SCOTUS

[Seacoaster(1)]

Maybe if Alito took a knee, the left would then praise him.

You can do better than parrot bubblebathgirl, right?

[youthathletics]

Maybe if Alito took a knee, the left would then praise him.

You can do better than parrot bubblebathgirl, right?

Of course, my friend.

[JoeMauer89]

Maybe if Alito took a knee, the left would then praise him.

You can do better than parrot bubblebathgirl, right?

Of course, my friend.

Joe

[old salt]

Alito had the courtesy to answer Congress as to why he need not recuse himself.
He's the Justice, his spouse is not. He has no authority to restrict her 1st Amendment rights.
He's right not to be intimidated & bullied into not discharging his duty.

[Kismet]

Alito had the courtesy to answer Congress as to why he need not recuse himself.
He's the Justice, his spouse is not. He has no authority to restrict her 1st Amendment rights.
He's right not to be intimidated & bullied into not discharging his duty.

Yeah his wife has all those rights as a female - too bad Alito didn't think of woman's rights when he led the undoing of Roe.

[dislaxxic]

Alito is a real legal numbnut. This absolute MAGAt now writes law...in the decision he authored in the South Carolina racial gerrymandering case, Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, by doing what Trump always does: he imagines a world he wants, then tells whatever half-baked, whackjob story he can cook up in his Fever Brain, and POOF, it becomes law!

This happened just last week in the racial gerrymandering case out of South Carolina. Alito cited the Brennan Center, a left-leaning pro-democracy group, to support the proposition that the racial turnout gap is growing—white people are voting at significantly higher rates than racial minorities. And Alito said this fact leads to the conclusion that racial data is actually less useful in drawing maps, so the court should assume that the map-drawers didn’t look at racial data, because it’s not very useful. Even though the map-drawers in this case shifted 30,000 Black residents to a new district with almost surgical precision to make a competitive district less diverse.

The Brennan Center responded that Alito completely misunderstood its work, and in fact got it backward. Bizarrely, he cited an old blog post rather than a more recent, comprehensive analysis of this issue, which would’ve shown why he was wrong. The Brennan Center said that what it actually showed was that South Carolina has better data, on the individual and community level, about racial identity than political affiliation. If Alito had read four more sentences of the blog post he cited, or read the full report that elaborates on this issue, he would have seen that the map-drawers in this case had every incentive to look at racial data! It’s clearer and more useful than data about voters’ political preferences. Alito just butchered the Brennan Center’s analysis and used it to mean the opposite of what it meant.

"...the opposite of what it meant."

We sometimes think that the word "delusional" is sorta over-the-top, somehow too strong to accurately label behaviors. THESE behaviors...elevating lies, falsehoods, conspiracy theories and just flat WRONG interpretations is what the GOP is asking us to accept as a ruling body in 2024.

Does anyone ELSE think this is getting totally off the rails now?

..

[a fan]

Alito is a real legal numbnut. This absolute MAGAt now writes law...in the decision he authored in the South Carolina racial gerrymandering case, Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, by doing what Trump always does: he imagines a world he wants, then tells whatever half-baked, whackjob story he can cook up in his Fever Brain, and POOF, it becomes law!

This happened just last week in the racial gerrymandering case out of South Carolina. Alito cited the Brennan Center, a left-leaning pro-democracy group, to support the proposition that the racial turnout gap is growing—white people are voting at significantly higher rates than racial minorities. And Alito said this fact leads to the conclusion that racial data is actually less useful in drawing maps, so the court should assume that the map-drawers didn’t look at racial data, because it’s not very useful. Even though the map-drawers in this case shifted 30,000 Black residents to a new district with almost surgical precision to make a competitive district less diverse.

The Brennan Center responded that Alito completely misunderstood its work, and in fact got it backward. Bizarrely, he cited an old blog post rather than a more recent, comprehensive analysis of this issue, which would’ve shown why he was wrong. The Brennan Center said that what it actually showed was that South Carolina has better data, on the individual and community level, about racial identity than political affiliation. If Alito had read four more sentences of the blog post he cited, or read the full report that elaborates on this issue, he would have seen that the map-drawers in this case had every incentive to look at racial data! It’s clearer and more useful than data about voters’ political preferences. Alito just butchered the Brennan Center’s analysis and used it to mean the opposite of what it meant.

"...the opposite of what it meant."

We sometimes think that the word "delusional" is sorta over-the-top, somehow too strong to accurately label behaviors. THESE behaviors...elevating lies, falsehoods, conspiracy theories and just flat WRONG interpretations is what the GOP is asking us to accept as a ruling body in 2024.

Does anyone ELSE think this is getting totally off the rails now?

..

I think that what I told folks would happen with Court packing is indeed happening.

Predicted two things.

1. that working class Americans (e.g. TrumpNation) would get screwed by right wing rulings, because the American far right is about corporations first, and people....waaaaaaay down the list in consideration. Think: getting rid of regulations that keep factories from killing us all.

2. that moving the Courts way to the right would push on the pendulum too far....creating more reactionaries on the left, who will eventually get power.

3. that ordinary, middle of the road Republicans would get polices that even they don't like. See: getting rid of Roe v. Wade.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Alito is a real legal numbnut. This absolute MAGAt now writes law...in the decision he authored in the South Carolina racial gerrymandering case, Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, by doing what Trump always does: he imagines a world he wants, then tells whatever half-baked, whackjob story he can cook up in his Fever Brain, and POOF, it becomes law!

This happened just last week in the racial gerrymandering case out of South Carolina. Alito cited the Brennan Center, a left-leaning pro-democracy group, to support the proposition that the racial turnout gap is growing—white people are voting at significantly higher rates than racial minorities. And Alito said this fact leads to the conclusion that racial data is actually less useful in drawing maps, so the court should assume that the map-drawers didn’t look at racial data, because it’s not very useful. Even though the map-drawers in this case shifted 30,000 Black residents to a new district with almost surgical precision to make a competitive district less diverse.

The Brennan Center responded that Alito completely misunderstood its work, and in fact got it backward. Bizarrely, he cited an old blog post rather than a more recent, comprehensive analysis of this issue, which would’ve shown why he was wrong. The Brennan Center said that what it actually showed was that South Carolina has better data, on the individual and community level, about racial identity than political affiliation. If Alito had read four more sentences of the blog post he cited, or read the full report that elaborates on this issue, he would have seen that the map-drawers in this case had every incentive to look at racial data! It’s clearer and more useful than data about voters’ political preferences. Alito just butchered the Brennan Center’s analysis and used it to mean the opposite of what it meant.

"...the opposite of what it meant."

We sometimes think that the word "delusional" is sorta over-the-top, somehow too strong to accurately label behaviors. THESE behaviors...elevating lies, falsehoods, conspiracy theories and just flat WRONG interpretations is what the GOP is asking us to accept as a ruling body in 2024.

Does anyone ELSE think this is getting totally off the rails now?

..

Yes. But outcome determinism has been a highlight of this Court for some time now. Alito is just picking the outcome, and finding a way to get there -- and he still needs four more votes. Pick and choose among facts; make facts up to use in the record; etc. See the Bremerton football coach decision.

[CU88a]

DEPLORABLE

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/07/us/s ... gifts.html

Clarence Thomas, in Financial Disclosure, Acknowledges 2019 Trips Paid by Harlan Crow
The justice amended an earlier filing to include vacations to Bali and an exclusive California club paid for by the Texas billionaire Harlan Crow.

[njbill]

Did Thomas report these payments as income? I’ll bet all the money in my retirement account that he did not. So why isn’t the IRS going after him? Hopefully they are.

[MDlaxfan76]

Did Thomas report these payments as income? I’ll bet all the money in my retirement account that he did not. So why isn’t the IRS going after him? Hopefully they are.

Would these not be gifts subject to gift taxes to be paid by the donor, if applicable?

Paying for someone's vacation, travel, etc should be considered a gift, but I think the 'value' of someone visiting one's home as a guest is not. These examples appear to be the former.

Crow would be the donor. Doubt he declared them.
But probably happy to pay back taxes given what he receives in return.

It's really a form of bribery, but tough to prove quid pro quo.

[ggait]

Gifts are taxable to the giver.

Here's how Thomas managed the $267k RV gift he got. Total intentional concealment.

Rich friend "loans" the full purchase price to CT to buy the RV. No real lender would ever make such a loan. Loan not reported on ethics forms.

Then friend/friend spouse forgive the loan made to Clarence/Ginny in increments over the next 9 years or so. The amount forgiven, just a coincidence mind you, would come it at just under the threshhold that would have required the giver/loaner to file a gift tax return in any one year -- $40k annually I believe.

At the end, then the loan is deemed "satisfied", the lien comes off and CT has clear title. CT did not pay the loan, it was all forgiven as a gift. So probably not taxable to CT?

The level of specific intent involved in this structure tells you everything you need to know. It was sketchy, CT knew it, and so CT made sure it was all covered up.

Such bull shirt.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Here is the text of the Times article on this shifty putative felon:

"Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged on Friday additional luxury travel he had accepted from a conservative billionaire, amending a previous financial disclosure to reflect trips he had taken to an Indonesian island and a secretive all-male club in the Northern California redwoods.

The trips, taken in 2019, were earlier revealed by ProPublica, but it is the first time that Justice Thomas has included them on his financial disclosures.

Other Supreme Court justices chronicled their gifts, travel and money earned from books and teaching. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reported receiving four concert tickets valued at about $3,700 from Beyoncé and $10,000 of artwork for her chambers from the Alabama artist and musician Lonnie Holley.

The financial disclosures, released yearly, are one of the few public records available about the justices’ lives, providing select details of their activities outside the court. A steady drumbeat of revelations about ties between some of the justices and wealthy donors has only intensified interest in the reports, particularly after disclosures that Justice Thomas had accepted luxury travel and gifts from billionaire friends over decades.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was granted an extension this year, said the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which offers support for the federal judiciary and handles the financial records. That is in keeping with his typical practice. According to Fix the Court, an advocacy group critical of the court’s lack of transparency, for more than a decade he has delayed filing his disclosure.

Last year, both Justice Thomas and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. requested and received extensions on filing their disclosure forms. Neither cited a reason in asking for a delay.

When his form was released to the public, Justice Thomas included an unusual addendum, a statement defending his acceptance of gifts from Harlan Crow, a real estate magnate in Texas and a donor to conservative causes. He had “inadvertently omitted” information on earlier forms, the statement said, which also sought to justify his decision to fly on private jets. He stated that he had been advised to avoid commercial travel after the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court, under mounting pressure and intense public scrutiny, adopted its first ethics code in November. Judges in lower federal courts have long been bound by a code, but the Supreme Court has never been subject to those requirements because of its special constitutional status.

Still the lack of enforcement mechanism or a process to handle ethics complaints drew criticism, as did the absence of any specific restrictions on gifts, travel or real estate deals.

However, the nine-page code cautioned that members of the Supreme Court should not participate in activities that “detract from the dignity” of the job, interfere with a justice’s ability to carry out official duties, “reflect adversely on the justice’s impartiality” or “lead to frequent disqualification.”

[njbill]

It would be interesting to see how Crow treated the payments. Did he deduct them as business expenses? If so, that would clearly show he did not intend them to be true gifts, given out of a detached and disinterested generosity as the law requires. Did he pay gift tax?

To my mind, the payments were not truly gifts. They were a form of payment to Thomas so that he could continue his extravagant lifestyle, which was well above that which his “paltry” Supreme Court salary would permit. Crow paid him to stay on the bench. If he didn’t make these payments, Thomas might resign so he could earn lots more money to fund his expensive habits and tastes.

Totally BS that these were true gifts, not taxable to Thomas.

[MDlaxfan76]

It would be interesting to see how Crow treated the payments. Did he deduct them as business expenses? If so, that would clearly show he did not intend them to be true gifts, given out of a detached and disinterested generosity as the law requires. Did he pay gift tax?

To my mind, the payments were not truly gifts. They were a form of payment to Thomas so that he could continue his extravagant lifestyle, which was well above that which his “paltry” Supreme Court salary would permit. Crow paid him to stay on the bench. If he didn’t make these payments, Thomas might resign so he could earn lots more money to fund his expensive habits and tastes.

Totally BS that these were true gifts, not taxable to Thomas.

Seems obvious, but tough to prove in court as bribery.

I doubt Crow took these as business expenses but it would be a chuckle if he did. IRS should check.

[njbill]

Agree, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts it’s true.

[CU88a]

It would be interesting to see how Crow treated the payments. Did he deduct them as business expenses? If so, that would clearly show he did not intend them to be true gifts, given out of a detached and disinterested generosity as the law requires. Did he pay gift tax?

To my mind, the payments were not truly gifts. They were a form of payment to Thomas so that he could continue his extravagant lifestyle, which was well above that which his “paltry” Supreme Court salary would permit. Crow paid him to stay on the bench. If he didn’t make these payments, Thomas might resign so he could earn lots more money to fund his expensive habits and tastes.

Totally BS that these were true gifts, not taxable to Thomas.

Seems obvious, but tough to prove in court as bribery.

I doubt Crow took these as business expenses but it would be a chuckle if he did. IRS should check.

You mean this IRS, the one that "Law & Order" and "Fiscally Conservative" GOP want to DEFUND?

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress ... forcement/

House Republicans are proposing defunding the IRS’ Direct File platform, which allows households to file their federal tax returns online and for free.

The IRS announced last week it will make its Direct File platform a permanent option for taxpayers to file their federal tax returns, after piloting the system this year with 12 states. The agency will invite all 50 states and the District of Columbia to participate in Direct File during next year’s filing season.

But the House Appropriations Committee released a fiscal 2025 spending bill this week that would cut IRS funding by nearly 18% and zero out funding for Direct File.

The FY 2025 fiscal services and general government appropriations bill would give the IRS a $10.11 billion budget — a $2.2 billion cut from current spending levels. The cuts would be felt mostly by IRS enforcement, which would see a $2 billion cut in funding.

[a fan]

Did Thomas report these payments as income? I’ll bet all the money in my retirement account that he did not. So why isn’t the IRS going after him? Hopefully they are.

Because if they go after him, the Republicans (and we have 'em here on this forum) while whine and complain, and tell us how it's not fair for Republicans to have to follow the same tax laws the rest of us have to follow. And claim banana Republic.

You'll notice, though, that at no point will they deny that their favored Republican broke laws.

And have no problem prosecuting Dems for breaking tax laws.

Wondering when they plan on stopping with this stupid game? I thought they might stop after Trump left office.

Boy, was I wrong.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Nice summary of Alito's worldview on the Court:

"My sincerely held religious beliefs involve changing laws to force others to live according to my sincerely held religious beliefs. If the Left has a problem with that, it's because they're religiously intolerant."

[get it to x]

Did Thomas report these payments as income? I’ll bet all the money in my retirement account that he did not. So why isn’t the IRS going after him? Hopefully they are.

Because if they go after him, the Republicans (and we have 'em here on this forum) while whine and complain, and tell us how it's not fair for Republicans to have to follow the same tax laws the rest of us have to follow. And claim banana Republic.

You'll notice, though, that at no point will they deny that their favored Republican broke laws.

And have no problem prosecuting Dems for breaking tax laws.

Wondering when they plan on stopping with this stupid game? I thought they might stop after Trump left office.

Boy, was I wrong.

I would prefer that congress not exempt themselves from the law, like Obamacare for their staffers or insider trading. Most come out way wealthier than they went in.