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

 

[SFIDC3]

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:


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

Disgusting and wholly unacceptable.....

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is unveiling a long-awaited proposal for changes at the U.S. Supreme Court, calling on Congress to establish term limits and an ethics code for the court’s nine justices. He also is pressing lawmakers to ratify a constitutional amendment that would limit presidential immunity.

The White House on Monday detailed the contours of Biden’s court proposal, one that appears to have little chance of being approved by a closely divided Congress with just 99 days to go before Election Day.

Still, Democrats hope it will help to focus voters as they consider their choices in a tight election. The likely Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, has sought to frame her race against Republican former President Donald Trump as “a choice between freedom and chaos.”

The White House is looking to tap into the growing outrage among Democrats about the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, issuing opinions that overturned landmark decisions on abortion rights and federal regulatory powers that stood for decades.

Liberals also have expressed dismay over revelations about what they say are questionable relationships and decisions by some members of the conservative wing of the court that suggest their impartiality is compromised…….

Biden decries 'extremism' on Supreme Court, details plan for term limits, ethics code for justices

President Joe Biden decried “extremism” that he says has undermined public confidence in the the U.S.

apnews.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

So, a waste of time.

Making an effort to improve things is never a waste of time.

 

[Sendai]

Making an effort to improve things is never a waste of time.

It’s gonna take an amendment, so, waste of time.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s gonna take an amendment, so, waste of time.

Maybe you think trying to improve things is a waste of time, most of America and the world thinks time spent trying to improve things is time well spent, regardless of the outcome.

When you say "waste of time," I hear I don't want it to happen, so I hope they don't even try and I hope I can convince people it's not worth supporting the effort. You may not be saying that, but that's what I hear.

 

[MT15]

It’s gonna take an amendment, so, waste of time.

Every single amendment that has ever passed probably had people saying exactly this.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Every single amendment that has ever passed probably had people saying exactly this.

For sure everyone that opposed every amendment said the same thing.

 

[Sendai]

Every single amendment that has ever passed probably had people saying exactly this.

It’s a waste of time because of the current and long term intractable nature of the two parties in Congress.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s a waste of time because of the current and long term intractable nature of the two parties in Congress.

Everything changes.

 

[Lapaz]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is unveiling a long-awaited proposal for changes at the U.S. Supreme Court, calling on Congress to establish term limits and an ethics code for the court’s nine justices. He also is pressing lawmakers to ratify a constitutional amendment that would limit presidential immunity.

The White House on Monday detailed the contours of Biden’s court proposal, one that appears to have little chance of being approved by a closely divided Congress with just 99 days to go before Election Day.

Still, Democrats hope it will help to focus voters as they consider their choices in a tight election. The likely Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, has sought to frame her race against Republican former President Donald Trump as “a choice between freedom and chaos.”

The White House is looking to tap into the growing outrage among Democrats about the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, issuing opinions that overturned landmark decisions on abortion rights and federal regulatory powers that stood for decades.

Liberals also have expressed dismay over revelations about what they say are questionable relationships and decisions by some members of the conservative wing of the court that suggest their impartiality is compromised…….

Biden decries 'extremism' on Supreme Court, details plan for term limits, ethics code for justices

President Joe Biden decried “extremism” that he says has undermined public confidence in the the U.S.

apnews.com

I didn’t see details in the article, but I heard the plan for Thomas would be for him to become a senior member, but I think he wouldn’t be able to vote. While I would love Thomas to be gone, that kills any prospects for the amendment, and it isn’t necessary, since Thomas won’t be around that much longer anyway.

In general, I think these reforms are good. I would simply start the 18 year clock on the day the amendment is ratified. Within 18 years, all of the justices would be at least 70, which is a good retirement age.

The trickiest reform is enforcement of the ethics standards. I don’t think they should judge themselves, since that’s essentially status quo. I think using lower courts to rule has a conflict of interest, but the judicial disciplinary process we use for all judges is probably the best option.

 

[Huntn]

It’s gonna take an amendment, so, waste of time.

Yes, but it’s thought and the intent that can pay off in the long run.

 

[Lapaz]

Yes, but it’s thought and the intent that can pay off in the long run.

Exactly. Supreme Court reform is needed due to their ethical violations alone, but also to deal with the gamesmanship that McConnell played. Another reform that I would recommend is that once a president nominates someone for the Supreme Court, that person is required to be given a vote, even if another president is elected. That nominee would have to get a vote before the new president can nominate anyone. Future senate majority leaders will not hesitate to take a vote, because they could lose votes in the next election.

 

[MT15]

Well, you know the Biden reform proposals have merit by the faux outrage shown here.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Here is Biden’s op ed
=================

This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.

But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on July 1 to grant presidents broad immunity from prosecution for crimes they commit in office means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. The only limits will be those that are self-imposed by the person occupying the Oval Office.

If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power — like we saw on Jan. 6, 2021 — there may be no legal consequences.

And that’s only the beginning.

On top of dangerous and extreme decisions that overturn settled legal precedents — including Roe v. Wade — the court is mired in a crisis of ethics.

Scandals involving several justices have caused the public to question the court’s fairness and independence, which are essential to faithfully carrying out its mission of equal justice under the law.

For example, undisclosed gifts to justices from individuals with interests in cases before the court, as well as conflicts of interest connected with Jan. 6 insurrectionists, raise legitimate questions about the court’s impartiality.

I served as a U.S. senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.

What is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach.

That’s why — in the face of increasing threats to America’s democratic institutions — I am calling for three bold reforms to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.
First, I am calling for a constitutional amendment called the No One Is Above the Law Amendment.

It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office. I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

The court’s conservative majority decided July 1 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties — a decision that threw into doubt the Justice Department’s case against Republican former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Schumer, of New York, said that Congress has an obligation and the constitutional authority to check the Supreme Court on its decision.

”Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” he said.…….

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

 

[DaveXA]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

The court’s conservative majority decided July 1 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties — a decision that threw into doubt the Justice Department’s case against Republican former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Schumer, of New York, said that Congress has an obligation and the constitutional authority to check the Supreme Court on its decision.

”Given the dangerous and consequential implications of the court’s ruling, legislation would be the fastest and most efficient method to correcting the grave precedent the Trump ruling presented,” he said.…….

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

While I agree with the sentiment, I think SCOTUS will deem legislation like that unconstitutional because of the separation of powers. Not sure how they get around that.

 

[bird]

While I agree with the sentiment, I think SCOTUS will deem legislation like that unconstitutional because of the separation of powers. Not sure how they get around that.

The constitution needs to be changed. Btw, since they are subject to “good behavior” then perhaps congress can pass laws defining good behavior.

I am reading Tyranny of the Minority by Levitsky and Ziblatt. They discuss some of the issues we have with the SCOTUS as well as congress. They also compare constitutions of other democratic nations.

 

[LA - L.A.]

While I agree with the sentiment, I think SCOTUS will deem legislation like that unconstitutional because of the separation of powers. Not sure how they get around that.

The Constitution gives the legislative the right to make laws regarding criminal activity and punishment. I don't know of any part of the Constitution that explicitly states that a president is exempt from laws enacted by the legislative branch. Sure, the legislative branch can't make laws exclusively targeting the president, but they can clearly express in a law that applies to everyone that the president is not exempt. I don't see anything in the Constitution that explicitly forbids that.

The Supreme Court by saying that the president is immune from the laws Congress makes is actually violating the separation of powers by infringing on the power that the Constitution explicitly gives solely to Congress. No one who helped write the Constitution wanted anyone in any branch of government to be immune from the law. In fact, they all wanted just the opposite to avoid tyranny.