Supreme Court Corruption (Formerly Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire) (5 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    cuddlemonkey

    Well-known monkey
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    4,135
    Reaction score
    4,871
    Online
    It seems that a billionaire GOP donor has spent a small fortune on vacations for Ginni and Clarence Thomas.

     
    the giver pays the taxes not the givee(recipient).

    And there’s nothing that the DOJ can do about his unwillingness to recuse. So don’t waste their time.
    Actually, there is. It is called good behavior and congress gets to decide good behavior. Corruption including rerfusal to recuse, imo, constitutes failure of good behavior. The DZoJ does the investigation of Thomas’s dealings including cases he has decided which may have benefited Harlan Crow. Furthermore, if it is provable that Thomas ruled in favor of Crow or Crow’s businesses/enterprises and those rulings benefited Crow more than the gifts he bestowed on Thomas then Thomas can be slammed on taxes.

    The legislative branch holds two checks on the judicial. The first is the power of the purse. The second is the definition of good behavior.
     
    Actually, there is. It is called good behavior and congress gets to decide good behavior. Corruption including rerfusal to recuse, imo, constitutes failure of good behavior. The DZoJ does the investigation of Thomas’s dealings including cases he has decided which may have benefited Harlan Crow. Furthermore, if it is provable that Thomas ruled in favor of Crow or Crow’s businesses/enterprises and those rulings benefited Crow more than the gifts he bestowed on Thomas then Thomas can be slammed on taxes.

    The legislative branch holds two checks on the judicial. The first is the power of the purse. The second is the definition of good behavior.
    The only power Congress possesses with the supremes is impeachment.

    Can’t cut the justices pay and is required by the constitution to provide for the function of the court.


    Congress has no constitutional power to legislatively regulate the Supreme Court.
     

    What if my debt is forgiven?​


    The tax impact of debt forgiveness or cancellation depends on your individual facts and circumstances. Generally, if you borrow money from a commercial lender and the lender later cancels or forgives the debt, you may have to include the cancelled amount in income for tax purposes. The lender is usually required to report the amount of the canceled debt to you and the IRS on a Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt. There are several exceptions to the taxability of cancelled debt, such as insolvency or bankruptcy.



    The key here is commercial lender
    Whitehouse doesn’t think so.
     
    The only power Congress possesses with the supremes is impeachment.

    Can’t cut the justices pay and is required by the constitution to provide for the function of the court.


    Congress has no constitutional power to legislatively regulate the Supreme Court.
    And they aren’t trying to do so. It was a criminal referral. Thomas is subject to the same rules as you or I am.
     
    Not saying they can't. I'm saying that it would likely be a distraction from the election. And would look like a purely political power play with SCOTUS. Might work, but it also isn't without some serious risks.
    I don't think it would be a distraction if the DOJ investigates the way they normally do, which is to keep it out the press's and the public's eyes.
     
    So I looked at this. It asks

    • Gift from your employer
    • Gift received as a host of a party or event at which sales are made
    • Gift for opening an account at a financial institution
    • Gift received from other sources
    So, only the last applies. It asks if the money is from foreign source. Check no and it says the money is not taxable.
    As MT15 pointed out it's not a question of just a gift or of just a forgiven loan.

    When I skimmed the referral letter, it seems there are some black and white issues that really there is no reason to wait on. He has evidently acquired the 270k motor home on a personal loan from some guy, and he made a few interest payments before the “loan” was forgiven. This does make it taxable as personal income, which should have been reported and taxes paid.​
    The rest of the issues involve breaking an Ethics in Government law, which he clearly did.​
    These things seem pretty cut and dried to me. Unnecessary delay means he is being treated differently than any other government employee.​
    I guess we shall see. I mean, if the DOJ can appoint a special counsel for the minor issues with Hunter Biden and Joe Biden then why should Clarence Thomas be any different?​

    No matter how you want to slice and dice it, Thomas violated some laws.

    Why do you keep saying things that aren't true or are only misleading half truths?

    Are you trying to fool people into thinking Republicans like Trump and Clarence Thomas haven't broken the law when they clearly have?
     
    Last edited:
    Can’t cut the justices pay and is required by the constitution to provide for the function of the court.
    This is false. Congress can defund the Supreme Court just like your Republican comrades are threatening to defund the DOJ.

    Why do you keep spreading false information to try to fool people into believing that there's nothing anyone can do about the Republicans, like Trump and Clarence Thomas, obviously breaking the law?

    Nothing you say can be trusted, because most of what you say isn't true.

    When people prove to you that what you say isn't true, you either just keep saying the thing you know isn't true or you run away from the truth without ever admitting what you said wasn't true.
     
    Possibly, I'm not so sure though. I think the DOJ would steer clear of anything related to the Justices short of a capital crime.
    That's what they might do. I don't think it's what they would do.

    I think the reason we have gotten to the level of corruption that's threatening the continued existence of our democracy is because the DOJ is too quick to overlook "minor" crimes.

    We either crack down hard on all corruption or we let corruption take complete control. Biden didn't stand in the way of his son being tried and convicted, most presidents would have.

    I think we need to hold people in government to higher standards and stricter enforcement, not lower standards and looser enforcement. I think we've been doing it all backwards which is why everything has gotten so backwards.
     
    Last edited:
    This is false. Congress can defund the Supreme Court just like your Republican comrades are threatening to defund the DOJ.
    Actually that also is false. Congress has no power to abolish the Court, that's clearly in the Constitution. They could threaten it, but it would never happen.

    Congress can impeach and appoint Justices and they can change the number of Justices, and that's about it.

    Why do you keep spreading false information to try to fool people into believing that there's nothing anyone can do about the Republicans, like Trump and Clarence Thomas, obviously breaking the law?
    There are some things that can be done, but it's pretty limited, which is by design. Presidents and Justices are afforded a lot of leeway because of their positions and it would be very difficult to get them to step down.
    Nothing you say can be trusted, because most of what you say isn't true.

    When people prove to you that what you say isn't true, you either just keep saying the thing you know isn't true or you run away from the truth without ever admitting what you said wasn't true.
     
    That's what they might do. I don't think it's what they should do.

    I think the reason we have gotten to the level of corruption that's threatening the continued existence of our democracy is because the DOJ is too quick to overlook "minor" crimes.

    We either crack down hard on all corruption or we let corruption take complete control. Biden didn't stand in the way of his son being tried and convicted, most presidents would have.

    I think we need to hold people in government to higher standards and stricter enforcement, not lower standards and looser enforcement. I think we've been doing it all backwards which is why everything has gotten so backwards.
    I mean, I agree with you about cracking down on the corruption, but easier said than done.
     
    Actually that also is false. Congress has no power to abolish the Court, that's clearly in the Constitution. They could threaten it, but it would never happen.
    Congress cannot abolish the court. That is true.

    Congress can set their budget to zero. That is also true.

    That's the exact reason that the Republicans are threatening to defund the DOJ and not abolish the DOJ.

    The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority on setting the budget. They are not required by any provision in the Constitution to give any branch of government or any of it's agencies any money.
     
    Congress cannot abolish the court. That is true.

    Congress can set their budget to zero. That is also true.

    That's the exact reason that the Republicans are threatening to defund the DOJ and not abolish the DOJ.

    The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority on setting the budget. They are not required by any provision in the Constitution to give any branch of government or any of it's agencies any money.
    I think Congress doing that would be effectively abolishing the Court and ultimately would lead to an impasse and the Court would likely declare the attempt unconstitutional. There's no precedent for defunding the Court that I'm aware of.

    Their only real options are to impeach and replace or expand the court.
     
    I think Congress doing that would be effectively abolishing the Court and ultimately would lead to an impasse and the Court would likely declare the attempt unconstitutional. There's no precedent for defunding the Court that I'm aware of.

    Their only real options are to impeach and replace or expand the court.
    I could see trump getting rid of the last of the judges that way impeach them and replace them with more lackeys.
     
    I could see trump getting rid of the last of the judges that way impeach them and replace them with more lackeys.
    Never would have imagined it, but him doing that would definitely lead to a constitutional crisis and I don't know what Congress would actually do in that situation. One would hope the Constitution prevails...but who knows?
     
    I think Congress doing that would be effectively abolishing the Court and ultimately would lead to an impasse and the Court would likely declare the attempt unconstitutional.
    The Supreme Court has established and reaffirmed the precedence that Congress can attach conditions on the money it spends and can withhold those funds if the recipient refuses to agree to those conditions.

    "Congress has used that power to pursue broad policy objectives, including objectives that it could not achieve legislating under its other enumerated powers. Under the usual framework, Congress offers federal funds in exchange for a recipient agreeing to honor conditions that accompany the funds. This offer and acceptance, the Court has said, is what lends Spending Clause legislation its legitimacy."

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom