• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

Darat said:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus

"Interviews and newly unearthed documents reveal that Thomas, facing financial strain..."
Click to expand...

This bears much greater emphasis. In my profession (high-stakes engineering), when your personal debt ratio rises above about 40%, you start to become a security risk. Like, literally. We start to talk about suspending people's security clearances. Why? Because financial strain creates a motive for espionage. The Bad Guys know how much I make and how much I owe to creditors. Those numbers relate to how desperate I might be to sell secrets. The reporting shows that Justice Thomas was in debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars relative to a $300,000 annual salary. If he were in my profession, that would be enough to have his security clearance suspended, effectively sidelining him.

But the larger issue is that debt makes you more susceptible to people who have money and want favors. Specifically, the quid pro quo element is considered more acute. "Gifts" like paying off Thomas' RV debt (something like $200,000) take on greater meaning when you understand how desperate Thomas was for debt relief. It's not just the "courtesy" of being treated to a lavish lifestyle, the effects of which can be swept under the carpet of, "It's just common in these circles and it doesn't meaning anything." Instead, the specter of, "Okay, Justice Thomas, now you owe me one," is much worse. This is a huge red flag to someone who presents himself as above the fray of influence peddling.

Imagine the indignity of one of your supreme court justices having to live hand to mouth on a paltry $300,000!
Click to expand...

Where to begin here?

There is enough biographical information out there on Justice Thomas to justify the observation that he has always longed for a luxurious lifestyle. Nothing blameworthy about that. But seeking it by endearing oneself to wealthy benefactors is incompatible with the social and governmental role of a judge. The fact that Justice Thomas seems to have acquired all those wealthy benefactors and enjoyed their gifts and bail-outs after becoming a Supreme Court justice is entirely blameworthy.

Sure, there's the wanton hubris of being unable to live on what many of us in the United States would consider quite a comfortable salary. But I want to make a different point. Occasionally I've had the unpleasant experience of hearing judges read out sentences for minor offenses in court, for crimes generally motivated by financial stress. No, people aren't out there looting and pilfering to live the high life. Quite a lot of them are trying to pay rent, or get baby formula or insulin, or do all the other things that America's wealth and income disparity have made necessary. These judges wag their fingers and cluck their tongues and lecture the proud new owners of a criminal record about personal and public responsibility. No matter how dire your straits, you should never stoop to unlawful or unethical activity in order to meet your obligations. Those admonishments ring hollow in the face of the irresponsible spending and unethical debt service from Justice Thomas.

And finally we have to lay bare the notion that Justice Thomas has been systematically relying on hand-outs and leg-ups his whole career while working to dismantle them for others. He gets debt relief from billionaires while millions of students remain saddled under predatory debt. He got to college through Affirmative Action, but then shut that door behind him.

Does that make him a bad person? No, not necessarily. Just a terrible judge in our nation's highest court.
 
"yeah he's a great guy, screws people over all the time"

that stuff is enough
 
For those of you who missed out on this excellent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver:
John Oliver discusses the Supreme Court, the ethically questionable gifts some of the justices receive, and an offer for Clarence Thomas that could ruin John’s life. Genuinely. You’ll see.
Supreme Court Ethics (Last Week Tonight on YouTube, Feb 22, 2024)
Click to expand...

I fear that even though John Oliver repeated his offer this week and several news outlets have already mentioned it, it may be an offer that Clarence Thomas can and probably will refuse, but he has still got two weeks before it expires.

Boeing, Gaza & Clarence Thomas: 1/3/24: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

John Oliver offers to pay Clarence Thomas $1m a year if he resigns from Supreme Court (The Guardian, Feb 19, 2024)
Clarence Thomas has 30 days to resign if he wants millions from John Oliver (The Washington Post, Feb 19, 2024)
Did John Oliver Break Law Offering Clarence Thomas $1M to Retire? (Newsweek, Feb 20, 2024)
John Oliver Offers Clarence Thomas a $2.4 Million RV to Resign (MSN.com, Mar 4, 2024)
John Oliver Wants to Give Clarence Thomas $1 Million a Year to Resign (Business Insider, Feb 19, 2024)
 
dann said:
For those of you who missed out on this excellent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver:


I fear that even though John Oliver repeated his offer this week and several news outlets have already mentioned it, it may be an offer that Clarence Thomas can and probably will refuse, but he has still got two weeks before it expires.

Boeing, Gaza & Clarence Thomas: 1/3/24: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

John Oliver offers to pay Clarence Thomas $1m a year if he resigns from Supreme Court (The Guardian, Feb 19, 2024)
Clarence Thomas has 30 days to resign if he wants millions from John Oliver (The Washington Post, Feb 19, 2024)
Did John Oliver Break Law Offering Clarence Thomas $1M to Retire? (Newsweek, Feb 20, 2024)
John Oliver Offers Clarence Thomas a $2.4 Million RV to Resign (MSN.com, Mar 4, 2024)
John Oliver Wants to Give Clarence Thomas $1 Million a Year to Resign (Business Insider, Feb 19, 2024)
Click to expand...

Hell, I'll change my name to Clarence Thomas and resign for that kind of money.
 
Congress: we are setting ethics rules for SC!
SC: You can't do that, we're are independent!
Congress: we can, show me in the constitution where.
SC: Your move.
Congress: we are going to terminate your salary.
SC: we'll just take bribes then! Naah naah naah!

Threads
1/Justices who love the rule of law have a duty to restore the reputation of the institution they serve in. Instead of fighting for their right to continue to party at Harlan Crow’s expense, Justices should be embracing measures to restore the Court’s integrity.

2/Given the failure of the Court to police its own, Congressional action to require an ethics code is needed. Yesterday Senate GOP blocked a vote to fast track a bill that would've done that. The Court will be on the ballot if we insist it must be. We all should.
3/Over the next few weeks as this term of court ends a number of extremely important cases like presidential immunity and abortion rights will be announced. While we focus on the opinions, we also need to keep in mind how important ethics reform is, the go hand in hand.
https://www.threads.net/@joyce_white_vance/post/C8JzU0Hp5WQ
 
It seems good old Clarence hitched free rides on a megadonor Harlan Crow's private plane more often than he declared, not to mention free vacations.

A Senate Judiciary Committee ethics investigation found Thursday that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose three private jet trips provided by GOP megadonor Harlan Crow—the latest scrutiny of Thomas after he recently amended a financial disclosure to include previously undisclosed vacations gifted to him by Crow.

The findings announced by the committee Thursday were collected through a subpoena for information from Crow and revealed Clarence did not disclose three domestic private jet trips from Crow between 2017 and 2021.
Subpoenaed documents also showed further private jet travel and an eight-day yacht excursion Thomas did not disclose in his 2019 financial disclosure amendment last week. Thomas’ financial disclosure amendment last week included the addition of two trips to the “reimbursement” section of the report; the trips involved flights to Bali and Crow’s private club in California, where Thomas’ food and lodging was covered by the donor.Gifts of transportation are legally required to be disclosed by Supreme Court justices, unlike food, lodging or entertainment received as personal hospitality.
Click to expand...

The controversies surrounding the justices come amid a push by Senate Democrats to introduce the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which would enshrine a code of conduct for Supreme Court justices. A Democratic push to pass the bill by unanimous consent was blocked yesterday by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Click to expand...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...sclosed-trips-from-gop-megadonor-harlan-crow/


I'm sure all these undisclosed freebies Clarence is receiving are just out of the goodness of Crow's heart.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
It seems good old Clarence hitched free rides on a megadonor Harlan Crow's private plane more often than he declared, not to mention free vacations.





https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...sclosed-trips-from-gop-megadonor-harlan-crow/


I'm sure all these undisclosed freebies Clarence is receiving are just out of the goodness of Crow's heart.
Click to expand...

The Judicial Conference ethics rules didn't require disclosure of "personal hospitality" until 2021. What's the controversy here? Other justices also accepted travel and hospitality and didn't have to report it.
 
Last edited:
esquel said:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted gifts worth millions of dollars over 20 years, analysis finds
The runners- up are Scalia and Alito, both a couple of decimal points lower.
Click to expand...

Apparently most of that haul is from hospitality at two places. CNBC's reporting is a bit misleading.

A Staggering Tally: Supreme Court Justices Accepted Hundreds of Gifts Worth Millions of Dollars

Ahead of tomorrow’s expected release of the justices’ financial disclosure reports, Fix the Court today is unveiling a list of the gifts the justices have received over the years, and the numbers are staggering: in the last two decades (Jan. 2004-Dec. 2023), the justices have accepted 344 gifts valued at $2,993,036.

If one includes another 101 gifts that Justice Thomas likely received over those 20 years — mostly comprising free trips to and free stays at Bohemian Grove and Topridge worth $1,787,684 — that number jumps to 445 gifts valued at $4,780,720.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
The Judicial Conference ethics rules didn't require disclosure of "personal hospitality" until 2021. What's the controversy here? Other justices also accepted travel and hospitality and didn't have to report it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's called the "personal hospitality loophole". Rather like the gun show loophole that let people sell guns without doing a background check. Using a friend's cabin by the lake for a weekend is one thing, but an all-expense trip to Bali from a major donor is quite another.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
Apparently most of that haul is from hospitality at two places. CNBC's reporting is a bit misleading.
Click to expand...

I guess it's better to be a kept woman for two clients rather than a cheaper prostitute with many clients? Is that the legal philosophy here?
 
Trausti said:
Apparently most of that haul is from hospitality at two places. CNBC's reporting is a bit misleading.

A Staggering Tally: Supreme Court Justices Accepted Hundreds of Gifts Worth Millions of Dollars
Click to expand...

And guess who's been raking in the high dollar gifts?

In 2016, Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t disclose transportation and lodging from various law schools, but she amended her records in 2021. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg amended her disclosure documents in 2017 to include a $4,500 opera costume.
Click to expand...

Verus:

In 2015, Justice Clarence Thomas reported receiving a bust of Frederick Douglass, which he valued at $6,484.12. It was the last of many gifts the justice disclosed from his billionaire friend Harlan Crow. But Crow’s favors to Thomas — such as private jet travel, luxury accommodations, large donations in his honor, favorable real estate transactions, and tuition payments — did not end in 2015. They continued for years without disclosure, according to reporting by ProPublica.
Click to expand...
Justice Thomas (missing 1991-1999 FDRs)

Listed a talk at “Culver Stockton College of Law” on his 2000 disclosure. There is, nor does there appear to ever have been, a Culver Stockton College of Law. There’s a Culver-Stockton College, though, about 150 miles northwest of St. Louis along the Mississippi River. It’s also unlikely that a school of this size would have its own private plane, and Thomas listed his transportation to and from the school as via “Private plane.”

Omitted the sources of his wife Ginni’s income for 20 years, including the Heritage Foundation, Hillsdale College in Michigan and Republican leadership in the House. Thomas filed amended reports on Jan. 24, 2011.

Per ProPublica, omitted a real estate transaction he entered into with Harlan Crow on Oct. 15, 2014, where he and his relatives sold three parcels of land, one of which included the house Thomas’ mother is still living in, for $133,363. Though Thomas may have had the mistaken belief that he needed not report the transaction since he lost money on the properties (per CNN, he put in “$50,000 to $70,000” into renovations and in the end received a $44,000 check for the sale), that’s not the case, as any transaction greater than $1,000 need be reported, whether a loss or gain for the filer.

Noted in his 2015 report that a universal life policy from Mutual of New York “was inadvertently omitted in prior reports.”

Omitted a “photo gift” he received from the University of Florida on Jan. 29, 2016. Depending on the quality of the photo, and if it was framed, it’s possible the gift cost more than the $375 gift-reporting threshold for 2016.

Omitted a roundtrip private plane flight from Dulles Airport in Virginia to New Haven, Conn., on Feb. 11, 2016. The flight does not appear to fall into any of the “personal hospitality” loopholes and should have been reported.

Omitted free “transportation, meals, and lodging” from the law schools at Creighton University (2017), University of Georgia (2018) and University of Kansas (2018). Filed amended 2017 in March 2020 and an amended 2018 report in April 2020.

Omitted the sale of three mutual funds from his 2017 report and noted the error in his 2018 report.

Initially misrepresented that he sold a life insurance policy in his 2018 report. He still owns the policy.

Omitted a roundtrip private plane flight from an unknown origin to Dallas on or around Jan. 4, 2018, to swear in a lower court judge. The flight does not appear to fall into any of the “personal hospitality” loopholes and should have been reported.

Has been misstating the name of the real estate holding company that his wife has a stake in; since 2006 Ginger Holdings, LLC, not “Ginger, LTD., Partnership,” as Thomas has written on reports from 2007 through 2021
Click to expand...
 
Oh c'mon. Thomas isn't getting free anything from anyone. He's paying for all of those vacations, homes and other goodies with decisions he's making in court cases.
 
It tells you everything that right-wingers don't give a **** about their Judges staying at Bohemian Grove.
The place that in right-wing circles is synonymous with Satan worship is no problem as long as you deliver White Nationalism.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Oh c'mon. Thomas isn't getting free anything from anyone. He's paying for all of those vacations, homes and other goodies with decisions he's making in court cases.
Click to expand...

Yeah he works damn hard for those sponsorship deals! Plus he has to put up with all this recent unpleasantness in the press, well at least until the SC can find a case to block such coverage.
 
Speaking of good ol' Clarence Thomas:

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that bars anyone subject to a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing a gun. By a vote of 8-1, the court ruled that the law does not violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment, which protects the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

"Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the court’s decision in Bruen, was the lone dissenter."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom