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

 

[LA - L.A.]

Needs senate confirmation

Got a credible source for that or just saying unsupported things like usual? I searched for about 20 minutes and couldn't find anything definitive.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Not if it’s a Democratic Senate.

Thomas may not have a choice.

Depends on the composition of the Senate.

Roberts may not have a choice either.

 

[Sendai]

Got a credible source for that or just saying unsupported things like usual? I searched for about 20 minutes and couldn't find anything definitive.

Abe Fortas, William Rehnquist.

 

[Sendai]

Thomas may not have a choice.


Roberts may not have a choice either.

the choice is theirs.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Abe Fortas, William Rehnquist.

Thanks for narrowing my search. Adding sorely missing context and citations for everyone else.

SENATE, 65 TO 33, VOTES TO CONFIRM REHNQUIST AS 16TH CHIEF JUSTICE (Published 1986)

www.nytimes.com

Abe Fortas | Supreme Court Justice, Constitutional Lawyer

Abe Fortas was a lawyer and associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1965–69). Nominated to replace Earl Warren as chief justice by Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, Fortas became the first nominee for that post since 1795 to fail to win Senate approval. The following year he

www.britannica.com

So as it stands now, the practice is to have the Senate confirm the president nomination of a Supreme Court chief justice, even when the nominee is an already serving associate justice. I'm fully confident that the Heritage Foundation justices would throw that out of the same window they threw Roe v, Wade and Chevron out of, if Trump were president and a Democratically controlled Senate refused to confirm Trump's nomination. That's how the Heritage Foundation justices roll and nothing can stop them from doing it as long as they have majority control of the Supreme Court.

 

[LA - L.A.]

the choice is theirs.

They don't control everything, so they may not have a choice.

 

[Booker]

So as it stands now, the practice is to have the Senate confirm the president nomination of a Supreme Court chief justice, even when the nominee is an already serving associate justice. I'm fully confident that the Heritage Foundation justices would throw that out of the same window they threw Roe v, Wade and Chevron out of, if Trump were president and a Democratically controlled Senate refused to confirm Trump's nomination. That's how the Heritage Foundation justices roll and nothing can stop them from doing it as long as they have majority control of the Supreme Court.

Or it’d just be like Trump’s other appointments who couldn’t get confirmed, and there would be an “Acting” Chief Justice.

 

[DaveXA]

Not if it’s a Democratic Senate.

Maybe, but he's gonna retire, die or be forced to step down sooner or later. He's currently the oldest SCOTUS Justice. My money is on the next 4 years.

Depends on the composition of the Senate.

I don't think it's going to matter.

 

[Sendai]

Maybe, but he's gonna retire, die or be forced to step down sooner or later. He's currently the oldest SCOTUS Justice. My money is on the next 4 years.

I don't think it's going to matter.

Alito and Thomas will be like RBG and go to mid 80’s, especially if their likely replacement would not be an “Originalist”.

 

[Optimus Prime]

guess this can go here
===============

For most of American history, free speech did not exist in the United States.

Dissidents were commonly thrown in prison, often for many years, when the government disagreed with their views.

Near the end of World War I, the great union leader Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for giving a speech opposing the draft, and his conviction was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court.

In 1951, as Sen. Joseph McCarthy was ramping up his witch hunts against suspected communists, the Supreme Court blessed his and similar efforts by upholding the convictions of several individuals who did nothing more than try to organize a (wildly unsuccessful) Communist Party in the United States.

This suppression of free expression wasn’t restricted to unpopular political ideas. Under the federal Comstock Act — which made it a crime to mail any “thing” for “any indecent or immoral purpose” — and similar state laws, anti-sex crusaders prosecuted authors, artists, booksellers, and art gallery owners alike for distributing pretty much anything that touched on the topic of sex.

Anthony Comstock, the Comstock Act’s namesake, once successfully brought charges against a gallery owner for selling a reproduction of Alexandre Cabanel’s “The Birth of Venus,” a masterpiece of nude painting that currently hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

All of that is to say the kind of First Amendment freedoms that most Americans take for granted, and especially freedom of speech and the press, aren’t as baked into the law as one might think — and are actually quite fragile.

The Supreme Court didn’t meaningfully enforce that amendment until the 1960s, when it handed down a pair of decisions protecting political agitators and guaranteeing freedom of the press. And the protections enshrined in those decisions could easily disappear overnight if the Court loses its current, pro-free speech majority.

The good news for proponents of free speech is that, based on the Court’s most recent First Amendment decisions, it does appear to have a 6-3 majority in favor of preserving the post-1960s understanding of that amendment.

The bad news is that there are three justices willing to drastically shrink the protections offered by that amendment. And those three could easily swell to five if former President Donald Trump gets to appoint more justices to the Court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one member of the Court’s pro-free speech majority, is now 70. Chief Justice John Roberts, another member of that majority, will turn 70 shortly after the next president is inaugurated. And there’s always some risk that any justice could experience a catastrophic health event that forces them off the Court.

At the Court’s right flank stand two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who have openly called for New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the fount of press freedom in the United States, to be overruled. Trump also called for Sullivan to be overruled in a 2022 court filing.

Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito, in a pair of opinions joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, spent the last two years unsuccessfully fighting in favor of laws that seem designed to challenge the modern understanding of free speech.

These two cases, known as Netchoice v. Paxton (2022) and Moody v. Netchoice (2024), concerned Texas and Florida laws that would essentially allow the Republican governments of those states to seize control of content moderation at major social media outlets like Facebook or YouTube.............

The First Amendment is in grave danger if Trump wins

Three Supreme Court justices want to drastically roll back the First Amendment. Trump could make it five.

www.vox.com

https://platform.vox.com/wp-content...t_2.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0,0,100,100

 

[Optimus Prime]

Ginni Thomas, the far-right activist wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, has thanked a religious liberties group for its efforts to block reforms of the court aimed at reining in the justices’ ethical breaches, including those of her husband.

A new recording obtained by the investigative website ProPublica and the watchdog Documented discloses a July email in which Ginni Thomas thanked First Liberty Institute for fighting to oppose supreme court reforms.

She specifically referred to White House proposals from Joe Biden designed to rein in wayward justices on the country’s highest court, of which her husband is the prime example.

“I cannot adequately express enough appreciation for you guys pulling into reacting to the Biden effort on the supreme court. Many were so depressed by the lack of response by R[epublican]s and conservatives,” she said.

Writing in all caps, she added: “YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY JUDGES. CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.”

The email was read out by the head of First Liberty Institute, Kelly Shackelford, on a 31 July call with donors to the group. He said the email had been written by Ginni Thomas that same day.

Two days previously, Biden had called for sweeping changes to the court, including term limits for the nine justices and a code of ethics that would be enforced by an outside body. Under current arrangements, the justices are liable to a voluntary code which they individually police themselves.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, the US president explained why he thought a tougher code of ethics was now necessary. He pointed to “scandals involving several justices” that had damaged public confidence in the court, including “undisclosed gifts to justices” and “conflicts of interest connected with Jan 6 insurrectionists”...........

Clarence Thomas’s wife thanks group for efforts to block court ethics reforms

Ginni Thomas writes ‘thank you so, so, so much’ to group for fighting effort to rein in wayward supreme court justices

www.theguardian.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

Ginni Thomas, the far-right activist wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, has thanked a religious liberties group for its efforts to block reforms of the court aimed at reining in the justices’ ethical breaches, including those of her husband.

this really tells you wnats wrong with relign these days. toss ethics out for your own goals.

 

[DaveXA]

Ginni Thomas, the far-right activist wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, has thanked a religious liberties group for its efforts to block reforms of the court aimed at reining in the justices’ ethical breaches, including those of her husband.

A new recording obtained by the investigative website ProPublica and the watchdog Documented discloses a July email in which Ginni Thomas thanked First Liberty Institute for fighting to oppose supreme court reforms.

She specifically referred to White House proposals from Joe Biden designed to rein in wayward justices on the country’s highest court, of which her husband is the prime example.

“I cannot adequately express enough appreciation for you guys pulling into reacting to the Biden effort on the supreme court. Many were so depressed by the lack of response by R[epublican]s and conservatives,” she said.

Writing in all caps, she added: “YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY JUDGES. CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.”

The email was read out by the head of First Liberty Institute, Kelly Shackelford, on a 31 July call with donors to the group. He said the email had been written by Ginni Thomas that same day.

Two days previously, Biden had called for sweeping changes to the court, including term limits for the nine justices and a code of ethics that would be enforced by an outside body. Under current arrangements, the justices are liable to a voluntary code which they individually police themselves.

In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, the US president explained why he thought a tougher code of ethics was now necessary. He pointed to “scandals involving several justices” that had damaged public confidence in the court, including “undisclosed gifts to justices” and “conflicts of interest connected with Jan 6 insurrectionists”...........

Clarence Thomas’s wife thanks group for efforts to block court ethics reforms

Ginni Thomas writes ‘thank you so, so, so much’ to group for fighting effort to rein in wayward supreme court justices

www.theguardian.com

While I don't agree with her. What is the issue here? I mean, her position isn't surprising and it makes sense that she'd thank them.

 

[Optimus Prime]

While I don't agree with her. What is the issue here? I mean, her position isn't surprising and it makes sense that she'd thank them.

If the wife of a police chief publicly thanked a group for quashing an investigation into police brutality which the chief himself was accused of multiple times and also wrote:

“YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY COPS CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.”

That would be more than a little concerning

 

[DaveXA]

If the wife of a police chief publicly thanked a group for quashing an investigation into police brutality which the chief himself was accused of multiple times and also wrote:

“YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY COPS CAN I JUST TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.”

That would be more than a little concerning

It's gross, and essentially the same thing, but again, where's the surprise or crime done there? You'd expect an individual with that world view to applaud those you support or those who protect/support your spouse.

 

[MT15]

It's gross, and essentially the same thing, but again, where's the surprise or crime done there? You'd expect an individual with that world view to applaud those you support or those who protect/support your spouse.

Expected but not normalized. It should be shameful behavior.

 

[bird]

Alito and Thomas will be like RBG and go to mid 80’s, especially if their likely replacement would not be an “Originalist”.

Which doesn’t exist. The entire philosophy is flawed.

 

[bird]

guess this can go here
===============

For most of American history, free speech did not exist in the United States.

Dissidents were commonly thrown in prison, often for many years, when the government disagreed with their views.

Near the end of World War I, the great union leader Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for giving a speech opposing the draft, and his conviction was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court.

In 1951, as Sen. Joseph McCarthy was ramping up his witch hunts against suspected communists, the Supreme Court blessed his and similar efforts by upholding the convictions of several individuals who did nothing more than try to organize a (wildly unsuccessful) Communist Party in the United States.

This suppression of free expression wasn’t restricted to unpopular political ideas. Under the federal Comstock Act — which made it a crime to mail any “thing” for “any indecent or immoral purpose” — and similar state laws, anti-sex crusaders prosecuted authors, artists, booksellers, and art gallery owners alike for distributing pretty much anything that touched on the topic of sex.

Anthony Comstock, the Comstock Act’s namesake, once successfully brought charges against a gallery owner for selling a reproduction of Alexandre Cabanel’s “The Birth of Venus,” a masterpiece of nude painting that currently hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

All of that is to say the kind of First Amendment freedoms that most Americans take for granted, and especially freedom of speech and the press, aren’t as baked into the law as one might think — and are actually quite fragile.

The Supreme Court didn’t meaningfully enforce that amendment until the 1960s, when it handed down a pair of decisions protecting political agitators and guaranteeing freedom of the press. And the protections enshrined in those decisions could easily disappear overnight if the Court loses its current, pro-free speech majority.

The good news for proponents of free speech is that, based on the Court’s most recent First Amendment decisions, it does appear to have a 6-3 majority in favor of preserving the post-1960s understanding of that amendment.

The bad news is that there are three justices willing to drastically shrink the protections offered by that amendment. And those three could easily swell to five if former President Donald Trump gets to appoint more justices to the Court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one member of the Court’s pro-free speech majority, is now 70. Chief Justice John Roberts, another member of that majority, will turn 70 shortly after the next president is inaugurated. And there’s always some risk that any justice could experience a catastrophic health event that forces them off the Court.

At the Court’s right flank stand two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, who have openly called for New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the fount of press freedom in the United States, to be overruled. Trump also called for Sullivan to be overruled in a 2022 court filing.

Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito, in a pair of opinions joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, spent the last two years unsuccessfully fighting in favor of laws that seem designed to challenge the modern understanding of free speech.

These two cases, known as Netchoice v. Paxton (2022) and Moody v. Netchoice (2024), concerned Texas and Florida laws that would essentially allow the Republican governments of those states to seize control of content moderation at major social media outlets like Facebook or YouTube.............

The First Amendment is in grave danger if Trump wins

Three Supreme Court justices want to drastically roll back the First Amendment. Trump could make it five.

www.vox.com

https://platform.vox.com/wp-content...t_2.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0,0,100,100

Where is you know who when you need him over censorship? Oh, I forgot IOKIYAR.