Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From you link:



7.5% of $250,000 = $8,750

$8,750 X 9 years= $78,750

$78,750 is not equal or greater than $250,000.

"Damn it Jim, I'm a lawyer not an accountant!"

Surely you don't expect a Supreme Court Justice to understand that level of mathematics?

 

[Mike!]

From you link:



7.5% of $250,000 = $8,750

$8,750 X 9 years= $78,750

$78,750 is not equal or greater than $250,000.

Ah, but you didn't account for depreciation. See, Thomas was out racking up the miles on, what's an already overpriced piece of luxury hardware which are notorious for losing value at an unprecedented rate already, and that didn't help one bit. Why, that old motor home probably isn't worth $50,000 today. So see, he's really lost money owning it, or I'll bet that's at least what he says now...

 

[Stacyhs]

Ah, but you didn't account for depreciation. See, Thomas was out racking up the miles on, what's an already overpriced piece of luxury hardware which are notorious for losing value at an unprecedented rate already, and that didn't help one bit. Why, that old motor home probably isn't worth $50,000 today. So see, he's really lost money owning it, or I'll bet that's at least what he says now...

Trumpanomics.

 

[JayUtah]

Newly released code of conduct subscribed to by the Justices of the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

No method of enforcement. No remedy or penalty for violation or misconduct. Even worse, the preamble smugly suggests this is what the Justices have been doing all along. It places blame for the Court's apparent lack of credibility squarely on "misunderstanding" by the public.

As pertains to the thread title, we're supposed to understand that all the coddling from billionaires up until now was always legal and properly reported. One of the things judges seem to love to do from the bench is vent their disapproval upon apparently unrepentant defendants. It seems they're hiding their mea culpas in this case under their robes.

 

[Stacyhs]

Newly released code of conduct subscribed to by the Justices of the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

No method of enforcement. No remedy or penalty for violation or misconduct. Even worse, the preamble smugly suggests this is what the Justices have been doing all along. It places blame for the Court's apparent lack of credibility squarely on "misunderstanding" by the public.

As pertains to the thread title, we're supposed to understand that all the coddling from billionaires up until now was always legal and properly reported. One of the things judges seem to love to do from the bench is vent their disapproval upon apparently unrepentant defendants. It seems they're hiding their mea culpas in this case under their robes.

Toothless tiger. Big surprise.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

"We pretend to do the bare minimum, so why are you still mad at us?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

What a bunch of "Teacher Punishes the Class Because One Kid Acts Up" / "Bothsidism" nonsense.

SCOTUS doesn't need a Code of Conduct. Clarence Thomas, Drunky McRapeFace, and Handmaiden do but the liberal members of the court don't have to sign a Page-13 (ha military reference) that they won't eat Tide Pods because the Republicans won't stop doing it.

 

[tyr_13]

"For some time, all Justices have agreed to comply with the statute governing financial disclosure, and the undersigned Members of the Court each individually reaffirm that commitment."

HA! For how long now? A week?

 

[Stacyhs]

Damage control is all that is. Toothless.

 

[ZiprHead]

Newly released code of conduct subscribed to by the Justices of the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

No method of enforcement. No remedy or penalty for violation or misconduct. Even worse, the preamble smugly suggests this is what the Justices have been doing all along. It places blame for the Court's apparent lack of credibility squarely on "misunderstanding" by the public.

As pertains to the thread title, we're supposed to understand that all the coddling from billionaires up until now was always legal and properly reported. One of the things judges seem to love to do from the bench is vent their disapproval upon apparently unrepentant defendants. It seems they're hiding their mea culpas in this case under their robes between their ass cheeks.

FTFY

 

[Darat]

"For some time, all Justices have agreed to comply with the statute governing financial disclosure, and the undersigned Members of the Court each individually reaffirm that commitment."

HA! For how long now? A week?

Seems even worse to me you don't "agree" to "comply" to a law!

 

[dirtywick]

these guys just aren't going to do the right thing unfortunately

 

[dirtywick]

by the way, what is clarence thomas credit score? get a loan from a bank you piece of **** liar

 

[JayUtah]

Seems even worse to me you don't "agree" to "comply" to a law!

It's a separation-of-powers issue. The Constitution limits the ways in which Congress can have power over the Supreme Court. But since the "inferior courts" under Art. III of the Constitution are established by Congress by statute rather than directly in the Constitution, Congress has statutory authority over all lesser U.S. judges and can hold them to the same code of ethics as other prominent government officers and employees. Those statutes can't be made to apply to the Supreme Court.

Besides, the statement of voluntary compliance is hogwash. Despite the Justices protests of confusion and innocence, ethics and compliance officers have assured us that any lesser judge or justice who had committed the same acts as Justice Thomas would have been disciplined up to and including removal from the bench.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are there any stories about the liberal justices doing the kinds of things that would violate the code of ethics? I mean, both sides do it, so there must be.

 

[Stacyhs]

Are there any stories about the liberal justices doing the kinds of things that would violate the code of ethics? I mean, both sides do it, so there must be.

This article discuss all the ethics controversies regarding the SC. Only one liberal Justice was mentioned, Sotomayor. The rest, and there are several, are connected to Thomas and his wife, Alito, Gorsuch, and Robert's wife.

An Associated Press report found Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff have “prodded” public institutions where the justice was speaking to buy copies of her books, giving the appearance of an ethical conflict as the liberal-leaning justice appeared to “forcefully [leverage] publicly sponsored travel to boost book sales.”

The AP’s reporting on Sotomayor was part of a broader investigation that found Supreme Court justices’ appearances at public colleges and universities routinely are used by schools to generate donations and often result in them mingling with donors who may have business before the court, as well as partisan politicians.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh, metaphorically, Sotomayor is engaged in parking illegally as compared to the Conservatives who are stealing cars.

 

[JayUtah]

Ahh, metaphorically, Sotomayor is engaged in parking illegally as compared to the Conservatives who are stealing cars.

In a manner of speaking, yes. It's hard to both-sides this in terms of magnitude of evident ethics violations. It's difficult to find largesse on the liberal side of the Court that matches that found so far on the conservative side. However, it's important to realize that a lesser federal judge would face discipline for doing what Justice Sotomayor has done. In the absolute sense, this is not acceptable behavior from a federal judge or justice, according to the rules of ethics.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I agree, all Justices need to be held accountable for their actions. Supreme Court Justices should be held to a higher standard than lower court Justices as well.

 

[Darat]

All the freebies you could shake a stick at and he still wanted more:

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

"Interviews and newly unearthed documents reveal that Thomas, facing financial strain, privately pushed for a higher salary and to allow Supreme Court justices to take speaking fees."

"In early January 2000, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was at a five-star beach resort in Sea Island, Georgia, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation, according to friends. He had recently started raising his young grandnephew, and Thomas’ wife was soliciting advice on how to handle the new expenses. The month before, the justice had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to buy a high-end RV.

...snip....


At the time, Thomas’ salary was $173,600, equivalent to over $300,000 today. But he was one of the least wealthy members of the court, and on multiple occasions in that period, he pushed for ways to make more money. In other private conversations, Thomas repeatedly talked about removing a ban on justices giving paid speeches.

Thomas’ efforts were described in records from the time obtained by ProPublica, including a confidential memo to Chief Justice William Rehnquist from a top judiciary official seeking guidance on what he termed a “delicate matter.”

...snip...

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