SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas has received more than $4 million in gifts over the last two decades

[squistion 2,225]

 

[Reality 3,121]

OMG, he has a rich friend and he vacationed with them! Oh Noes!

Bud, you don't want this to be the new standard, trust me. 

Y'all never miss a chance to get taken for a ride, do ya?

[posty 2,705]

Holy hell...  A twitter post (and useless) from squistion...  Who would have thunk it?

[thegeneral 3,242]

A lifetime appointment to the highest court. Nothing to look into.

His wife also a nice piece of work

[squistion 2,225]

 

[TheNewGirl 1,498]

We're sure these were "gifts?" 

 

Man, I need to find some new friends. 

[Dizkneelande 1,102]

I told you all these leftists coming here would pollute this place and ruin it like they ruin everything. Example 1296.

[dogcows 1,030]

The Supremes have claimed they don’t need binding ethics laws because they police their own. Wow, they’re doing a heckuva job.

Alito leaked the Hobby Lobby decision to his friends who were connected to the litigants in the case. And, surprise, surprise... the Supremes tried and tried but they could never find out who leaked the Dobbs decision. Hmm...

Congress needs to law down some rules of the road for these unelected lifetime appointees.

As for some of the posts here - you are still convinced that “10% for the big guy” is supposedly evidence that Biden MIGHT have gotten financial favors from somewhere. But then you see Thomas LITERALLY getting freebies, and you’re like “meh.” Try to have some basic standards.

[dogcows 1,030]

54 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

We're sure these were "gifts?" 

 

Man, I need to find some new friends. 

Rules on gifts to government employees are pretty strict. I’m not sure how they apply (or don’t) to SCOTUS justices though. Look especially at the part on “outside sources” at the link below.

https://www.fedweek.com/ask/federal-government-policies/rules-gifts/#:~:text=Rules on Gifts in the Federal Government 1,5 Free Events ... 6 Reporting Gifts

Any regular government employee would be fired and quite possibly be in further legal jeopardy over this.

[posty 2,705]

24 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The Supremes

They aren't singing any more?

[dogcows 1,030]

10 minutes ago, posty said:

They aren't singing any more?

Would be pretty great if they replaced Clarence T. with Diana Ross.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,130]

Now do Hunter and Joe Biden!

Oh, wait, you don't care about them because SIDEZ!!!!

GTFO, @dogcows, you disingenuous POS. 

[dogcows 1,030]

18 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Now do Hunter and Joe Biden!

Oh, wait, you don't care about them because SIDEZ!!!!

GTFO, @dogcows, you disingenuous POS. 

I already did. Try scrolling back. The point is, anybody who violates ethics rules should be investigated. Biden IS being investigated (despite there being no evidence). Clarence T. isn’t. That’s not right. The Supremes shouldn’t be immune to the law.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,130]

7 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I already did. Try scrolling back. The point is, anybody who violates ethics rules should be investigated. Biden IS being investigated (despite there being no evidence). Clarence T. isn’t. That’s not right. The Supremes shouldn’t be immune to the law.

"Hey, I know we'll never go after MY guys, so I'll put on a good show and pretend that I would support them being charged so I can look like I really care about law and order (but I really don't)"

GTFO, you dope.

[The Real timschochet 6,839]

This seems fairly minor to me. As always in these situations I ask where the quid pro quo is? If you can’t find one I don’t really care. 

[squistion 2,225]

26 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This seems fairly minor to me. As always in these situations I ask where the quid pro quo is? If you can’t find one I don’t really care. 

A favorable vote on cases favoring the conservative interests of the donor/giftor. It is an ethics violation, probably illegal and suggests possible bribery. 

[The Real timschochet 6,839]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

A favorable vote on cases favoring the conservative interests of the donor/giftor. It is an ethics violation, probably illegal and suggests possible bribery. 

Yeah to prove that you’ve also got to show that Thomas wouldn’t have voted that way if he hadn’t received the gift. Which I think would be very difficult to prove. 

[thegeneral 3,242]

3 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

We're sure these were "gifts?" 

 

Man, I need to find some new friends. 

It probably helps if you are on the Supreme Court.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

52 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yeah to prove that you’ve also got to show that Thomas wouldn’t have voted that way if he hadn’t received the gift. Which I think would be very difficult to prove. 

It doesn't matter. This is a serious breach of ethics, and he was ethically obligated to report the luxuries he received, but the thinks he's above the law, and it's not good optics for a Supreme Court justice who is supposed to interpret the law to accept such things. 

[Mr Fantasy 67]

5 hours ago, squistion said:

 

Did you ever bump into him at Bohemian Grove?

[squistion 2,225]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yeah to prove that you’ve also got to show that Thomas wouldn’t have voted that way if he hadn’t received the gift. Which I think would be very difficult to prove. 

No, they don't have to prove that.

And people for years have said that you lean liberal and that is a falsehood. You are a libertarian and on most issues are as far right and in sympathy with conservative Republicans here - so you fit in perfectly on this forum. 

[thegeneral 3,242]

5 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

I told you all these leftists coming here would pollute this place and ruin it like they ruin everything. Example 1296.

If it weren’t for the leftists this place would be 8 threads about every time a trans person focks up, some groomer threads, with some Biden is senile threads mixed in, oh and the death pool thread.

[jonnyutah 293]

6 hours ago, Reality said:

OMG, he has a rich friend and he vacationed with them! Oh Noes!

Bud, you don't want this to be the new standard, trust me. 

Y'all never miss a chance to get taken for a ride, do ya?

This is beyond stupid. Can you imagine if they reported everything these chuckleheads in Congress do with rich people? 

 

[wiffleball 4,790]

Dude should still be getting royalties from Coke. 

[The Real timschochet 6,839]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

No, they don't have to prove that.

And people for years have said that you lean liberal and that is a falsehood. You are a libertarian and on most issues are as far right and in sympathy with conservative Republicans here - so you fit in perfectly on this forum. 

Man I love these generalizations. In this case I’m far right because I don’t care much about this story? 
Actually you’re much closer to most of the conservatives on this forum than I am- you know why? Because just like them you see everything as wins vs losses. If someone on their side is losing you’re for it. If someone on your side is losing you’re against it. And vice versa. 
 

 

[Vince44 205]

Uncle Tom Clarence is a dirty corrupt POS. It's all slowly leaking out in the Trump years with him and his wife. Too bad they won't look deeper into him to nail down the smoking gun to boot him off the SC. Biden could put a Democrat in his seat. 

[squistion 2,225]

14 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Man I love these generalizations. In this case I’m far right because I don’t care much about this story? 
Actually you’re much closer to most of the conservatives on this forum than I am- you know why? Because just like them you see everything as wins vs losses. If someone on their side is losing you’re for it. If someone on your side is losing you’re against it. And vice versa. 

Yes, because you don't care about judicial corruption at the highest level. 

If Sotomayor or Kagan had done something like this I would be calling for their immediate resignation or removal from office. 

[seafoam1 3,074]

OMG!!! Not a LUXURY TRIP!!! 

[seafoam1 3,074]

22 minutes ago, Vince44 said:

Uncle Tom Clarence is a dirty corrupt POS. It's all slowly leaking out in the Trump years with him and his wife. Too bad they won't look deeper into him to nail down the smoking gun to boot him off the SC. Biden could put a Democrat in his seat. 

World's biggest racist says what?

[wiffleball 4,790]

Turns out, he got busted 20 years ago. 

So he just stopped reporting as required. 

 

Nice. 

 

Judge.

[Dizkneelande 1,102]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Man I love these generalizations. In this case I’m far right because I don’t care much about this story? 
Actually you’re much closer to most of the conservatives on this forum than I am- you know why? Because just like them you see everything as wins vs losses. If someone on their side is losing you’re for it. If someone on your side is losing you’re against it. And vice versa. 
 

 

Says the sh!tlib who started a thread about winning a state Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin titled “Biggest Win”. 

[thegeneral 3,242]

The “what if” game is pretty clear on this one. What if George Soros had been taking Ketanji Brown Jackson on these crazy vacations for decades.

Hannity types on here would have shet their pants. We all know it. It’s fine but a little honesty would be nice  

[RLLD 4,254]

I would prefer he avoid even the hint of impropriety, while this might not be illegal or even against rules, it does not look very good. The SCOTUS should refrain from this stuff.

What next, will we find evidence of money being funneled to him through some relative? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

Did they find who leaked the roe decision yet? Seems that should be at the forefront of any improprieties at the SC. 

[RLLD 4,254]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Did they find who leaked the roe decision yet? Seems that should be at the forefront of any improprieties at the SC. 

No, that appears to have served the intersts of liberalism, so nothing there of course...

We have to wait for that same action to transpire where it either hurts the religion of liberalism or helps anyone else, THEN it can be a problem.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

15 minutes ago, RLLD said:

No, that appears to have served the intersts of liberalism, so nothing there of course...

We have to wait for that same action to transpire where it either hurts the religion of liberalism or helps anyone else, THEN it can be a problem.

You and I have extremely different takes on who was served by that leak. 

[thegeneral 3,242]

Distract! Bring up other unrelated issues the SC may have and especially anything any other judge (needs to be a lefty) did like this. 

Tried and true.

[RLLD 4,254]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You and I have extremely different takes on who was served by that leak. 

Perhaps. But I suspect our perspective has a fair number of disconnects, which is perfectly fine and good. We need the varying perspectives. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,506]

6 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You and I have extremely different takes on who was served by that leak. 

If we knew who leaked it perhaps we could get more clarity on that. Considering the fact we don’t know yet leads me to believe they don’t want us to know. But we are entitled to know. 

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

24 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

If we knew who leaked it perhaps we could get more clarity on that. Considering the fact we don’t know yet leads me to believe they don’t want us to know. But we are entitled to know. 

We don't agree on much, but this---100%