• 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

"Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the court’s decision in Bruen, was the lone dissenter."

I guess Thomas is trying to out-crackpot Scalia. However, Justice Thomas had no problem in Bruen limiting the arms-bearing right to "law-abiding" citizens. (597 U. S. ____ [2022] at 5.) Only today does he trying to dismantle that. (602 U. S. ____ [2024] at 29.) Thomas is notorious for ignoring precedent, so I guess it's okay that he ignores his own precedent. The man is a menace.
 
I guess Thomas is trying to out-crackpot Scalia. However, Justice Thomas had no problem in Bruen limiting the arms-bearing right to "law-abiding" citizens. (597 U. S. ____ [2022] at 5.) Only today does he trying to dismantle that. (602 U. S. ____ [2024] at 29.) Thomas is notorious for ignoring precedent, so I guess it's okay that he ignores his own precedent. The man is a menace.

And bent.
 

The article notes what I've also heard from a number of commentators: the Court has used textualist pretexts to define increasingly narrowly over the years what constitutes corrupt influence. The sense of childlike wonder with which the majority approaches the topic of corruption is charming. It's down to this: I would basically have to walk into your office with a bag of money—dollar sign prominently emblazoned—and say, "Mr. Public Official, I state here that I will give you this giant bag of money if you give me the contract to build our new airport." Justice Kavanaugh warns that if we let the law have its undissected meaning, we won't be able to tell the difference between legitimate gifts from contractors to public officials, and a wink-wink-nudge-nudge bribe. :boggled:
 
Doubling down on Citizens United I see.

To be fair to the Judges, they are just being Originalists: the Founding Fathers expected the country to be run by and for wealthy landowners. We have fallen far from the original constitution to give the poor, non-whites and even females the vote.
The least we can do is reinstitute the primacy of Wealth in all things Government.
 
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) are requesting a special counsel be appointed to investigate Clarence Thomas:*

Democratic senators are calling for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated federal ethics and tax laws.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) cited extensive reporting that Thomas accepted millions of dollars in gifts, luxury travel, and other payments from billionaire benefactors like GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, some of whom may have had financial interests before the court, at least indirectly.

“We do not make this request lightly," said the joint statement. "The evidence assembled thus far plainly suggests that Justice Thomas has committed numerous willful violations of federal ethics and false-statement laws and raises significant questions about whether he and his wealthy benefactors have complied with their federal tax obligations. Presented with opportunities to resolve questions about his conduct, Justice Thomas has maintained a suspicious silence.”

“No government official should be above the law," they continued. "Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code. We therefore request that you appoint a Special Counsel authorized to investigate potential criminal violations by Justice Thomas under the disclosure, false statement, and tax laws; pursue leads of related criminal violations by donors, lenders, and intermediate corporate entities; and determine whether any such loans and gifts were provided pursuant to a coordinated enterprise or plan.”
 
Are they crazy? Fresh on the heels of declaring the president above the law this SC doesn't need any motivation to declare themselves above the law as well.
 
Julie A. Werner-Simon wrote, "For Justice Thomas to say that “colleagues and others in the judiciary” said it was okay to not provide information to the public about these gifts conflicts with the explicit words of the disclosure statute. In my over 30 years as a prosecutor, in those cases when a defendant took the stand, I cannot recall one where a jury bought the defense of 'my friends said it was okay to do'...The justices (who both espouse an originalist, literal view of the words of the constitution and statutes) know better than to blame the "bad advice” of unnamed colleagues, in Justice Thomas case, or a contorted interpretation of the word 'hospitality,' in Justice Alito’s case, for their misbehavior."
 

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