Supreme Court Corruption (Formerly Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire) (2 Viewers)

[cuddlemonkey]

It seems that a billionaire GOP donor has spent a small fortune on vacations for Ginni and Clarence Thomas.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

 

[Optimus Prime]

just a couple. slow news day today

 

[cuddlemonkey]

When's the vote for the bill that prevents insider trading by Senators and the House of Representatives? Until then I'll just roll my eyes at the calls from Congress about ethics.

That would be the Ending Trading and Holdings In Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act that was introduced in April, a few months after the Supreme Court Ethics Act.

It's not often you see someone shift the goalposts and run smack into the football anyway.

 

[bird]

Don't you have 15 or so DNC press releases..I mean Washington Post articles to post today?

Missed it. Did you get your Republicans alerts from Newsmax today?

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Missed it. Did you get your Republicans alerts from Newsmax today?

Or Glen Greenwald

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas headlined a 2017 program at McLennan Community College in Texas, his hosts had more than a speech in mind.

Working with the prominent conservative lawyer Ken Starr, school officials crafted a guest list for a dinner at the home of a wealthy Texas businessman, hoping an audience with Thomas would be a reward for school patrons -– and an inducement to prospective donors.

Before Justice Elena Kagan visited the University of Colorado’s law school in 2019, one official in Boulder suggested a “larger donor to staff ratio” for a dinner with her.

After Justice Sonia Sotomayor confirmed she would attend a 2017 question-and-answer session at Clemson University and a private luncheon, officials there made sure to invite $1 million-plus donors to the South Carolina college.

The Associated Press obtained tens of thousands of pages of emails and other documents that reveal the extent to which public colleges and universities have seen visits by justices as opportunities to generate donations -– regularly putting justices in the room with influential donors, including some whose industries have had interests before the court.

The documents also reveal that justices spanning the court’s ideological divide have lent the prestige of their positions to partisan activity, headlining speaking events with prominent politicians, or advanced their own personal interests, such as sales of their books, through college visits.


The conduct would likely be prohibited if done by lower court federal judges. But the Supreme Court’s definition of banned fundraising is so narrow -– simply an event that raises more than it costs or where guests are asked for donations -– that it does not account for soliciting contributors later while reminding them of the special access they were afforded.

“The justices should be aware that people are selling access to them,” said University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost, an ethics expert. “I don’t think they are naive, but they certainly have been putting themselves in situations where people can credibly claim, ’I’m giving you access,’ or ‘I’m going to fundraise off my claimed closeness or access.’ And that is a problem.”

In a statement responding to questions, the Supreme Court said: “The Court routinely asks event organizers to confirm that an event at which a Justice will speak is not a fundraiser, and it provides a definition of ‘fundraiser’ in order to avoid misunderstandings.”

“The Court then follows up with event organizers to elicit further information as appropriate,” the statement said. “The Court’s practice has been useful: Justices have declined to be featured at events even though event organizers expressly told Chambers that the events were not fundraisers, following additional inquiry by the Court that confirmed them to be fundraisers.”………

Supreme Court justices and donors mingle at campus visits. These documents show the ethical dilemmas

Records obtained by The Associated Press show that Supreme Court justices have attended publicly funded events at colleges and universities that allowed the schools to put the justices in the room with influential donors, including some whose industries have had interests before the court.

apnews.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

There's only one option left: scrap them all and let Biden choose nine new justices that know better.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.

The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.

Vasisht’s Venmo account – which was public prior to requesting comment for this article and is no longer – show that he received seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously served as Thomas legal clerks. The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment is listed as either “Christmas party”, “Thomas Christmas Party”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials.…..

Lawyers with supreme court business paid Clarence Thomas aide via Venmo

Payments to Rajan Vasisht, an aide from 2019-21, underscore ties between the justice and lawyers who argue cases in front of him

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

It’s obvious we’ve had zero transparency from the court for years. We really need to almost start over with ethics rules and some way for true accountability.

 

[DaveXA]

It’s obvious we’ve had zero transparency from the court for years. We really need to almost start over with ethics rules and some way for true accountability.

I agree, but I'd be surprised if we see any real accountability. It's not like Congress or the President can tell them what the Court can and can't do.

 

[MT15]

I agree, but I'd be surprised if we see any real accountability. It's not like Congress or the President can tell them what the Court can and can't do.

Well, the Senate is getting ready to vote on an ethics oversight bill. All the branches of government are supposed to have checks and balances from the other two, aren’t they? The Judiciary isn’t supposed to be above the others, as I understand it. You probably know more, but co-equal is the word that sticks in my mind.

 

[DaveXA]

Well, the Senate is getting ready to vote on an ethics oversight bill. All the branches of government are supposed to have checks and balances from the other two, aren’t they? The Judiciary isn’t supposed to be above the others, as I understand it. You probably know more, but co-equal is the word that sticks in my mind.

While I agree and the contours of the relationship between the three branches are laid out in the Constitution, but each are supposed to have their own rules as governed by those contours and as I recall it, no branch has direct authority over the other unless they step outside their lanes so to speak.

This is precisely the reasoning that Biden’s forgiving student loans was struck down by SCOTUS. The power of the purse rest largely with Congress and only an act of Congress can forgive them.

The could be situations I'm not thinking of, but it's really up to SCOTUS to clean up their act. Congress can't make them do it.

 

[UriUT]

While I agree and the contours of the relationship between the three branches are laid out in the Constitution, but each are supposed to have their own rules as governed by those contours and as I recall it, no branch has direct authority over the other unless they step outside their lanes so to speak.

This is precisely the reasoning that Biden’s forgiving student loans was struck down by SCOTUS. The power of the purse rest largely with Congress and only an act of Congress can forgive them.

The could be situations I'm not thinking of, but it's really up to SCOTUS to clean up their act. Congress can't make them do it.

The obvious counter argument here is that the constitution doesn’t designate the sc justice count. That is instead dictated by a law set at 9, when there were 9 judicial districts. As a tangent, we now have 13 districts, which makes a good argument for sc expansion.

 

[MT15]

The obvious counter argument here is that the constitution doesn’t designate the sc justice count. That is instead dictated by a law set at 9, when there were 9 judicial districts. As a tangent, we now have 13 districts, which makes a good argument for sc expansion.

This, so much this. It should be done, and they can negotiate how to do it, so it’s not a huge chunk all at once. But it needs to happen, people are being harmed because of their radical rulings.

 

[DaveXA]

The obvious counter argument here is that the constitution doesn’t designate the sc justice count. That is instead dictated by a law set at 9, when there were 9 judicial districts. As a tangent, we now have 13 districts, which makes a good argument for sc expansion.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to expanding if there's a good justification for it. Doing it strictly for political advantage isn't one though.

 

[DaveXA]

This, so much this. It should be done, and they can negotiate how to do it, so it’s not a huge chunk all at once. But it needs to happen, people are being harmed because of their radical rulings.

But therein lies the rub. Your last sentence makes the court purely a political weapon rather than a legal one. There's no doubt political influence to some degree, but expanding the court for how they rule is a terrible idea imo.

Expanding the courts to match the number of districts makes more sense than changing it because of how they rule.

If it's because of how they rule, you'd have the court changing numbers every time the WH changes hands.

 

[coldseat]

While I agree and the contours of the relationship between the three branches are laid out in the Constitution, but each are supposed to have their own rules as governed by those contours and as I recall it, no branch has direct authority over the other unless they step outside their lanes so to speak.

This is precisely the reasoning that Biden’s forgiving student loans was struck down by SCOTUS. The power of the purse rest largely with Congress and only an act of Congress can forgive them.

The could be situations I'm not thinking of, but it's really up to SCOTUS to clean up their act. Congress can't make them do it.

That's a really bad example because Conservative SCOTUS had to really go out of pocket and ignore basic law like standing and it's own limits over executive action to reach that decision. They had the blinders on of their self created "major doctrines principle".

 

[UriUT]

I'm not fundamentally opposed to expanding if there's a good justification for it. Doing it strictly for political advantage isn't one though.

I think your point earlier was that each branch was independent and that other branches can't dictate towards the other (strict separation of powers). My point was that there was precedence that Congress and the Presidency have the power to restrict the Judicial. And pertinent to the current case is that they can impose ethics rules upon the SC. Besides, we have ethics rule for the rest of the judicial branch...why is the SC excluded?

As to the expansion of the SC, diluting, and therefore, reducing each individual SC justice's powers may not be a bad thing. We have two justices with very debatable corruption allegations determining the law of the land. 2/9 is much easier to corrupt and more influential then 2/13.

Any who, it would be interesting if Congress passes an expansion and the SC says no, despite precedence. We know how this court views precedence. What would happen????