Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Upchurch]

During his presidency, Bill Clinton vacationed for free on Martha's Vineyard at the home of Richard Friedman a "dear friend of the Clintons," and "a major Democratic fundraiser". Cruising? Bill and Hill cruised with the Kennedys..

Did they disclose the gift, on their taxes or otherwise?

 

[JayUtah]

The Clintons are politicians. Clarence Thomas is a judge. Politicians are expected to be partisan. Judges are not. There is no equivalence here.

Clinton was a politician. Supreme Court justices base their power and claim to deserve to be held above reproach because of their wise neutrality.

I'm less incensed about politicians acting like politicians. The executive and legislative branches are even known in jurisprudential circles as the "political" branches because they wantonly and intentionally exist according to political principles. They are elected. They engage in electioneering. They wield and accept influence (hopefully in the form of persuasion and reason, but we often hope in vain). They do this brazenly and admittedly. As much as we complain about money in politics, at least we know it's there and we know it's politics. We expect people vying for elected office to have affiliations and alignments and to appeal to voters and donors with those same alignments.

But once they are elected, we apply restrictions to all of them regardless of political alignment, to prevent—or at least expose—potential emoluments. While not universally applied in the Constitution, the notion of mollifying elected leaders is at least touched (and frowned) upon. Yes, the Clintons and the Obamas went to Martha's Vineyard where they were wined and dined by wealthy Democrat supporters—largely in view of the public. Yes, the Bushes (multiple generations) were similarly wined and dined by Republican supporters in Texas and Florida, also in public. And insofar as we can enforce them, all these elected officials were subject to general requirements to disclose or decline the various perks offered to them. Even federal judges, who nevertheless have a lifetime appointment, are also required to disclose anything that might seem like an emolument, whether those offering them have cases pending before their courts or not.

This is not to say all these officials cannot receive gifts, or that in many cases they should not receive them. We simply require them to be made public knowledge, so that each citizen can draw his or her own conclusions about how those may be affecting their government. For elected officials, disclosure is intended to inform whether to vote again for them as candidates, or—if provided for—to recall or impeach them. But federal judges have lifetime appointments. Disclosure might inform impeachment, but is more effectively aimed at maintaining confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

What incenses me is the wanton hypocrisy from those on the Supreme Court. They engage in the very behavior that Congress forbids to lesser federal judges (and indeed all the rest of government) lest the judiciary lose respect. Then when we voice our disapproval, they act as if we've slain some sacred cow. How dare we question the holy doctrine of impartiality! How dare we insinuate they might fall victim to the same human weaknesses as other officials!

If they want to exempt themselves from the same rules that apply to all other judges and all other major offices of government, fine—just don't actually do the things those rules enjoin. Then they may still enjoy public approval. But when they exempt themselves, then actually do (in secret) all the things that no one else of commensurate stature is permitted to do, then—when exposed by others—whine that they aren't properly respected and are being treated unfairly, I simply can't see them as anything other than petty tyrants unworthy of respect or, frankly, their offices. If they can't make the natural connection between acting conscientiously and having their judgment respected, then they probably shouldn't be sitting in judgment upon others.

 

[Trebuchet]

One thing can, and eventually will, be done to break this volksgerichtshof's stranglehold on the application of injustice on your nation. All it will take is for one state governor to declare a ruling to be illegitimate and that would be ignored within their jurisdiction. What would Roberts do if Governor Newsom declared his next illegal ruling is to be ignored in California.

The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement in the final analysis.

It's far more likely that a Republican governor will declare that a previous decision by a liberal court doesn't apply and ignore it. At which point the current court will back him up.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

It's far more likely that a Republican governor will declare that a previous decision by a liberal court doesn't apply and ignore it. At which point the current court will back him up.

And then Joe Biden should do one of two things, a) cut all federal funding or b) send in the army until government is restored.

 

[Stacyhs]

For ******* christ sakes, do you think we DON'T think about what's necessary!? I am so sick and ******* tired of non-Americans like you lecturing us about our broken system and that we are at fault for not fixing it! WE CANNOT ******* FIX IT!!! PERIOD!!! The ******* "Founding Fathers" left us with a Constitution that is extremely difficult to amend! The Constitution cannot be amended if as few as 13 state legislatures decide they don't want to. As a result, the ******* Republican Party has this nation by the short hairs!

We know what we need to do:

• Institute national gun control.
  
• End gerrymandering.
  
• End the ability of the rich and powerful to buy politicians and their votes.
  
• Make our representatives dependent upon the common people, not the rich and powerful.
  
• Institute controls on freedom of speech similar to the European Union.
  
• Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and end the right-wing control of much of the media.
  
• End racism.
  
• End misogyny.
  
• End prejudice against LGBTQ people.
  
• Tax the rich to extent they should have been taxed for the last 40 years.
  
• Tax the churches.
  
• Enforce the restrictions on political activity by churches.
  
• End corporate giveaways and bailouts.
  
• Etc.
  
• Etc.
  
• Etc.

But none of this will happen, because the status quo suits a sizeable chunk of ******* moron voters who are gulled into voting Republican because of the fear of Crime, Blacks, Hispanics, Feminazis, Foreigners, Gays, Lesbians, Drag Queens, etc. etc. etc.!

So stop lecturing us! We know we're ****** up! Short of a civil war or widespread collapse of society, nothing is going to change it!

I share your frustration at being told by non-Americans that we need to 'fix' things like we don't know how screwed up the US is right now but have no idea how we can actually do that.

 

[dudalb]

And then Joe Biden should do one of two things, a) cut all federal funding or b) send in the army until government is restored.

You have never read the Constituion, have you?

 

[shemp]

I've been watching mid 90s CART races and candlepin bowling reruns from the 80s. I've finally lost it. I don't even like bowling but this fascinates me for some reason.


The YouTube algorithm is scary.

You're kidding, right? I assume you're watching Candlepin Bowling hosted by Don Gillis on Boston's WCVB Channel 5? I loved that show! I watched that since I was a little kid until the day it was cancelled in 1996. I was shocked when it was cancelled, and I still haven't forgiven the owners of the station. That was must-watch TV all over New England.

 

[Stacyhs]

Restricting free speech.
Attempting the impossble by brnging back the Fairness doctrine in age of the Interenet, Satellite broadcasting and streaming.
Sceptical about taxing the Churches, since I thin, given the OP hatred of religio,he wants to close them down.
Things like "endind racism" without giving any idea of how we do that.
Sounds pretty authoratarin to me.

I also think this whole "We are doomed and nothing we can do about it"attitude helps nobody but the right wing nutjobs.
This is a serous situation, and posturing just because it looks cool on the Internet does not help matters.

There is nothing authoritarian about any of those.

Other than getting into a bloody civil war, what do you suggest we do? Give me concrete examples.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

You have never read the Constituion, have you?

More than one POTUS has withheld funding to get states in line.

 

[Stacyhs]

During his presidency, Bill Clinton vacationed for free on Martha's Vineyard at the home of Richard Friedman a "dear friend of the Clintons," and "a major Democratic fundraiser". Cruising? Bill and Hill cruised with the Kennedys.



I certainly hope Ted was just the host, not the driver.

The Clintons are politicians. Clarence Thomas is a judge. Politicians are expected to be partisan. Judges are not. There is no equivalence here.

I agree. Brainster's examples are not equivalent to Thomas' actions.

 

[dudalb]

There is nothing authoritarian about any of those.

Other than getting into a bloody civil war, what do you suggest we do? Give me concrete examples.

We just have to disagree. I think shutting down somebody right to speech because you might not like it is very authoratarian.

 

[dudalb]

More than one POTUS has withheld funding to get states in line.

Yes, but the sending in federal troops is a bit much.
Point is that the idea of a state defying a supreme court ruling is pretty dangerous. People always forget things change and YOUR side might be on the receiving side in a few years.

 

[kookbreaker]

During his presidency, Bill Clinton vacationed for free on Martha's Vineyard at the home of Richard Friedman a "dear friend of the Clintons," and "a major Democratic fundraiser". Cruising? Bill and Hill cruised with the Kennedys.



I certainly hope Ted was just the host, not the driver.

Mmmmm, that's a mighty fine mug of whataboutism you've pulled there.

 

[Stacyhs]

We just have to disagree. I think shutting down somebody right to speech because you might not like it is very authoratarian.

He's not saying to shut down the right to free speech when he says "Institute controls on freedom of speech similar to the European Union." We already have some restrictions to some speech.

 

[bruto]

I agree. Brainster's examples are not equivalent to Thomas' actions.

I note, with irony meter bouncing against the pins, that the article cited has a sub-headline suggesting these presidential vacations were "SECRET," while the article is peppered with glossy newsy photos taken at the time, noting for example that the picture of Obama riding helmetless was seen around the world, and resulted in a storm of controversy. Oh, and there's Clinton secretly singing in the public square with Carly Simon. Yessirree, whatabout whatabout!

 

[Bob001]

He's not saying to shut down the right to free speech when he says "Institute controls on freedom of speech similar to the European Union." We already have some restrictions to some speech.

People in the U.S. can sue civilly for grounds like defamation and invasion of privacy, but the government can't treat speech as a crime except in the rarest of circumstances, like publishing military secrets or inciting a riot or making threats. In some countries, some speech by itself can be prosecuted. Holocaust deniers in Germany, for example, can go to prison for five years. I don't think that's a road Americans want to go down.

 

[quadraginta]

One thing can, and eventually will, be done to break this volksgerichtshof's stranglehold on the application of injustice on your nation. All it will take is for one state governor to declare a ruling to be illegitimate and that would be ignored within their jurisdiction. What would Roberts do if Governor Newsom declared his next illegal ruling is to be ignored in California.

The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement in the final analysis.

"How many divisions [have they] got?" (Paraphrase Joseph Stalin)

 

[Craig4]

One thing can, and eventually will, be done to break this volksgerichtshof's stranglehold on the application of injustice on your nation. All it will take is for one state governor to declare a ruling to be illegitimate and that would be ignored within their jurisdiction. What would Roberts do if Governor Newsom declared his next illegal ruling is to be ignored in California.

The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement in the final analysis.

I think the three West Coast states are ready to do that on guns. This is going to be one of those, "careful what you wish for" things.

 

[Tero]

Sounds like the OLD Onion. They sometimes still get it right.

The Onion: “Members of Congress are prohibited from accepting any lobbyist gift valued at over $50. The trip you took with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow was worth $500,000. Any comment?”

Clarence Thomas: “You can’t put a price tag on fun.”

https://www.theonion.com/exclusive-interview-with-clarence-thomas-1850309996

 

[Darat]

Sounds like the OLD Onion. They sometimes still get it right.

https://www.theonion.com/exclusive-interview-with-clarence-thomas-1850309996

My favourite is:

The Onion: “Don’t you think it’s unethical to accept gifts from political donors?”

Clarence Thomas: “Of course, which is why this wasn’t a gift, but payment for services rendered.”