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

 

[Taurus]

Maybe it was always obvious that the whole thing was a sham.

Back in 2018, when Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and others accused then supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, the powerful testimony of Blasey Ford before the Senate judiciary committee briefly seemed like it might derail the nomination.

This was the height of #MeToo, remember: at the time, many women were coming forward with their own stories of sexual violence, and the accounts were numerous enough and had sufficient moral authority that powerful people felt it necessary to pretend that they cared.

Republican senators wanted to confirm Kavanaugh quickly: the judge, who was then seated on the DC circuit, would provide the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe v Wade, as well as supporting efforts to enshrine various other Republican policy agendas into law.

Women, however, were causing a scene: two cornered then Arizona senator Jeff Flake in an elevator and screamed at him that he should be ashamed of himself.

On a live stream of the altercation that went viral on social media, it looked like he was. All this made things somewhat awkward for the Republicans: they wanted to vote for Kavanaugh, but they wanted political cover to do so.

This is where the FBI came in.

The FBI was tasked with investigating the allegations against Kavanaugh. The idea, or so we were told, was that the bureau would be competent and impartial: that they would get to the bottom of this. Tips poured into the FBI hotline.

There were multiple allegations against Kavanaugh, and witnesses to his alleged misconduct with women – a seemingly unending number of former college classmates who had seen a drunken Kavanaugh pull his penis out at Yale and shove it into a freshman’s face, for instance – were calling in with what they felt was urgent information about the judge’s character.

They depicted him as a boorish, drunken, groping misogynist, a man without dignity or self-awareness, who was patently unfit for the office to which he had been nominated.

Their mistake, maybe, was in thinking that it would matter. The FBI wrapped up their “investigation” within a week. They never even interviewed Blasey Ford.

On Tuesday, the office of Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island senator, released a report confirming what many of us who observed this fracas at the time already knew: there was no real investigation into Kavanaugh’s conduct.

Instead, the FBI allowed itself to be used as a prop in a bit of political theater, orchestrated by the Trump administration, which was designed not to uncover the truth of the sexual violence allegations against Kavanaugh, but to bury it……..

The FBI conducted a sham investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. Surprised? | Moira Donegan

The bureau shamefully allowed itself to be used as a prop in political theater, orchestrated by the Trump administration

www.theguardian.com

This is my shocked face.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Maybe it was always obvious that the whole thing was a sham.

Back in 2018, when Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and others accused then supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, the powerful testimony of Blasey Ford before the Senate judiciary committee briefly seemed like it might derail the nomination.

This was the height of #MeToo, remember: at the time, many women were coming forward with their own stories of sexual violence, and the accounts were numerous enough and had sufficient moral authority that powerful people felt it necessary to pretend that they cared.

Republican senators wanted to confirm Kavanaugh quickly: the judge, who was then seated on the DC circuit, would provide the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe v Wade, as well as supporting efforts to enshrine various other Republican policy agendas into law.

Women, however, were causing a scene: two cornered then Arizona senator Jeff Flake in an elevator and screamed at him that he should be ashamed of himself.

On a live stream of the altercation that went viral on social media, it looked like he was. All this made things somewhat awkward for the Republicans: they wanted to vote for Kavanaugh, but they wanted political cover to do so.

This is where the FBI came in.

The FBI was tasked with investigating the allegations against Kavanaugh. The idea, or so we were told, was that the bureau would be competent and impartial: that they would get to the bottom of this. Tips poured into the FBI hotline.

There were multiple allegations against Kavanaugh, and witnesses to his alleged misconduct with women – a seemingly unending number of former college classmates who had seen a drunken Kavanaugh pull his penis out at Yale and shove it into a freshman’s face, for instance – were calling in with what they felt was urgent information about the judge’s character.

They depicted him as a boorish, drunken, groping misogynist, a man without dignity or self-awareness, who was patently unfit for the office to which he had been nominated.

Their mistake, maybe, was in thinking that it would matter. The FBI wrapped up their “investigation” within a week. They never even interviewed Blasey Ford.

On Tuesday, the office of Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island senator, released a report confirming what many of us who observed this fracas at the time already knew: there was no real investigation into Kavanaugh’s conduct.

Instead, the FBI allowed itself to be used as a prop in a bit of political theater, orchestrated by the Trump administration, which was designed not to uncover the truth of the sexual violence allegations against Kavanaugh, but to bury it……..

The FBI conducted a sham investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. Surprised? | Moira Donegan

The bureau shamefully allowed itself to be used as a prop in political theater, orchestrated by the Trump administration

www.theguardian.com

This is why Trump and Republicans keep whining that Biden and Democrats have weaponized the FBI. They are, yet again for the tredecillionth time, projecting their own bad, guilty behavior onto others.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A nearly two-year investigation by Democratic senators of supreme court ethics details more luxury travel by Justice Clarence Thomas and urges Congress to establish a way to enforce a new code of conduct.

Any movement on the issue appears unlikely as Republicans prepare to take control of the Senate in January, underscoring the hurdles in imposing restrictions on a separate branch of government even as public confidence in the court has fallen to record lows.

The 93-page report released on Saturday by the Democratic majority of the Senate judiciary committee found additional travel taken in 2021 by Thomas but not reported on his annual financial disclosure form: a private jet flight to New York’s Adirondacks in July and a jet and yacht trip to New York City sponsored by billionaire Harlan Crow in October, one of more than two dozen times detailed in the report that Thomas took luxury travel and gifts from wealthy benefactors.

The court adopted its first code of ethics in 2023, but it leaves compliance to each of the nine justices.


“The highest court in the land can’t have the lowest ethical standards,” the committee’s chair, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, said in a statement. He has long called for an enforceable code of ethics.

Republicans have said the investigation is a way to undermine the conservative majority court, and all the Republicans on the committee protested against the subpoenas authorized for Crow and others as part of the investigation. No Republicans signed on to the final report, and no formal report from them was expected.…….

New ethics inquiry details more trips by Clarence Thomas paid for by wealthy benefactors

Investigation by Senate Democrats found that Thomas accepted gifts and travel worth more than $4.75m since 1991

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lapaz]

A nearly two-year investigation by Democratic senators of supreme court ethics details more luxury travel by Justice Clarence Thomas and urges Congress to establish a way to enforce a new code of conduct.

Any movement on the issue appears unlikely as Republicans prepare to take control of the Senate in January, underscoring the hurdles in imposing restrictions on a separate branch of government even as public confidence in the court has fallen to record lows.

The 93-page report released on Saturday by the Democratic majority of the Senate judiciary committee found additional travel taken in 2021 by Thomas but not reported on his annual financial disclosure form: a private jet flight to New York’s Adirondacks in July and a jet and yacht trip to New York City sponsored by billionaire Harlan Crow in October, one of more than two dozen times detailed in the report that Thomas took luxury travel and gifts from wealthy benefactors.

The court adopted its first code of ethics in 2023, but it leaves compliance to each of the nine justices.


“The highest court in the land can’t have the lowest ethical standards,” the committee’s chair, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, said in a statement. He has long called for an enforceable code of ethics.

Republicans have said the investigation is a way to undermine the conservative majority court, and all the Republicans on the committee protested against the subpoenas authorized for Crow and others as part of the investigation. No Republicans signed on to the final report, and no formal report from them was expected.…….

New ethics inquiry details more trips by Clarence Thomas paid for by wealthy benefactors

Investigation by Senate Democrats found that Thomas accepted gifts and travel worth more than $4.75m since 1991

www.theguardian.com

I presume they investigated all of the justices. If so, then the ethics of the Republicans that objected to the investigation are messed up. The investigation was warranted by the many examples that had previously been discovered. It was sorely needed to highlight the lack of enforcement of ethical standards on the court. How could anyone that wants a fair court defend that continuing?

 

[Booker]

How could anyone that wants a fair court defend that continuing?

They don’t want a fair court, they want a right wing court.

 

[Sendai]

A nearly two-year investigation by Democratic senators of supreme court ethics details more luxury travel by Justice Clarence Thomas and urges Congress to establish a way to enforce a new code of conduct.

Any movement on the issue appears unlikely as Republicans prepare to take control of the Senate in January, underscoring the hurdles in imposing restrictions on a separate branch of government even as public confidence in the court has fallen to record lows.

The 93-page report released on Saturday by the Democratic majority of the Senate judiciary committee found additional travel taken in 2021 by Thomas but not reported on his annual financial disclosure form: a private jet flight to New York’s Adirondacks in July and a jet and yacht trip to New York City sponsored by billionaire Harlan Crow in October, one of more than two dozen times detailed in the report that Thomas took luxury travel and gifts from wealthy benefactors.

The court adopted its first code of ethics in 2023, but it leaves compliance to each of the nine justices.


“The highest court in the land can’t have the lowest ethical standards,” the committee’s chair, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, said in a statement. He has long called for an enforceable code of ethics.

Republicans have said the investigation is a way to undermine the conservative majority court, and all the Republicans on the committee protested against the subpoenas authorized for Crow and others as part of the investigation. No Republicans signed on to the final report, and no formal report from them was expected.…….

New ethics inquiry details more trips by Clarence Thomas paid for by wealthy benefactors

Investigation by Senate Democrats found that Thomas accepted gifts and travel worth more than $4.75m since 1991

www.theguardian.com

If they want an enforceable code of ethics then they are in need of a constitutional amendment.

 

[Texan1211]

If they want an enforceable code of ethics then they are in need of a constitutional amendment.

I wonder how many see the irony in asking what the majority has agreed is a corrupt institution or minimally agreed that there are many corrupt members of writing ethic rules for what many call another corrupt institution who may have the actual power to negate the law in this instance?

 

[Sendai]

I wonder how many see the irony in asking what the majority has agreed is a corrupt institution or minimally agreed that there are many corrupt members of writing ethic rules for what many call another corrupt institution who may have the actual power to negate the law in this instance?

Or the waste of two years doing an investigation that exposed that Supreme Court justices have rich friends. We already knew that.

 

[Lapaz]

Or the waste of two years doing an investigation that exposed that Supreme Court justices have rich friends. We already knew that.

Of course they have rich friends. That’s not the point. Having rich friends and being corrupt are different. Not reporting all of the ”bribes” is tax fraud if they didn’t pay taxes on those gifts. It could also be corrupt if they are ruling on cases that benefit their benefactors. Since some of the justices were hiding their gifts, the investigation was warranted. i don’t care which side does it. It needs to be rooted out.

 

[DaveXA]

If they want an enforceable code of ethics then they are in need of a constitutional amendment.

This is simply not true. An enforceable code of ethics doesn't need an amendment to be established. SCOTUS can set one up if they want and have the will to. It's not that hard.

Whether that actually happens? Probably not.

 

[SFIDC3]

Or the waste of two years doing an investigation that exposed that Supreme Court justices have rich friends. We already knew that.

This has to be one of the most brain dead posts I’ve ever read on this forum….The SC is fully able to establish an enforceable code of ethics but shockingly (not) they don’t want to…..because they want to keep the ability to accept “gifts” by their so-called “friends”……

No other court/judges in the land operate this way, the notion that it’s just ok/fine for the highest court in the country not to have at least a minimal code of ethics is laughable….

 

[Optimus Prime]

Beyond ethics involving gifts, etc, should simply be a common sense law that if someone you know personally is involved in a case you must recuse yourself, or even if someone you know personally has direct interest in the outcome

Your friend's company doesn't have a case in front of SCOTUS but your friend's company's biggest client does

 

[Sendai]

Of course they have rich friends. That’s not the point. Having rich friends and being corrupt are different. Not reporting all of the ”bribes” is tax fraud if they didn’t pay taxes on those gifts. It could also be corrupt if they are ruling on cases that benefit their benefactors. Since some of the justices were hiding their gifts, the investigation was warranted. i don’t care which side does it. It needs to be rooted out.

The recipients of gifts are not subject to income taxes on the gifts. So no tax fraud.

 

[Sendai]

This is simply not true. An enforceable code of ethics doesn't need an amendment to be established. SCOTUS can set one up if they want and have the will to. It's not that hard.

Whether that actually happens? Probably not.

The court can’t force a member to do anything. They can jointly agree. But can’t enforce. Per the constitution the house and senate have the authority to set rules for members. Constitution left that out per the Supreme Court.

 

[UriUT]

The recipients of gifts are not subject to income taxes on the gifts. So no tax fraud.

What is wrong with you guys? On the one hand, you jab biden for "subtle" corruption. Without proof. Worse, the house committee rigorously investigated and nothing came of it. His political enemies, no less. He had even challenged them to a public forum under their rules and they cower away. Give me a break. And with a straight face say this.

The court can’t force a member to do anything. They can jointly agree. But can’t enforce. Per the constitution the house and senate have the authority to set rules for members. Constitution left that out per the Supreme Court.

Then you defend it with this procedural crap.

Hypocrits. Is it wrong or not to receive gifts from someone related to the case in front of your bench? It's not a difficult question, especially for those who is suppose to be beyond repute.

 

[Sendai]

What is wrong with you guys? On the one hand, you jab biden for "subtle" corruption. Without proof. Worse, the house committee rigorously investigated and nothing came of it. His political enemies, no less. He had even challenged them to a public forum under their rules and they cower away. Give me a break. And with a straight face say this.


Then you defend it with this procedural crap.

Hypocrits. Is it wrong or not to receive gifts from someone related to the case in front of your bench? It's not a difficult question, especially for those who is suppose to be beyond repute.

It’s not procedural, it’s constitutional.

 

[UriUT]

It’s not procedural, it’s constitutional.

Setting your fundamental double standards aside. Please, do point specifically where in article 3, or precedence that denies congress this power?

"In good standings" imply some ability to judge a justice.

Edit. My mistake and apologies. I misread your post. Congress can simply pass a law. Or a scotus ethics rule that establish rules for “in good standing”.

 

[Sendai]

Setting your fundamental double standards aside. Please, do point specifically where in article 3, or precedence that denies congress this power?

"In good standings" imply some ability to judge a justice.

Edit. My mistake and apologies. I misread your post. Congress can simply pass a law. Or a scotus ethics rule that establish rules for “in good standing”.

The constitution enumerates the powers of congress. If it’s not enumerated they don’t have it. And they don’t have the enumerated power to pass a law regulating the Supreme Court’s members behavior. Their only recourse is impeachment.