Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Stacyhs]

The excuses we hear from some of the Justices are so brazenly flimsy and self-serving. These are supposed to be our nation's best reasoners? Are they really so in love with their own purported acumen that they don't think we unwashed masses can spot the nonsense?

"Harlan Crowe has been my close friend for many years." Well, yes—since you were appointed to the Supreme Court! Do you think a billionaire is just going to single out some random poor Black lawyer from Bumblescum, GA upon whom to lavish gifts and attention? No, dummy, he's your "close friend" because he has money and you have power and that's the kind of friendships that exist at your level of influence. Or does he think the stripper is really in love with him?

"That seat would have been empty if I hadn't gone." Then let it be empty! The overriding concern is not whether a seat on a private plane goes to waste, but whether—by taking it as an undeclared gift—you create the impression of partiality. Take the seat, but pay for it or disclose it properly as a gift. The more insightful way to parse the sentence is, "The bribe would still have been on the table if I hadn't taken it."

"We're allowed to have friends." Of course you are. And I wish I had the caliber of friends that will fetch me in their private planes for a weekend in Paris. Don't we all? The question is why those are your friends.

These Justices want to (a) wield enormous unfettered power, (b) be coddled and pampered in a lavish lifestyle fueled by wealthy political operatives, and (c) be respected as impartial judges. It doesn't even cross their minds that being respected by others for how they wield enormous power comes at the expense of some of their freedom. Honor is given, not demanded. Wielding power honorably comes at the expense of other behaviors. A judge's position of power is a privilege; it comes at the expense of privileges less powerful people are still free to enjoy. A gentleman is regarded as a gentleman only if he behaves as one. A judge is regarded as impartial only when he behaves as such—and the required behavior isn't limited to the courtroom. These allegedly eminent thinkers don't realize what the rest of us know: that respect is created by their behavior, not demanded in spite of it.

Well said.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the REAL question is:

IF you are just good friends, why are you hiding that fact by not reporting the gifts?


The fact that Thomas and others did not report what they got is clear proof of a sense that what they are doing is wrong.
They are not trying to convince the US Public that they are not crooked, they are trying to convince themselves.

 

[dann]

Clarence Thomas's array of sugar daddies was right there in plain view for anyone that wanted to look, but until now nobody was. It's a real indictment of the US press.

No, no, they weren't. In one of the YouTube videos in post 248, one of the authors of the most recent ProPublica article describes the efforts it took to get the information. It came, for instance, from the people who transported Clarence Thomas, i.e. pilots or chauffeurs, and I think that an important part of the services offered by the companies those people work for is usually discretion! Think Eyes Wide Shut discretion (without the orgy, I assume ).

They had to find people who had worked for the billionaires (or the companies they hired) and thus had served Thomas. But one of the investigative journalists also said that one story led to the next.

He didn't mention it, but imagine the rumor mill and the consternation among such people, sometimes menial workers. Once the first story broke, some of those people may also have contacted the journalists themselves, helping them with information about all the other billionaires. It is not the first time that a story about a scandal leads to many more new stories.

From the first article (the Harley Crow one):

ProPublica uncovered the details of Thomas’ travel by drawing from flight records, internal documents distributed to Crow’s employees and interviews with dozens of people ranging from his superyacht’s staff to members of the secretive (!!!) Bohemian Club to an Indonesian scuba diving instructor.
Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire (ProPublica, April 6, 2023)

And as always, being a whistleblower isn't without risks. I hope that the journalists know what they are doing when they mention the "Indonesian scuba diving instructor". That's pretty specific and could lead to backlash.

I can imagine that the Clarence Thomas story may also lead to other stories about other examples of corruption when people start thinking: 'Hey, I experienced something similar when I was recently waiting tables at gala event and saw public servant XX in the company of billionaire YY.'
I heard a lot of interesting stories when I was a teacher at the Hotel and Restaurant School in Copenhagen back in the late 1980s . Waiters and receptionists at fancy hotels often know things about celebrities that those celebrities wouldn't want the rest of the world to hear about.

You can't blindfold pilots, waiters and receptionists like they do with the piano player in the Kubrick movie!

 

[KDLarsen]

Dobbs.

US politics have rested for a long time on the impartiality of the courts. It was okay if the GOP in congress got up to some shenanigans because SCOTUS could be relied on to strike out the more grossly unconstitutional bits. Even the clearly biased GOP members. Their ability to be fair and impartial when ruling had to be considered paramount. No one was willing to kick at that last remaining support just because of some blatant conflicts of interests that might become a problem. Or more accurately, the political forces that were willing were aligned with the corruption. Rest assured Sotomayor getting some kickbacks would have had Fox screaming bloody murder. Even appointing a drunken rapist was obviously a problem, but as long as they could rule impartially it wasn't a problem problem, right?

But with Dobbs and the other rulings making it apparent beyond doubt that justice has been well and truly purchased, whatever mechanism people had in mind to justify their complacency is finally gone. The court isn't impartial and hasn't been for a long time. Reporting all the ongoing corruption they've previously sat on might be too little too late, but it's a start.

I'd dare say Dobbs also made plain the fact that Thomas is now the defacto leader of the court's conservative wing.

Before the installation of Drunky McRapeface and the Stepford Smiler to the court, Thomas was basically known for the being the mute, token black conservative, who tended to be a crank about most things, but ultimately also in the minority most of the time. Post-Dobbs and 303 Creative, that is no longer the case, and it's clear he's at least the ideological leader of the court.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'd dare say Dobbs also made plain the fact that Thomas is now the defacto leader of the court's conservative wing.

Before the installation of Drunky McRapeface and the Stepford Smiler to the court, Thomas was basically known for the being the mute, token black conservative, who tended to be a crank about most things, but ultimately also in the minority most of the time. Post-Dobbs and 303 Creative, that is no longer the case, and it's clear he's at least the ideological leader of the court.

I don't think I agree. He's not the leader of anything, including his own household. The leader of the conservative wing is Alito.

 

[steenkh]

Do a group of people that small, all having been chosen for having the same views, need a leader?

 

[Darat]

Do a group of people that small, all having been chosen for having the same views, need a leader?

Their sponsors seem quite able to communicate their priorities as part of the sponsorship deals so yeah they don't need a leader.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Do a group of people that small, all having been chosen for having the same views, need a leader?

Whenever two or more nazis are in the same room there must be a leader, it's the führerprinzip in action. I'm actually surprised that part b of that iron law hasn't kicked in yet, and a few of them haven't been knifed in the back.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The excuses we hear from some of the Justices are so brazenly flimsy and self-serving. These are supposed to be our nation's best reasoners? Are they really so in love with their own purported acumen that they don't think we unwashed masses can spot the nonsense?

"Harlan Crowe has been my close friend for many years." Well, yes—since you were appointed to the Supreme Court! Do you think a billionaire is just going to single out some random poor Black lawyer from Bumblescum, GA upon whom to lavish gifts and attention? No, dummy, he's your "close friend" because he has money and you have power and that's the kind of friendships that exist at your level of influence. Or does he think the stripper is really in love with him?

"That seat would have been empty if I hadn't gone." Then let it be empty! The overriding concern is not whether a seat on a private plane goes to waste, but whether—by taking it as an undeclared gift—you create the impression of partiality. Take the seat, but pay for it or disclose it properly as a gift. The more insightful way to parse the sentence is, "The bribe would still have been on the table if I hadn't taken it."

"We're allowed to have friends." Of course you are. And I wish I had the caliber of friends that will fetch me in their private planes for a weekend in Paris. Don't we all? The question is why those are your friends.

These Justices want to (a) wield enormous unfettered power, (b) be coddled and pampered in a lavish lifestyle fueled by wealthy political operatives, and (c) be respected as impartial judges. It doesn't even cross their minds that being respected by others for how they wield enormous power comes at the expense of some of their freedom. Honor is given, not demanded. Wielding power honorably comes at the expense of other behaviors. A judge's position of power is a privilege; it comes at the expense of privileges less powerful people are still free to enjoy. A gentleman is regarded as a gentleman only if he behaves as one. A judge is regarded as impartial only when he behaves as such—and the required behavior isn't limited to the courtroom. These allegedly eminent thinkers don't realize what the rest of us know: that respect is created by their behavior, not demanded in spite of it.

Here, hear (with special extra triple Lindy credit for the stripper analogy)!

 

[dann]

Whenever two or more nazis are in the same room there must be a leader, it's the führerprinzip in action. I'm actually surprised that part b of that iron law hasn't kicked in yet, and a few of them haven't been knifed in the back.

Maybe not literally, but Trump has been knifing 'disloyal' people in the back figuratively since day one.
His major campaign promise is that he will be more relentless once reelected.
Individual SCOTUS justices don't that kind of power

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Maybe not literally, but Trump has been knifing 'disloyal' people in the back figuratively since day one.
His major campaign promise is that he will be more relentless once reelected.
Individual SCOTUS justices don't that kind of power

he's also willing to pull out the knife again at a moments' notice if he thinks it will help him, assuming that other people don't remember that he called their Das's assassins or their wives ugly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Back to Thomas:

While everyone is scouring SCOTUS decisions for evidence Thomas' vote was influenced by the bribes he received, is anyone looking to see if any of these billionaires profited by knowing what the SCOTUS would decide in advance?

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Maybe not literally, but Trump has been knifing 'disloyal' people in the back figuratively since day one.
His major campaign promise is that he will be more relentless once reelected.
Individual SCOTUS justices don't that kind of power

I was thinking more a case of the six Roland Freislers knifing each other.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Elliot Berke's rejoinder

AP News wrote, "Elliot Berke, a lawyer representing Thomas, issued a blistering statement defending the justice’s conduct and taking aim at his critics.

'The attacks on Justice Thomas are nothing less than ridiculous and dangerous, and they set a terrible precedent for political blood sport through federal ethics filings,' Berke said. 'Justice Thomas’s amended report answers — and utterly refutes— the charges trumped up in this partisan feeding frenzy.'"

I report, you decide.

 

[Stacyhs]

AP News wrote, "Elliot Berke, a lawyer representing Thomas, issued a blistering statement defending the justice’s conduct and taking aim at his critics.

'The attacks on Justice Thomas are nothing less than ridiculous and dangerous, and they set a terrible precedent for political blood sport through federal ethics filings,' Berke said. 'Justice Thomas’s amended report answers — and utterly refutes— the charges trumped up in this partisan feeding frenzy.'"

I report, you decide.

I pretty much disregard any comment coming from a lawyer outside the courtroom.

Interesting use of 'trumped up"!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Pounding the table I see.

 

[dirtywick]

he refutes the claims against him by amending the report to include the claims against him

 

[dirtywick]

i also think it's funny that he's basically saying he's a supreme court justice that didn't really understand the rules.

this is a ridiculous world

 

[thaiboxerken]

And Republicans are not willing to hold theses SCOTUS justices to account, simply because they are ruling in favor of Republican policies. I'm sure as soon as/if liberals become the majority of justices in the court, they'll be all about ethics reform. The difference is, I believe the Democrats will still be all about it as well and it'll get done.

 

[JayUtah]

he refutes the claims against him by amending the report to include the claims against him

And it's likely he will have to amend some of his previous disclosures.

Justice Thomas' excuse for all this is absurd on the level of dog-ate-my-homework. It's seriously that bad. He says his security detail advised him not to use commercial airlines because of threats to his safety following the Dobbs decision. You have to concede that anger was real, regardless of how you feel about the decision. So the reason is plausible and the advice is sound. But the rest doesn't follow.

First, it doesn't excuse all the private travel prior to Dobbs.

But then when a high-ranking federal employee is discouraged from using commercial airlines, there are a number of options available. First you have official air transportation by the Air Force out of Andrews AFB. That's generally limited to official-business travel. And for that reason there is a whole industry of private charter airlines who cater almost exclusively to government travel, both for official and personal business. These carriers have to meet the contractual standards that make it safe for government officials to use them: background checks, armed security, etc. There's a cost-sharing arrangement for personal use.

Even charitably granting that the private airplane of a powerful business leader is considered safe enough to transport a high-ranking government official for either personal or government business, the cost should be reimbursed. And if not reimbursed, then disclosed where required. None of Thomas' behavior is justified by his simply needing a safe mode of travel. You don't go from "Can't fly commercial" right to "My rich political donor friend will let me use his plane for free, but don't tell anyone!"

And his lawyer's statement is just shrill arrogance. This is in no way merely partisan harassment. It is crystal clear that any other federal official who shirked their disclosure requirements in this manner would face extremely harsh punishment. As you say, the accusations are not "refuted." Thomas' having to amend his filings is the evidence that the accusations were true.

i also think it's funny that he's basically saying he's a supreme court justice that didn't really understand the rules.

It's a slap in the face to any party who has ever been lectured from the bench or in an opinion on the need to scrupulously obey the law, or who has had an adverse outcome turn on a nuance of meaning in a contract or statute.

These people hold themselves out as the finest professionals in our land at determining what rules mean: so much so that no one else has the authority to disagree with them and make it stick. I say if the Justices are telling us the rules are ambiguous or confusing to them, then that's evidence that the Court needs clearer rules to follow, made by other people who understand them better and are empowered to enforce them. "We need no oversight," falls flat when they admit they lack their own guidance.