Supreme Court Corruption (Formerly Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire) (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[Sendai]

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.

The “Necessary and Proper” clause of the constitution requires that Congress properly execute and fund that which is defined, I.e. the Supreme Court, the Presidency, etc,, by the constitution.

 

[Sendai]

As MT15 pointed out it's not a question of just a gift or of just a forgiven loan.



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?

What laws?

 

[MT15]

What laws?

I posted the referral. It is exhaustively detailed and the specific statutes are in the footnotes.

 

[Sendai]

I posted the referral. It is exhaustively detailed and the specific statutes are in the footnotes.

“
As noted above, the statutory requirements in the Ethics in Government Act apply equally to Supreme Court justices and other federal judges. The justices, however, are not subject to the Judicial Conference’s interpretations of the ethics law — that is, the specific interpretations the Judicial Conference imposes on lower court judges do not apply to the Supreme Court.

The Judicial Conference makes this point in their guidelines (under Section 620.65):

All officers and employees of the judicial branch hold appointive positions. Title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C § 7351 and 7353) thus applies to all officers and employees of the judicial branch. However, the Judicial Conference has delegated its administrative and enforcement authority under the Act for officers and employees of the Supreme Court of the United States to the Chief Justice of the United States and for employees of the Federal Judicial Center to its Board. (Emphasis added.) ”

What Gifts Must Supreme Court Justices Disclose?

There are significant loopholes in the rules that apply to the high court.

www.brennancenter.org

“No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

That’s according to Justice Samuel Alito, one of the nine people in the country who have the final say on what the Constitution means, while the rest of us have to deal with the consequences. Alito uttered these words in an interview he gave to the Wall Street Journalpublished on Friday.

Alito Lays Groundwork to Scrap Court Financial Disclosure Rules

Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth responds to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s July 28 interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying his statements will encourage suits claiming the financial disclosure law is unconstitutional under separation of powers.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Simply doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court.

And the gifts aren’t taxable.

Garland, the constitutional scholar, knows these things.

 

[MT15]

“
As noted above, the statutory requirements in the Ethics in Government Act apply equally to Supreme Court justices and other federal judges. The justices, however, are not subject to the Judicial Conference’s interpretations of the ethics law — that is, the specific interpretations the Judicial Conference imposes on lower court judges do not apply to the Supreme Court.

The Judicial Conference makes this point in their guidelines (under Section 620.65):

All officers and employees of the judicial branch hold appointive positions. Title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C § 7351 and 7353) thus applies to all officers and employees of the judicial branch. However, the Judicial Conference has delegated its administrative and enforcement authority under the Act for officers and employees of the Supreme Court of the United States to the Chief Justice of the United States and for employees of the Federal Judicial Center to its Board. (Emphasis added.) ”

What Gifts Must Supreme Court Justices Disclose?

There are significant loopholes in the rules that apply to the high court.

www.brennancenter.org

“No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

That’s according to Justice Samuel Alito, one of the nine people in the country who have the final say on what the Constitution means, while the rest of us have to deal with the consequences. Alito uttered these words in an interview he gave to the Wall Street Journalpublished on Friday.

Alito Lays Groundwork to Scrap Court Financial Disclosure Rules

Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth responds to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s July 28 interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying his statements will encourage suits claiming the financial disclosure law is unconstitutional under separation of powers.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Simply doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court.

And the gifts aren’t taxable.

Garland, the constitutional scholar, knows these things.

Once again, you keep saying Congress doesn’t have the ability to regulate the Court, but we are not talking about Congress, we are talking about the DOJ. And we are not talking about the Supreme Court, really, we are talking about a rogue Justice. And it’s not the gifts that will get him, it’s the loan. And the Ethics violations.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What laws?

And just like I said you do, here you are pretending it wasn't already pointed out to you.

No worries, I know you'll keep doing it and I know no one is being fooled by you.

Everyone sees the truth, no matter how much you tried to hide it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The “Necessary and Proper” clause of the constitution requires that Congress properly execute and fund that which is defined...

Half truths from you again as expected.

The Constitution says and the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that Congress gets to decide what funding is proper and in the public good.

So yes, Congress has to properly fund, but only Congress gets to decide what is proper funding and Congress can attach conditions to that funding. They can tell the Supreme Court that to receive funding the Supreme Court has to implement and enforce a code of conduct.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times Congress can do that, so that's the current law of the land, including Constitutional law. I wouldn't put it pass the 6 corrupt justices on the Supreme Court to find a way to change the law of the land to serve their political agendas, because they've been doing a lot of that lately.

 

[DaveXA]

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."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-2-1/ALDE_00013356/

Yes, I understand that, but of course the Court would view that differently in terms of them executing their Constitutional duties. Congress' power of the purse isn't unlimited.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Yes, I understand that, but of course the Court would view that differently in terms of them executing their Constitutional duties. Congress' power of the purse isn't unlimited.

I agree this particular court absolutely would overturn that precedent for self serving reasons. If Congress were to do it and time it just right they could stop funding the Supreme Court when it's not hearing cases and everyone in the Supreme Court administration could be forced to all work for free to overturn the decision.

 

[DaveXA]

Once again, you keep saying Congress doesn’t have the ability to regulate the Court, but we are not talking about Congress, we are talking about the DOJ. And we are not talking about the Supreme Court, really, we are talking about a rogue Justice. And it’s not the gifts that will get him, it’s the loan. And the Ethics violations.

I don't think the DOJ has any authority to enforce ethics rules in regards to SCOTUS.

As for tax evasion or other tax crimes, the IRS would have to first investigate and if they conclude that a violator needs to be prosecuted, only then will they refer the investigation. To the DOJ for prosecution. I'm not sure what their findings are and I don't know whether they have completed any formal investigation of Thomas and whether they've referred it for further action.

The IRS will often try to settle with those they investigate, via back taxes and penalties before prosecuting, and I imagine Thomas would want to resolve that before it got that far. Seems to me he would have attorneys and accountants dealing with that, but I don't know the details as I haven't followed the story all that closely.

 

[DaveXA]

I agree this particular court absolutely would overturn that precedent for self serving reasons. If Congress were to do it and time it just right they could stop funding the Supreme Court when it's not hearing cases and everyone in the Supreme Court administration could be forced to all work for free to overturn the decision.

I guess we'll see. We'll cross that bridge when the time comes.

 

[MT15]

I don't think the DOJ has any authority to enforce ethics rules in regards to SCOTUS.

Evidently Whitehouse does.

Are they rules? Because he seemed to me to be citing laws in his referral. I would assume Whitehouse would know if the DOJ could take action or not, he really doesn’t seem like the type to grandstand like some in the Senate. And his re-election isn’t in doubt I don’t think.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I guess we'll see. We'll cross that bridge when the time comes.

I'm not saying Congress will do it. I'm just showing that Congress has the authority to do it.

 

[DaveXA]

Evidently Whitehouse does.

Are they rules? Because he seemed to me to be citing laws in his referral. I would assume Whitehouse would know if the DOJ could take action or not, he really doesn’t seem like the type to grandstand like some in the Senate. And his re-election isn’t in doubt I don’t think.

I think he's wrong then. But we'll see. What's ethical and what's legal and what's ethical are 2 different things, even if they do overlap at times. I haven't read his referral yet, so he may have a valid argument. I'll take a look soon and see what his basis is for the referral.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Justice Department probe of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas could uncover whether the justice knowingly and willfully filed false financial disclosure statements or failed to pay taxes on luxury gifts — despite Attorney General Merrick Garland's likely lack of political will to launch an investigation months before the November election, legal experts told Salon.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., earlier this week asked Garland to appoint a special counsel to determine whether Thomas violated several laws in his failure to disclose a forgiven loan and gifts he received from wealthy benefactors.

The Senate Finance Committee found that Thomas failed to disclose a forgiven loan of $267,230 that he used to purchase a luxury motorcoach.

"The question is, when you look at this, is there at least a reason to suspect that there was intentional failure to disclose gifts that the Justice was obligated to disclose?" Fordham School of Law professor Bruce Green said. "There's obviously, you know, not a basis to indict him. There's a basis to investigate."

Thomas's attorney — who told senators that "the terms of the agreement were satisfied" when asked about the forgiven loan — and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Green said he expects Garland will at least take Sens. Whitehouse and Wyden's request seriously.

"But my guess is that at the end of the day, that Attorney General Garland will not appoint a special counsel to investigate before the election," Green said. "We're very close to an election where the Justice Department has been accused already of weaponizing criminal prosecution."

Green said even if Garland launched an investigation now, it's highly unlikely it would be completed before the election.

And if Trump wins, he'd likely shutter any probe...............

Experts: DOJ has "sufficient evidence" to probe Clarence Thomas

DOJ could uncover false statements and tax issues flagged by senators but AG seems to lack the will, professors say.

www.salon.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

The corruption allegations against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are only getting worse after a review discovered last week that the RV-loving, yacht-riding, jet-setting judge did not recuse himself from a 2004 health insurance case despite a clear conflict of interest.

In 1999, Thomas took a $267,230 loan from health insurance executive Anthony Welters to buy a motor coach, a term he will defend more vehemently than the well-being of the nation’s populace. Welters was CEO of AmeriChoice when he gave Thomas the loan. The executive claims it was just money given to a friend… who happened to serve on the Supreme Court when they met. The HMO would be acquired by UnitedHealth in 2002, where he remained an executive. While Justice Thomas recused himself from two cases involving UnitedHealth, Rolling Stone found that not only he participated in a case but he also wrote the court’s unanimous decision.

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, the 2004 case in question, confirmed that insurers couldn’t be held liable for malpractice when the health plan denies life-saving or medically necessary treatment. While UnitedHealth wasn’t a named party in the case, the decision had massive ramifications for the entire healthcare industry. Coincidentally, Welters extended Thomas’ loan by a decade in 2004, and it was eventually forgiven in 2008. Rolling Stone spoke with one of the lawyers from the case:

George Parker Young was the lawyer for the patients in Aetna Health. After the decision, he says, he stopped handling cases suing health insurers on behalf of patients and doctors. “I just got out of it,” he says. “It had been 100 percent of my cases, and I wound up that docket.”
Young notes the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, and his clients may well have lost 8-0 if Thomas had recused himself in the case — instead of authoring the opinion.
“What I won’t do … is say, ‘Oh my gosh, if Justice Thomas had recused, I would have won that case.’ I can’t say that, and that would be disingenuous for me to say that,” he says. But looking back now at the RV loan provided by Welters, Young says, “It does stink.”
He says if he knew about the loan during the case, “I would have moved to recuse,” adding that “there’s no question this case was going to impact all national HMOs that did any kind of employer-based health care.”

The outcome might not have shifted but the gravity of cases deliberated before the Supreme Court requires the most stringent impartiality possible. In the 2004 decision, Thomas wrote that denied patients should just pay out of pocket for their life-saving care. To hold that opinion, Justice Thomas either views $267,000 as an inconsequential amount of money or he was swayed by the lavish gifts sent by corporate interests. Either way, the judge is far more out of touch with the average American despite his love for cross-country road trips.............

MSN

 

[Optimus Prime]

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to make substantive changes to the high court.

The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.

Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out — I don’t want to prematurely announce it — but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court. … I’ve been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help,” Biden said, according to a transcript of the call obtained by The Washington Post.


Term limits and an ethics code would be subject to congressional approval, which would face long odds in the Republican-controlled House and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate.

Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require 60 votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles, including two-thirds support of both chambers, or by a convention of two-thirds of the states, and then approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-reforms/

 

[Sendai]

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to make substantive changes to the high court.

The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.

Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out — I don’t want to prematurely announce it — but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court. … I’ve been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help,” Biden said, according to a transcript of the call obtained by The Washington Post.


Term limits and an ethics code would be subject to congressional approval, which would face long odds in the Republican-controlled House and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate.

Under current rules, passage in the Senate would require 60 votes. A constitutional amendment requires even more hurdles, including two-thirds support of both chambers, or by a convention of two-thirds of the states, and then approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-reforms/

So, a waste of time.