Justice Thomas responds to report he accepted luxury travel from GOP donor for years

[jaypatriot]

Then move along, partner. Your posts are too hokey pokey I love Trump bro, for anyone here to take them seriously.

Judges don't have to break laws in order to be removed from benches or disbarred.

For those out to get Thomas' scalp for perceived wrongdoings, tell me if the new Judicial Conference law is currently in effect.
And tell me how the lavish hospitality Thomas received from Crow IS NOT "food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,”.
If the new law has not yet gone into effect, would you still like to see Thomas crucified because he did not live up to your letter of the law? food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,” . Or would you prefer to see him persecuted retroactively because you think he really is a bad person and should be punished as if the law is already in effect.?



A committee of the Judicial Conference, which sets policy for the federal courts, approved the new regulations, according to a letter from the director of the federal courts’ administrative arm that was made public on Tuesday.
The law includes an exception for food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,” and the new regulations seek to clarify the term. The exception only covers certain gifts of a nonbusiness nature and does not apply to those extended at a commercial property, according to the updated rules. They go on to note that “personal” means a judge has a personal relationship with the host and should not include situations in which the invitation is merely being delivered personally.

Supreme Court justices face new disclosure requirements for gifts, free trips

Supreme Court justices must follow strengthened financial disclosure requirements surrounding gifts and free hotel stays, which follows rising pressure from lawmakers about the high court’s ethics …

thehill.com

 

[dockside]

He is correct.

Should every Judge at any and all levels be subject to "friendlessness" simply because they hold judicial office?

Is there any evidence any case or controversy involving this particular "friend" has been ruled on by SCOTUS while Justice Thomas has held office?

So show where there is a problem.

I know your side of the issues often asserts something is "nefarious," or illegal, or immoral. However, that does not make it so.

Well, since all lawyers and all other judges are bound by a code of ethics that requires their actions and words do not even give the appearance of impropriety (and they all have friends), why should the justices on the Supreme Court be given a pass for doing something that does give the appearance of impropriety?

 

[nullus]

Do all people donate to any cause because it serves them? No. They often do it because they believe in the ideals, on both sides of the aisle.

Very true. Sincere and true altruism is not a political or ideological endeavor, so the mention of aisles is superfluous.
A lot has been recently recently said about Crow and his donations. I have not seen or maybe I missed any examples or true altruism. Perhaps you can list and link to some.

Moreover, Thomas heard no cases where Crow was an involved party.

Involved directly no, but it is disingenuous to even consider that Crow has not benefited from the conservative court, whether financially or ideologically.

 

[bave]

For those out to get Thomas' scalp for perceived wrongdoings, tell me if the new Judicial Conference law is currently in effect.
And tell me how the lavish hospitality Thomas received from Crow IS NOT "food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,”.
If the new law has not yet gone into effect, would you still like to see Thomas crucified because he did not live up to your letter of the law? food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,” . Or would you prefer to see him persecuted retroactively because you think he really is a bad person and should be punished as if the law is already in effect.?



A committee of the Judicial Conference, which sets policy for the federal courts, approved the new regulations, according to a letter from the director of the federal courts’ administrative arm that was made public on Tuesday.
The law includes an exception for food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,” and the new regulations seek to clarify the term. The exception only covers certain gifts of a nonbusiness nature and does not apply to those extended at a commercial property, according to the updated rules. They go on to note that “personal” means a judge has a personal relationship with the host and should not include situations in which the invitation is merely being delivered personally.

Supreme Court justices face new disclosure requirements for gifts, free trips

Supreme Court justices must follow strengthened financial disclosure requirements surrounding gifts and free hotel stays, which follows rising pressure from lawmakers about the high court’s ethics …

thehill.com

This is where they tell you that since Crow made a *donation to a non-profit* that it was a back door cash gift.... lulz.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is where we go back to innocent until proven guilty, something you folks struggle with when it comes to the SCOTUS justices. You can't tar and feather for someone because of something you find distasteful but well within the rules.



Why? Because I spent 10 minutes to read about something before jumping to conclusions? You should try it... sometime. It is painful watching one ignorant person after another embarass themselves by knowing so little about a topic on which they strongly opine.



To which they are, and Justice Thomas followed the rules to the letter.



Woops, here's that jumping to conclusions thing again you struggle with. If you follow that comment chain for ~10 seconds, you would realize I was talking about an entirely other person and situation. Again, please do try and focus and understand something before you embarass yourself continuously.



Again, you fail to note the exception related to "individual hospitality".



Again, this is the peak of idiotic arguments.

So any citizen, impacted in any way, to any minor degree, possibly even is therefor an involved party? Give me a flippin' break. You have effectively included the entire US population (at a minimum) with that standard.

It is my understanding that the Crow's family holdings are predominantly in real estate, not PE or HF. Moreover, unless you can show me where Harlan Crow, his family, or his holdings were influenced by a specific decision (which he lobbied for) or any of these entities was a named party in a litigation effort, it is moot.

You guys are running down a conspiracy theory road like crazy on this.

The man wasn’t any citizen, he is a billionaire GOP donor. No one with an ounce of integrity on the federal judiciary takes gifts worth in total as much as twice their yearly salary from anyone.

 

[jaypatriot]

Harlan Crow has large holdings in private and hedge funds. To argue that he doesn’t have financial stakes in any SCOTUS decisions is absurd. No one with integrity accepts lucrative “gifts” from anyone that can be impacted by their professional work. The fact that some people can’t understand that says a lot about them.

So anyone who doesn't follow your accusatory logic is completely missing you entire argument. You have no proof whatsoever there are SCOTUS decisions that have been made or will be made that involve Crow's financial future.
I understand exactly the kind of witch hunt you are engaged in and without proof of your accusations, how to expect people with half a brain to agree with your attack on Thomas?

 

[nullus]

Rgb did it

You keep repeating the same falsehood. Why is that? Lack of meaningful argument or lack of candor?

 

[bave]

Very true. Sincere and true altruism is not a political or ideological endeavor, so the mention of aisles is superfluous.
A lot has been recently recently said about Crow and his donations. I have not seen or maybe I missed any examples or true altruism. Perhaps you can list and link to some.

Involved directly no, but it is disingenuous to even consider that Crow has not benefited from the conservative court, whether financially or ideologically.

It isn't superfluous to mention that both sides make large ideological donations. How many extremely wealthy people donate to Planned Parenthood? Or better yet, various PACs and think tanks? That is precisely what Crow has done a number of times. Large donations to PACs and think tanks which support his ideological view point. He has also made significant donations to a number of non-political or ideologue causes as well, including universities and endowments.

Ok, so he wasn't involved directly at the court. Since he was not a direct beneficiary or participant in any cases that means there isn't an issue of direct interference or a failure to recuse. So, we're done with that argument, then right? Unless you can show that Crow was lobbying Thomas on these vacations to rule on other cases which he benefited from. So which cases are you alleging Crow benefited from specifically, how did he benefit from a ruling, and what was the extent of the benefit Crow received? Further, when did he intervene in those specific cases?

 

[vegas giants]

You keep repeating the same falsehood. Why is that? Lack of meaningful argument or lack of candor?

I proved it


You got nothing

 

[bave]

So anyone who doesn't follow your accusatory logic is completely missing you entire argument. You have no proof whatsoever there are SCOTUS decisions that have been made or will be made that involve Crow's financial future.
I understand exactly the kind of witch hunt you are engaged in and without proof of your accusations, how to expect people with half a brain to agree with your attack on Thomas?

These are the same people who to this day call Kavanaugh a rapist, despite zero evidence, no credible witnesses, and a stack of witnesses contradicting the accusations.

 

[bave]

The man wasn’t any citizen, he is a billionaire GOP donor. No one with an ounce of integrity on the federal judiciary takes gifts worth in total as much as twice their yearly salary from anyone.

So your real problem is that he is a billionaire GOP donor. Thanks for clarifying that. You hate him because he is on the other team and you will stretch however far you need to in order to find a violation.

It's illogical, dishonest, and rife with partisanship.

 

[nullus]

I proved it

Actually you did not, but if asserting untruths is what you do, have at it. Just do not expect people to fall for it.

You got nothing

If that were true and unlike you I would not make posts here.

 

[vegas giants]

Actually you did not, but if asserting untruths is what you do, have at it. Just do not expect people to fall for it.

If that were true and unlike you I would not make posts here.

Rgb took a 100,000 gift. That's a fact

Just because she reported it does not mean it has no influence

 

[dockside]

I am going to let you in on a secret, a billionaire real estate developer that spends a ton of money on his "friend" the SCOTUS justice, doesn't do that for no reason. Do you honestly think that he doesn't have an interest in cases involving environmental law, eminent domain, tax law cases, anything regarding private equity funds and so on?

Justice Thomas is paid nearly $300k a year. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would pay for his own vacations, not accept free rides on private jets, not accept free trips on private yachts, not take free stays at luxury resorts and so on. No one gives you anything free for nothing. That billionaire is not offering you or me shit because we can't do anything for him.

Personally, I expect a Supreme Court Justice to at least conduct themselves with the integrity that I conduct myself with because their actions in their jobs are worth exponentially more than mine are. I think some people would not know integrity if they tripped over it.

Integrity would include avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, which Thomas has not done. But, of course, he will say this criticism is another "high-tech lynching." He's good at that sort of thing.

 

[vegas giants]

Integrity would include avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, which Thomas has not done. But, of course, he will say this criticism is another "high-tech lynching." He's good at that sort of thing.

Then they ALL have an appearance of impropriety

 

[dockside]

I don't think you understand the word "illegal".

It isn't against the law to accept a gift from a patient or pharmaceutical company. There may be ethical and reporting concerns, but it isn't flatly illegal.

Moreover, maybe these people didn't view you as a friend but rather trusted hired help. That would explain why you have had such a hard time with relationships. My housekeepers have keys to my homes, I don't eat my meals or vacation with them.

Keep it up. You are not impressing anyone with your claims of supposed wealth.

 

[jaypatriot]

These are the same people who to this day call Kavanaugh a rapist, despite zero evidence, no credible witnesses, and a stack of witnesses contradicting the accusations.

And those same people actually believe the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to become president.
And they believed James Comey was exactly correct in absolving Hillary Clinton form any wrong doing when she mishandled classified documents and the then order everyone connected with this violation to destroy any evidence on her servers and cell phones.
And they believe Biden when he blames Trump for the incredible cockup in Afghanistran when he oversaw, as Commander-in-Chief, the deplorable retreat from Afghanistan in 2021.
People will believe anything they want to believe if the liar is on the correct side of the political fence.

 

[dockside]

Rbg reported her gifts AFTER she got them

Well, she can't report them if she doesn't get them, can she?

 

[vegas giants]

Well, she can't report them if she doesn't get them, can she?

Is it ok for her to take gifts from people who had business before the court?

 

[SoCal]

Reminds me of Father Mulcahey on MASH, “hospitality!”


“As friends do, we have joined [Crow and his wife] on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas said in a statement. “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

Justice Thomas: Advisers said no need to report travel with GOP donor — The Washington Post

ProPublica reported that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted luxury trips for more than two decades, including travel on a superyacht and private jet, from a prominent Republican donor without disclosing them.

apple.news

Like his claim that he never discusses his wife's far rightwing activism, this doesn't pass the laugh test...

 

[TomFitz]

Wonder if this donor paying for Thomas's vacations supports his wife's insurrection group.

Almost certainly. It might be hard to find out, since her group is a 501c4, which doesn’t have to report its donorw…….thanks in no small part to the hard work of the people you see in post #55.

 

[TomFitz]

Well, since all lawyers and all other judges are bound by a code of ethics that requires their actions and words do not even give the appearance of impropriety (and they all have friends), why should the justices on the Supreme Court be given a pass for doing something that does give the appearance of impropriety?

Because the ethics laws do not apply to them.

In the past, justices were cognizant enough to understand that the credibility of the court depended in part on the individual justices not being seen as partners of political activists or of the donor class.

Even the appearance of impropriety was frowned upon.

But Clarence Thomas Is clearly indifferent to the way his behavior effects, and effectively appears to politicize the court.

 

[dockside]

I didn't bring up illegal

OK so it's not illegal


Should he get a spanking? Lol

You seem to think that a person, even a Supreme Court justice can do anything without judgment as long as it is not illegal. That they can be unethical, immoral, persons but, that's o.k. as long as there is no law against what they do, no matter how awful the behavior.

 

[vegas giants]

You seem to think that a person, even a Supreme Court justice can do anything without judgment as long as it is not illegal. That they can be unethical, immoral, persons but, that's o.k. as long as there is no law against what they do, no matter how awful the behavior.

Is this unethical?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed taking more trips than any other justice in 2018, totaling 14. She visited Tel Aviv, Israel where she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Genesis Prize Foundation. Shortly following the award ceremony, she disclosed being provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn.

Kahn has had business before the Supreme Court before. The high court handed Kahn’s company Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case.

Supreme Court justices continue to rack up trips on private interest dime

Supreme Court justices disclosed taking a combined 64 trips in 2018 in which things like transportation, food and lodging were reimbursed by others.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[Superfly]

I don't have a problem with people collecting anything from a historical perspective. Make up your mind though, is this guy a nazi white supremacist or is he friends with a black justice who happens to collect artifacts fro communists as well? You realize that someone who collects busts of Stalin and Lenin is inherently ideological at odds with someone who is a Nazi right?

Keep telling yourself that. Sounds like you believe the bs you post.