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

Users who are viewing this thread

    cuddlemonkey

    Well-known monkey
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    4,134
    Reaction score
    4,871
    Offline
    It seems that a billionaire GOP donor has spent a small fortune on vacations for Ginni and Clarence Thomas.

     
    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.
     
    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?
     
    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.) ”


    “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.


    Simply doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court.

    And the gifts aren’t taxable.

    Garland, the constitutional scholar, knows these things.
     

    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.) ”


    “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.


    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.
     
    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.
     
    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."

    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.
     
    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.
     
    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.
     
    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.
     
    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.
     
    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.
     

    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