Clarence Thomas
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
There needs to be more facts here. What is the relationship between Thomas and the billionaire Crow? If Crow and Thomas have been friends for decades, then it’s more of a friend spending money on another friend. However, There should be some reporting requirement for this.
But what if that the relationship started due to conservative positions like anti-abortion? There very well could be an issue. But then again, Thomas shares the same opinion, then no bribe would be needed. Complicated and details of the relationship matter. However, Thomas and his wife have shown a penchant for ethical lapses which should not be at SCOTUS.
But what if that the relationship started due to conservative positions like anti-abortion? There very well could be an issue. But then again, Thomas shares the same opinion, then no bribe would be needed. Complicated and details of the relationship matter. However, Thomas and his wife have shown a penchant for ethical lapses which should not be at SCOTUS.
even if they are friends, once thomas is in a public position like that its still wrong, especially as SCJ. how bout dont accept anything free, including luxury vacations
Judges are required by their ethics code to avoid even the "appearance of impropriety in all activities"
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.
A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen
To serve the public on the court, you are expected to give up certain things, not accept lavish gifts from billionaires.
This seems over the line and hurts public trust.
Don't know all the details but If true, over the line. They have been after Clarence Thomas seat for years just waiting for an opportunity like this. He has to know that and keep everything above board.
I don't think he cares. Similar to politicians, who always know a certain percentage will never abandon them and a certain percentage will always hate them.
Oddly enough, Supreme Court Justices are not bound by the ethics code for federal judges. It is a bizarre quirk.Judges are required by their ethics code to avoid even the "appearance of impropriety in all activities"
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.www.uscourts.gov
A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen
To serve the public on the court, you are expected to give up certain things, not accept lavish gifts from billionaires.
This seems over the line and hurts public trust.
The non-reporting of these gifts and trips aré troubling. Menéndez was indicted partially based on underreporting how many flights and trips he took with his friend. He got bashed for this.
Thomas never reported one. It is not good especially from a Supreme Court Justice. His response that he didn’t know he had to report them is pretty weak.
Just imagine the outrage on this board if it was Sotomayor taking trips with Soros.
This relationship started after Thomas was on the bench for years. He should know better.
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/07/clarence-thomas-response-trips
Sounds like there hasn’t been any published rules about disclosure and Thomas claiming that he had received guidance early on in his term that it didn’t need to be (I’m sure since that appeared to be verbal that can be disputed). Apparently rules have just been adopted in the last 30 days.
I wonder what other justices do.
Wouldn't you agree though, that a supreme court justice developing a relationship like this, and accepting these types of gifts (including hundreds of thousands of dollars to his political activists wife) after he is on the bench is a problem?
he wont agree to anything you say LOL. hell just deflect and use one of his choice buzzwords
I don’t know enough about the context and what was allowed. It could be a problem but there’s a lot of missing information.
What more context do you need? The relationship started after he was on the bench. I'd buy an argument if it was beforehand. This type of thing erodes public trust and any supreme court justice should be aware of that and decline the invitations.
Maybe start with analyzing the travel and entertainment expenses of all justices. Is he the only one who has flown or stayed at a resort paid by others.?
Assume they did.
This type of thing erodes public trust and any supreme court justice should be aware of that and decline the invitations.
Assume they didn't.
This type of thing erodes public trust and any supreme court justice should be aware of that and decline the invitations.
Then it would be something that should be handled with a rules change which happened a month ago.
Then it would be something that we should want to know more about.
For those interested, the Wall Street Journal had an article about this over the past few days that I thought was interesting. I don’t have any dog in the fight, but the article sets forth pretty clearly what SCOTUS justices are required to disclose and not disclose, conflict of interest rules and the like.
I don't really take much of an issue with his non disclosure. He played within the rules as they were written. (though maybe not the spirit of the rules which is why they were updated recently) In my opinion, I think the issue is accepting these types of gifts in the first place from a billionaire political activist. It hurts public trust and is a huge disservice to the court.
As I understand what the WSJ article conveyed, he wasn’t required at the time to make the disclosures. He would have been if a case was before the Supreme Court that posed a conflict of interest because of the personal relationship. But there is no evidence of that, which is really the fundamental issue. If there is no evidence, I don’t understand why the initial article was even written unless there was a broader purpose.
If the above is all accurately stated in the WSJ article, I tend to think the “broader purpose” is yet another attempt to attack the court and create mistrust for political advantage. Creating discussion over a non-issue because of bitterness by one party over the current composition of the court. Which is really what undermines public trust, because those headlines form the narrative and the average person doesn’t have an informed view of the legalities or issues. Only what’s pushed by a particular outlet or party they follow.
I’m a lawyer. I’ve never been before the US Supreme Court - closest I’ve come is a Petition for Cert that wasn’t accepted. I think politicians or political animals create and drive the public mistrust - for those who believe that - through their political scheming and marketing, all of which is geared towards political goals, not getting something right or upholding the sanctity of the institution. After a decision on a hot-button issue, I find most people who agree or disagree with the ruling do not understand the specific legal nuances involved or why the Court came out as it did. Likely because they aren’t trained attorneys, haven’t read the decision, precedent, statutes, related cases, or other things many lawyers would typically do everyday to form an informed opinion. It’s the media headlines, Twitter and social media that provides the talking points on which many rely.
I don’t know how one understands whether a decision is wrong-headed or subject to attack on the merits without actually understanding the law and facts driving the decision. But I think most folks just follow a narrative without grasping the underlying legal reasoning and because it fits the viewpoint hammered into their heads, one way or the other.
I just don't really agree it's a "non issue"
It's important to understand that a billionaire who spends a significant amount of time and money in trying to shape the court, has developed this type of relationship after Thomas was on the bench. Again, I think there was a lapse in judgement by Thomas in accepting the "gifts". There is no story here at all had he just said no.
Because becoming a supreme court justice should be the highest honor you can personally achieve and I'm not sure what that should also entitle you to all of these lavish privately funded trips from political activists. While I am not suggesting that this relationships impacted any of his opinions, it does raise the question if it could have. And just because his name wasn't on the docket doesn't mean Crow didn't have a role in getting the case to the court or has an interest in the outcome.
I'm sorry, Justices should not be accepting lavish trips from political activists. I'm surprised that is a controversial statement here to be honest.
As someone who does this for a living, I think you are reaching. Judges have friends, like everyone else. Some are wealthy and connected, politically or otherwise. There is a set of rules that governs how that judge needs act. If the judge violates a rule, they get into trouble. If they don’t, they don’t. I don’t how one can conclude the relationship impacted the court’s opinions (he is only one of 9) when there is no evidence the rich guy had any case before the court requiring disclosure. He either did or didn’t. Putting the cart before the horse. And when you go down the road of what could happen under some unestablished hypothetical, you start connecting dots here, there and otherwise. It gets unwieldy and speculative.
With some time and google, I bet dollars to donuts I can make some attempt at establishing an improper or nefarious connection between every single Justice, some friend they have or organization they are part of, and some outcome in a case, no matter how tenuous, conspiratorial or far-fetched. I don’t think that’s workable. And I think the public wouldn’t care unless they had someone messaging it from “their side”. That’s what this is really about.
With some time and google, I bet dollars to donuts I can make some attempt at establishing an improper or nefarious connection between every single Justice, some friend they have or organization they are part of, and some outcome in a case, no matter how tenuous, conspiratorial or far-fetched. I don’t think that’s workable. And I think the public wouldn’t care unless they had someone messaging it from “their side”. That’s what this is really about.
Come on. They did not meet until Thomas was on the supreme court.
You would seriously be ok If Sotomayor was spending her winter on private jets and yachts with Soros and other dem donors who were donating money trying to influence what cased were getting to the court?
and that is exactly why someone on the court should avoid accepting these types of "gifts" in the first place. To avoid the appearance of impropriety.
I agree. As Dehere said, it probably wouldn't take much time to find that most, if not all, SCOTUS judges have similar relationships. So you'll have to excuse some people for viewing the NYT coverage of Thomas, in particular, through a lens of skepticism.
Soros is funding DA and judicial elections across the country. If the voters don't have a problem with that and are willing to live with the outcome, that's on them. We have already seen some pushback on that because of what's happened with crime in the applicable city in at least one of those situations that I can recall offhand. There are probably more. But if he and his network aren't breaking any law, and neither the DA or judge in question is breaking the law, it isn't a crime. People can judge accordingly and show up at the polls if they have a problem with it.
If there is evidence of any SCOTUS justice failing to disclose financial benefits or arguable financial benefits when required -- based on evidence, not speculation -- it should be addressed. I'm sure SS has accepted perks you and I have no clue about that a journalist with a motive to create a narrative could try to exploit for political purposes and stir up controversy.
I believe the reason a SCOTUS justice has to make certain disclosures for a case that's before them is for the exact reason you state -- to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But in the Thomas situation, as the WSJ article pointed out, I'm not aware of any evidence that this rich guy who is friends with Thomas and his wife had a case before SCOTUS. That's the issue.
Ginny Thomas created a 501(c)(4) just two months before the Citizens United decision. That "advocacy group" was directly funded by Harlan Crow which was undisclosed at the time.
That seems to suggest a bit of a conflict there, no?
The thing about SCOTUS is that there are no rules about recusing yourself even with an actual conflict of interest. The rules governing SCOTUS is enumerated in the Constitution. Congress cannot make any laws to govern the Supreme Court. While you would expect that Justice have kept themselves from beyond reproach when it comes to ethics, there is actually nothing to govern SCOTUS unlike the rest of the federal judiciary.
Ginny Thomas's involvement with movements and positions on legal matters has been the discussion over a decade ago with Justice Thomas refusing to recuse himself. The Citizen's United case as Merge pointed to. As I said, Thomas has a penchant for ethical lapses and hides behind well there are no rules for us, We can do whatever we want.
Yeah I guess we just have to say it's within the rules so it's fine?
I'm not saying he needs to be removed or anything, but I would have thought recognizing flaws that could maybe lead to improvements would be a good thing.
I don’t know. I’d have to read more about that situation, all the facts, all the requirements or lack thereof, etc. I know the WSJ article said there is no evidence of any case before Thomas in which this rich guy was involved and where he was required to recuse himself.
This is how you fix the SCOTUS issue
1) End life long appointments. Why the hell is this still a thing? Make it, I don’t know, 20 years?
2). If they won’t police themselves and act at least in appearance of integrity, open up more transparency to their business dealings…
1) End life long appointments. Why the hell is this still a thing? Make it, I don’t know, 20 years?
2). If they won’t police themselves and act at least in appearance of integrity, open up more transparency to their business dealings…
....and give out their addresses, and allow people to gather outside and intimidate them! Wait....
I agree, though. Term limits for SCOTUS justices and members of Congress. Way too many people getting rich from 'good for me, but not for thee.'
My concern with both is that this will become even more politicized if each of those doors open. On 2, you will have investigation after investigation from each side depending on who is more unhappy. On 1, the lifetime cloak is supposed to guard against outside influences. Imagine a judge in year 19 ruling on a massive business interest case and then going to work in that sector the following year. This is the stuff with politicians that drive us nuts, like Pelosi influencing legislation or a regulatory issue that impacts the market while her husband miraculously makes some simultaneous trade that results in a financial windfall. And it’s not just her, it’s all of them.
The reality is most Supreme Court decisions are not controversial. The public doesn’t hear about the majority of them. It’s a small segment addressing the social issues and a few others that get all the attention because of strong competing views from an ideological standpoint. Often subject to multiple reasonable or quasi reasonable views from a legal perspective that folks involved in this disagree on, and that’s OK, because I think the court is at its best when strong competing views are being debated by brilliant legal minds.
The reality is most Supreme Court decisions are not controversial. The public doesn’t hear about the majority of them. It’s a small segment addressing the social issues and a few others that get all the attention because of strong competing views from an ideological standpoint. Often subject to multiple reasonable or quasi reasonable views from a legal perspective that folks involved in this disagree on, and that’s OK, because I think the court is at its best when strong competing views are being debated by brilliant legal minds.
To me, transparency doesn’t mean giving out the addresses of their homes but business dealings with themselves and associations.
Also I’ll add, because transparency doesn’t work anymore in our correct climate - sunlight/shame doesn’t disinfect the issues anymore 😔, there also has to be penalties for breaking these policies.
well the united states was essentially created from mob rule. its called doxxing now , back then it was just life and kept things in check sometimes.
maybe why it was initially a life term?
https://time.com/6176657/supreme-court-justices-ethics-rules/
And essentially that’s what happened last month.
Good progress. Hope this extends to spouses, family members and business partners. Also hope it includes gifts, income not stock related.
Because it's in the US Constitution. Pretty simple. They can be impeached or you can try to get a campaign going for a constitutional amendment.
