• 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

Suddenly said:
I think it was getting too much attention until then.

To be fair, modern oral arguments are mostly theatre in that it is mostly judges arguing with each other while using the lawyers as a prop.
Click to expand...
But if you already know you are going to cast the vote that was paid for, why bother asking any questions at all. :rolleyes:
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It's not Bribery, it's Perks.
Click to expand...


There was a Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic in which a father explained the difference between lobbying and bribery to his son.

"I am prepared to give you a dollar every time ice cream is served after a meal."
"Forget it! That's not lobbying, that's bribery."
"Okay, what if instead I give you a dollar every day just because I like you, but if you ever stop serving ice cream I stop giving you money."
"It's a deal!"
 
Really enjoying the right wing pundits writing increasingly unconvincing articles explaining why it's totally fine for a SCOTUS justice to have a sugar daddy.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Really enjoying the right wing pundits writing increasingly unconvincing articles explaining why it's totally fine for a SCOTUS justice to have a sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

It's the old "but Democrat ___fill in the blank_____ did it, too" routine. They tried the same thing when classified documents were found in Biden's office and home. I have to admit I enjoyed it immensely when more were found in Pence's home.
 
At the very least this is a clear case of Gift Tax evasion. In normal times when the USA still had integrity this would be a clear case of bribery.

We don't have to prove that Clarence Thomas made any favorable decisions due to the bribes.

Somebody clearly tried to bribe him and he willingly accepted the bribes.
 
Hercules56 said:
At the very least this is a clear case of Gift Tax evasion. In normal times when the USA still had integrity this would be a clear case of bribery.

We don't have to prove that Clarence Thomas made any favorable decisions due to the bribes.

Somebody clearly tried to bribe him and he willingly accepted the bribes.
Click to expand...

Even if there is no bribe per se, just the perception that there might be is all that should be necessary for this to be criminal.
 
I would accept if Thomas paid Crow back for everything he had Gini got over the decals decades.

The fact that he doesn't own enough to do that tells you the scope of the bribery.
 
Hercules56 said:
At the very least this is a clear case of Gift Tax evasion. In normal times when the USA still had integrity this would be a clear case of bribery.

We don't have to prove that Clarence Thomas made any favorable decisions due to the bribes.

Somebody clearly tried to bribe him and he willingly accepted the bribes.
Click to expand...

I doubt someone like Thomas actually needs a bribe to make favorable decisions. He seems to be a dyed-in-the-wool freak and would rule the way he does for free.

That said, I doubt he would be content to stay on the bench as long as he has on a public servant's salary. The money isn't to influence his court decisions, it's to keep him content to stay on the bench as long as possible as opposed to seeking more lucrative opportunities elsewhere.

A distinction without a difference though, it's straight up corruption plain as day.
 
The legal doctrine of what constitutes a bribe for criminal purposes has been vastly narrowed in recent years. In order to be convicted of giving or receiving a bribe, you pretty much have to walk into an official's office with a bag full of money (with the proverbial dollar sign on it) and say, "I'm giving you this bag of money, and in return I expect you to abuse your official powers in this exact way," and then the official actually has to do that one specific thing you ask for.

There's no concept of the briber having certain obvious political or social aims, and the official acting preferentially in ways that serve those aims generally without addressing any overt, specific matter pertaining to the briber. But even certain rather obvious quid pro quo scenarios such as contributing a sum to an elected leader who then does such personally beneficial things as arranging meetings and hosting events at government venues on behalf of the briber are now legal.

And the author of this legal doctrine? The United States Supreme Court (e.g. McDonnell v. United States).
 
JayUtah said:
The legal doctrine of what constitutes a bribe for criminal purposes has been vastly narrowed in recent years. In order to be convicted of giving or receiving a bribe, you pretty much have to walk into an official's office with a bag full of money (with the proverbial dollar sign on it) and say, "I'm giving you this bag of money, and in return I expect you to abuse your official powers in this exact way," and then the official actually has to do that one specific thing you ask for.

There's no concept of the briber having certain obvious political or social aims, and the official acting preferentially in ways that serve those aims generally without addressing any overt, specific matter pertaining to the briber. But even certain rather obvious quid pro quo scenarios such as contributing a sum to an elected leader who then does such personally beneficial things as arranging meetings and hosting events at government venues on behalf of the briber are now legal.

And the author of this legal doctrine? The United States Supreme Court (e.g. McDonnell v. United States).
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's time to revisit this legal precedent, you know, like they did with Roe vs Wade. :mad:
 
Benefit to Crow besides just a couple of votes Thomas would have made anyway: Crow gets to bend Thomas' ear for weeks at a time and Thomas comes back with those talking points to influence the rest of the conservative Justices.
 
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