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

[nullus]

I'm sure that's true to some degree, but it is hard to tell which is which. For all we know Harlan Crow is a legitimate bonafide friend of Clarence Thomas and is treating him like all of his other friends. That would be an interesting question. Does Harlan do these things for his other friends or not? I dunno.



Again, or being his friend. Moreover, pretend this is true, did it move the needle at all? Thomas is widely viewed as the most conservative member of the court. He doesn't need any swaying to vote conservative. If I was trying to buy influence, I wouldn't start with the guy solidly in my camp already, right? He doesn't need swaying. The same way a liberal would never do that with Sotomayor specifically. If either side wanted to buy influence the most moderate member of the court is probably either Gorsuch or Roberts.



You can search his contribution and donation history. I know he has donated significant sums to a handful of universities and created a few educational endowments. He has also donated large sums to a variety of conservative PACs/Non profits (that Thomas isn't associated with).

Basically, the guy is using his money to further issues, causes, and groups he agrees with. The same thing almost every billionaire does. I do the the same thing. I let the police and fire department use one of my properties every year for their July 4th picnic and I pay for all the food/drinks etc. I have a running tab at the Chik-Fil-A across the street from the police headquarters to pay for meals for uniformed first responders each month (its limited, but is monthly). I don't do this for groups I don't agree with, but I do it for first responders because they have a tough job and don't get paid particularly well in this area. Does it have a side benefit of not getting pulled over? Yea, probably, but that's not my intent.



Np on the delay, it's fine.

Cultivating influence is certainly a real thing, but this is where I go back to "Why Thomas?". You don't spend time and resources cultivating someone who already *clearly* agrees with your entire underlying premise. If he were trying to bribe someone he should target Roberts, right? The guy is a lot more wishy-washy on his positions and often a swing vote. That's the guy you try to sway, not the guy who votes hard right every f'n time. You don't gotta buy the guy that's already in your corner in essence.

 

[ClaraD]

You'd lose that bet

The government decided not to prosecute Nixon as well...did that change the fact he committed a crime?

 

[ClaraD]

OK. Right wingers hang out with right wing billionaires and Left wingers, like Biden, hang out with Left wing billionaires. Your point is? Soros doesn't have any interests that intersect with Federal statutes and policy, Right?

Does Soros give million dollar trips to any of the Supreme Court justices?

 

[vegas giants]

The government decided not to prosecute Nixon as well...did that change the fact he committed a crime?

Or Hillary

 

[nullus]

I'm sure that's true to some degree, but it is hard to tell which is which.

That is true and that is why people in positions like Thomas must, I say MUST avoid even the appearance of impropriety because even appearances of impropriety cast a shadow of doubt and a shadow of doubt on the highest court in the land, especially when the confidence in it is at its lowest ever, is a great disservice to the nation.
All people with integrity recognize the imperativeness of maintaining the political neutrality of the highest court and not only that but along with it the avoidance of any appearance that can cast a negative view. Countless people in similar or even the same position go to extreme lengths to avoid the appearance of impropriety and for Thomas to turn his back on such serious matter is a slap in the face not only to the institution but to the people who have to live be the decisions of the court.

For all we know Harlan Crow is a legitimate bonafide friend of Clarence Thomas and is treating him like all of his other friends.

Yes, that is possible, but real friends, especially people who have achieved such high levels of success, be that in law or business, would not want to expose their friend to such negative publicity. The lack of disclosure only further aggravates this situation.

That would be an interesting question. Does Harlan do these things for his other friends or not? I dunno.

What friends do for friends is is really a private matter and nobody's business, as long as the matter remains between friends, it is not illegal or does not affect others, either in a perceived or real way. We clearly have an effect here.

Again, or being his friend. Moreover, pretend this is true, did it move the needle at all?

I believe that to be the wrong question. The real one is can it move the needle and it it did not in the past wil it in the future?

Thomas is widely viewed as the most conservative member of the court. He doesn't need any swaying to vote conservative.

You must keep in mind that not al conservatives agree on all matters. Disagreements have always and will always exist even among the staunchest ideologues.

If I was trying to buy influence, I wouldn't start with the guy solidly in my camp already, right? He doesn't need swaying. The same way a liberal would never do that with Sotomayor specifically. If either side wanted to buy influence the most moderate member of the court is probably either Gorsuch or Roberts.

Not everyone might be inclined to accept "influence" but might be inclined to use their own on others within the court.

You can search his contribution and donation history.

I did briefly and nothing of note has jumped out. Maybe I missed it.

I do the the same thing. I let the police and fire department use one of my properties every year for their July 4th picnic and I pay for all the food/drinks etc. I have a running tab at the Chik-Fil-A across the street from the police headquarters to pay for meals for uniformed first responders each month (its limited, but is monthly).

I am glad you have the means and are doing the service. I applaud and thank you.

 

[ClaraD]

Or Hillary

they said she didn't commit a crime because her act required it to be willful and it wasn't...

 

[vegas giants]

they said she didn't commit a crime because her act required it to be willful and it wasn't...

Well Thomas did not commit a crime either

All you have is your opinion

 

[coyote505]

Does Soros give million dollar trips to any of the Supreme Court justices?

On the other hand, Thomas' friend is not giving him or the other Righty Justices campaign contributions. Can you say the same for Soros and the White House and Congressional Dems?

 

[butterfly]

Well Thomas did not commit a crime either

All you have is your opinion

No one suggests he be indicted for a crime.

 

[reflechissez]

Because we both know you had zero concerns when far worse than this happened in the Clinton Foundation.

Show your work.

 

[reflechissez]

Like I said, show me where you were equally upset during the 2016 election when this was a major issue. You have vomited dozens of times on this thread, surely you can find similar posts when you did the same there, right?

Tu quoque

 

[reflechissez]

If this is your claim, it's incredibly misleading. It wasn't, as you imply, Jim-Bob ****aduck and Crazy Eddie Shitstain who advised him. It was fellow Supreme Court justices who had more experience in the area than he did.

How do you know that?

 

[reflechissez]

Yes.

25 years later.

After

"
Could it possibly be that the decisions lately riled a certain subset of the US up?
And I saw it asked, "do they think we are stupid?"

Could it be that we just found out about it? Should we just ignore it?

 

[reflechissez]

On the other hand, Thomas' friend is not giving him or the other Righty Justices campaign contributions. Can you say the same for Soros and the White House and Congressional Dems?

Why would supreme court justices need campaign contributions?

 

[TomFitz]

Are people mad that he played the same games the Dems do?

Joe Biden and the corrupt administration.

Time to wake up people.

Empty assertions, as always.

 

[bave]

That is true and that is why people in positions like Thomas must, I say MUST avoid even the appearance of impropriety because even appearances of impropriety cast a shadow of doubt and a shadow of doubt on the highest court in the land, especially when the confidence in it is at its lowest ever,

Your last part should be the first part. The reason why this is an issue is because people want it to be an issue. They are trying to find reasons why justices are bad, evil, and corrupt because they don't like their rulings. It really is as simple as that. Even if you assume every allegation is true, it would have changed nothing. Thomas was hardline conservative from the beginning and will be to the end. That's not how corruption works. You don't "corrupt" the person who is already solidly on your team.

Yes, that is possible, but real friends, especially people who have achieved such high levels of success, be that in law or business, would not want to expose their friend to such negative publicity. The lack of disclosure only further aggravates this situation.

Unless your friend said "No, it's ok, I have cleared it through our ethics committee". The alternative is that he and Crow could effectively never get together. Do you really expect Crow to go to Applebee's to meet Thomas for dinner? He's a billionaire asking him to come visit him at his home, on his boat, or travel on his plane.

We clearly have an effect here.

Prove that. I will point to the fact that the views Thomas has held are largely unchanged before and after Crow and that there is no reason to believe any nuanced change is because of Crow.

I believe that to be the wrong question. The real one is can it move the needle and it it did not in the past wil it in the future?

Ahhh, to smear someone for something that might possibly happen in the future. The same as Kavanaugh, to destroy a man's reputation on the weakest of possible allegations. Again, these things are confirmation bias at its finest. Liberals hate the SCOTUS, they will do whatever it takes to justify their behavior.

You must keep in mind that not al conservatives agree on all matters. Disagreements have always and will always exist even among the staunchest ideologues.

Yea, Clarence Thomas is always the *most* conservative on the bench. He isn't the one you need to "corrupt".

I am glad you have the means and are doing the service. I applaud and thank you.

Yea, so when I get pulled over for speeding and don't get a ticket, is that bribery or corruption of a law enforcement officer? Or better yet, a few of my friends are cops. They come over to my house, they use my boat, they use my jet skis, is that corruption? They can't afford my boat, it must be corruption, right? Surely they should turn it down as officers in the same community and ethics etc?

At some point there is simply people who have more resources helping friends of theirs who happen to have less resources. There isn't a conspiracy afoot. Do you think a Governor ever pays for their own meal?

 

[TomFitz]

Here's the link to the article.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/07/clarence-thomas-trips-crow-propublica/

And what's to criticize? All he did was accept more than a $million in free luxury travel, from a right wing activist and mega donor and leader, and not report it! Who cares??!!! What right does the public have to know that a mega donor is funneling $7 figures worth of gifts to a sitting SCOTUS justice?? Who could imagine that such gifts might be corrupting or influence decisions by the recipient? Sunlight sucks! We the public deserve to be treated like mushrooms!!

/s

My favorite part of this whole thing is Thomas blaming unnamed others for his actions. Classic tactic for the corrupt and cowardly! Paraphrased: "Hey, it's not I who chose the completely self serving path to keep these massive gifts secret from the public who I purportedly serve!! It's ???????'s fault! Blame ????????!"

And a bit more seriously, the incident reveals much about his character. If one wants to behave ethically, the decision here is pretty obvious - if you accept the trips (which is ethically dubious) then at the very least disclose it as he does routine flights and travel to universities and professional meetings. That's the decision, and it isn't a difficult one for anyone who cares about the spirit or intent behind disclosing ANYTHING - when in doubt, inform the public who you serve. What he knew then and now knows for certain is disclosing the gifts would cause problems for himself, SCOTUS as an institution, Crow, or all three, so he hid them.

What I hope is Congress gets off its ass and imposes strict new rules for SCOTUS. Let the GOP argue that the public should not be informed of stuff like this in real time, and see how that goes.

Especially a maga donor who finances the Federalist Society, which has had a role in placing all the conservatives on the Supreme Court.

When Thomas is seen in pictures with Crow and his other “friend” Leonard Leo, there’s little question about what’s going on.

 

[TomFitz]

Your last part should be the first partnot how corruption works. You don't "corrupt" the person who is already solidly on your team.



Unless your friend said "No, it's ok, I have cleared it through our ethics committee". The alternative is that he and Crow could effectively never get together. Do you really expect Crow to go to Applebee's to meet Thomas for dinner? He's a billionaire asking him to come visit him at his home, on his boat, or travel on his plane.



Prove that. I will point to the fact that the views Thomas has held are largely unchanged before and after Crow and that there is no reason to believe any nuanced change is because of Crow.



Ahhh, to smear someone for something that might possibly happen in the future. The same as Kavanaugh, to destroy a man's reputation on the weakest of possible allegations. Again, these things are confirmation bias at its finest. Liberals hate the SCOTUS, they will do whatever it takes to justify their behavior.



Yea, Clarence Thomas is always the *most* conservative on the bench. He isn't the one you need to "corrupt".



Yea, so when I get pulled over for speeding and don't get a ticket, is that bribery or corruption of a law enforcement officer? Or better yet, a few of my friends are cops. They come over to my house, they use my boat, they use my jet skis, is that corruption? They can't afford my boat, it must be corruption, right? Surely they should turn it down as officers in the same community and ethics etc?

At some point there is simply people who have more resources helping friends of theirs who happen to have less resources. There isn't a conspiracy afoot. Do you think a Governor ever pays for their own meal?

“The reason why this is an issue is because people want it to be an issue. They are trying to find reasons why justices are bad, evil, and corrupt because they don't like their rulings. It really is as simple as that. Even if you assume every allegation is true, it would have changed nothing. Thomas was hardline conservative from the beginning and will be to the end.”

People want obvious influence peddling to be an issue. You are correct.

Thomas, and Leonard Leo both benefitted from Crow’s largesse. Thomas by helping identify and install right wing justices, using Crow’s money via the Federalist Society, which is a partisan political organization, and always has been.

These are not “weak” allegations. And your attempt to equate them to the Kavanaugh case is dishonest, at best.

 

[vegas giants]

No one suggests he be indicted for a crime.

Then what's the fuss. If no crime then this is just a paperwork issue

 

[bave]

People want obvious influence peddling to be an issue. You are correct.

So, it is your position that Harlan Crow influenced the decisions of Clarence Thomas? Great. Show me something, anything, that supports that. Thomas, if anything, is right of Crow. If you are going to accuse someone of corruption, you need to show a quid pro quo.

Thomas, and Leonard Leo both benefitted from Crow’s largesse. Thomas by helping identify and install right wing justices, using Crow’s money via the Federalist Society, which is a partisan political organization, and always has been.

It isn't illegal or even unethical for a justice to want to see people sit on the bench with a similar point of view. Why do you think justices almost always coordinate their retirement with the administration? Oh, is that collusion? When Breyer stepped down, do you think it was because he knew who was replacing him? Ya think?

These are not “weak” allegations. And your attempt to equate them to the Kavanaugh case is dishonest, at best.

Your allegation above is the classic example of weak. If you want to make an allegation of influence peddling you need to show a change in behavior as a result on the influence. You got anything there other than accusations? Nope, thought not. You're just butthurt because you aren't getting your way. The crybaby liberal way.

 

[coyote505]

“The reason why this is an issue is because people want it to be an issue. They are trying to find reasons why justices are bad, evil, and corrupt because they don't like their rulings. It really is as simple as that. Even if you assume every allegation is true, it would have changed nothing. Thomas was hardline conservative from the beginning and will be to the end.”

People want obvious influence peddling to be an issue. You are correct.

Thomas, and Leonard Leo both benefitted from Crow’s largesse. Thomas by helping identify and install right wing justices, using Crow’s money via the Federalist Society, which is a partisan political organization, and always has been.

These are not “weak” allegations. And your attempt to equate them to the Kavanaugh case is dishonest, at best.

We can avoid this whole problem if I am put in charge of populating the SCOTUS. We will have 3 Loony Lefties, 3 Rigid Righties, and 3 Libertarians, to keep either wing from having enough power to adopt their most idiot views as the law of the land!

 

[SCrider]

We can avoid this whole problem if I am put in charge of populating the SCOTUS. We will have 3 Loony Lefties, 3 Rigid Righties, and 3 Libertarians, to keep either wing from having enough power to adopt their most idiot views as the law of the land!

Libertarians are a joke.

 

[coyote505]

Libertarians are a joke.

Actually, Liberals are the Joke.

 

[natman]

it is legal to have friends....it isn't legal to accept bribes for favors.

Got a shred of evidence of any favors?

 

[TomFitz]

We can avoid this whole problem if I am put in charge of populating the SCOTUS. We will have 3 Loony Lefties, 3 Rigid Righties, and 3 Libertarians, to keep either wing from having enough power to adopt their most idiot views as the law of the land!

OK