This is going to get worse for Thomas.

Roberts, you have a tough choice to make...except that it really shouldn't be tough.

[Typical Lax Dad]

More dollars from Harlan Crow:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

[ggait]

Even more than the ethics, this thing between Crow and Thomas is just weird af.

Look up the story about Crow buying a dilapidated cannery in Thomas’ home town and poured millions into it to become a museum that features Thomas.

On and on and on. Creepy.

[MDlaxfan76]

Even more than the ethics, this thing between Crow and Thomas is just weird af.

Look up the story about Crow buying a dilapidated cannery in Thomas’ home town and poured millions into it to become a museum that features Thomas.

On and on and on. Creepy.

Trying to put myself into the shoes of a mega billionaire who collects NAZI memorabilia and funds, at a massive scale, right wing causes and politicians...what makes my life meaningful and worthwhile? What would give it purpose? What would make me feel coherent and "good" about my right wing ideology?

And yet, I'm a bit of a squirrelly introvert, don't like to personally be in the public eye (opposite of say Musk or Trump attention-seeking ego-type).

First, my ego needs me to actually make an impact on the trajectory of American society and thus the world...rightward. And with the understanding that this means more wealth to me and those like me...

How to do that, with a decades long campaign?

Influence the levers of power...and particularly in Crow's case, the judiciary, as well as right wing politicians...through massive amounts of dark money. Make it easier for other right wing funders to have such influence too.

Need the judiciary to provide cover for that dark money.

Am I an evil f-ck? Not in my own mind, 'look, I've made a black friend'...he happens to have a great life story (if you polish the edges away), up from poverty, makes good in law, marries a "conservative activist" white gal, is a "conservative" darling, and gets to the Supreme Court despite controversy...so I seek him out...and he likes the trappings that come with this newfound power and access that I can give him...he's my "friend"...he smokes cigars, tells stories about what SCOTUS is considering, is willing to strategize about the trajectory of the law...my "friend"...

And yet, he's a lightweight judicially...his image is not what I'd like it to be in order to fit the narrative I see as justification for his "conservative" views and "success". My ideology. So, I try to work on that PR, including "giving back" to his childhood home...we're going to build a museum there, and turn around this poor town...and I'll take care of his mother's financial needs in the process...he's my "friend"...

but yeah, weird.