Clarence Thomas corruption

[Shadowy Man]

I'm thinking maybe we need to up the pay scale for SCOTUS justices and make gifts and grift illegal.

I'm thinking that with their salaries already at $274,200/yr, you could reasonably skip the first part of that.

Indeed, gifts and grift should be illegal for all judges, in all courts and jurisdictions, regardless of how much they are earning.

Look, if buying off legislators were more reliable the billionaires wouldn’t have to buy the judges, too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm thinking maybe we need to up the pay scale for SCOTUS justices and make gifts and grift illegal.

I'm thinking that with their salaries already at $274,200/yr, you could reasonably skip the first part of that.

DC is EXPENSIVE. Probably about what a doctor makes elsewhere. Not poor, but it isn't a huge sum either.

Indeed, gifts and grift should be illegal for all judges, in all courts and jurisdictions, regardless of how much they are earning.

This is America. Bribery is free speech and is protected with more fervor than a woman's right to her body.

 

[marc]

Latest on this. It appears while Thomas was saying these trips were just friends getting together to hang out, Crow was writing the trips off as a business expence.

Harlan Crow Wrote Off His Yacht Trips With Clarence Thomas

Now we know why GOPers oppose giving the IRS money to audit the super wealthy.

crooksandliars.com

 

[Gospel]

Any possibility that this will contribute to removing Uncle Ruckus from the Supreme Court?

 

[ZiprHead]

Any possibility that this will contribute to removing Uncle Ruckus from the Supreme Court?

Could only be done via impeachment, which will never happen with today's GQP.

 

[Copernicus]

Latest on this. It appears while Thomas was saying these trips were just friends getting together to hang out, Crow was writing the trips off as a business expence.

Harlan Crow Wrote Off His Yacht Trips With Clarence Thomas

Now we know why GOPers oppose giving the IRS money to audit the super wealthy.

crooksandliars.com

It's also worth reading the original PropPublica article that the Crooks&Liars article is based on. It gives more details on how the superwealthy get away with deducting personal recreational expenses on their tax returns as if they were legitimate business expenses. Crowe isn't the only one to do this, but his for-profitpleasure "business" does seem to involve suborning a Supreme Court Justice. By running the business at a loss, he doesn't pay taxes on profits and gets to write off his "charter" business on his taxes. Republicans will do anything they can to help this guy soak taxpayers, because he is one of their big sugar daddies.

How Harlan Crow Slashed his Tax Bill by Taking Clarence Thomas on Superyacht Cruises​

 

[Gospel]

I foresee that this tumult surrounding Clarence & Crow will merely be a tempest in a teapot, receiving fleeting attention, while the true crux of the issue—the elephant in the room—remains undiscussed. Tax laws that were originally crafted to stimulate investment, galvanize economic growth, and inspire philanthropy are being manipulated purely for profit. It's glaringly evident that the interpretation and application of laws undergo constant revision when they serve the underprivileged. Yet, when it comes to the affluent, the political response seems to be nothing more than "forget about the pressing issue at hand, and look over there! It's a hippo on roller skates?!"

 

[Gospel]

FYI - Neither issue is a tempest in a teapot to me.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Tax laws that were originally crafted to stimulate investment, galvanize economic growth, and inspire philanthropy are being manipulated purely for profit.

Do you really think that these were the original intents? Who writes the laws? And who pays those who write the laws? It's not clear to me that the laws were ever intended to be anything other than for profit. These intents you ascribe to the lawmakers seem to be "talking points" to try to sell the ideas to those who wouldn't benefit from the tax laws.

 

[Gospel]

Tax laws that were originally crafted to stimulate investment, galvanize economic growth, and inspire philanthropy are being manipulated purely for profit.

Do you really think that these were the original intents? Who writes the laws? And who pays those who write the laws? It's not clear to me that the laws were ever intended to be anything other than for profit. These intents you ascribe to the lawmakers seem to be "talking points" to try to sell the ideas to those who wouldn't benefit from the tax laws.

I'm aware that it was all a deception. My curiosity lies in discerning how much clearer things must become before Americans cease their disputes over hippos on roller skates.

 

[ZiprHead]

Supreme Court corruption gets a Senate spotlight

The Senate Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court ethics reform legislation Thursday, passing the bill in committee on a party-line vote. The legislation is bitterly opposed by Republicans ...

www.dailykos.com

The Senate Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court ethics reform legislation Thursday, passing the bill in committee on a party-line vote. The legislation is bitterly opposed by Republicans even though it simply requires the Supreme Court to abide by the same ethics restrictions that every other federal judge—and all elected officials—have to live by. Republicans on the panel were so worked up about this you’d have thought the committee was considering impeaching all of the conservative justices rather than saying that they should probably disclose when a super-wealthy friend takes them around the world for free on his luxury yacht.
Republicans threatened dozens of amendments, though they ended up offering only a handful. These ranged from Sen. Thomas Kennedy’s effort to make all the Democrats look like racists by inserting a passage that condemns racist language against Justice Clarence Thomas (and only Thomas) to Sen. John Cornyn’s amendment to allow all federal judges to carry firearms to protect themselves. They gave up after only having a handful considered, to the relief of everyone. The Republicans were predictably shrill in defending the indefensible and hypocritical and in doing so, proved that the court they’ve constructed is undeniably political.
The Republican senators defended the Supreme Court as “conservative” and derided the idea of making the court abide by the same ethics standards as everyone else, saying that would be “far left.” Their performance was as shameless as ever, particularly when it came to circling the wagons around Thomas. Their defense of Thomas was so impassioned that one could justifiably wonder if they were playing to an audience of one: Leonard Leo and his checkbook.

 

[lpetrich]

Nate Raymond on Twitter: "Justice Alito tells the @WSJ that Congress has no business policing SCOTUS. "I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it... No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period." (link)" / X
noting
Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court’s Plain-Spoken Defender - WSJ - "He has emerged as an important justice with a distinctive interpretive method that is pragmatic yet rooted in originalism and textualism."

How does he think that "checks and balances" are supposed to work? Also, Article III Section 2 states "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

 

[Gospel]

SCOTUS: You can't regulate us!
Congress: Writes legislation saying they can.

 

[lpetrich]

Leonard Leo: Conservative legal activist rebuffs Democratic request for information on fishing trip with Justice Samuel Alito | CNN Politics

In a scathing letter Tuesday to key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leo’s lawyer said the congressional inquiry “exceeds the limits placed by the Constitution on the Committee’s investigative authority” and is tainted by partisan politics. ProPublica first reported the trip, which Alito did not include on his financial disclosure forms.

“By selectively targeting Mr. Leo for investigation on a politically charged basis, while ignoring other potential sources of information on the asserted topic of interest who are similarly situated to Mr. Leo but have different political views that are more consistent with those of the Committee majority, your inquiry appears to be political retaliation against a private citizen in violation of the First Amendment,” the lawyer, David B. Rivkin Jr., wrote.

What a big baby.

 

[Gospel]

So, Mr. Leo's attorney is attempting to challenge a precedent established by the Supreme Court, which has affirmed on two occasions that Congress has the authority to conduct investigations, provided such investigations are pertinent to legislative functions? Sounds like he's wrestling with the wrong arm of the government.

 

[Elixir]

Leonard Leo: Conservative legal activist rebuffs Democratic request for information on fishing trip with Justice Samuel Alito | CNN Politics

In a scathing letter Tuesday to key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leo’s lawyer said the congressional inquiry “exceeds the limits placed by the Constitution on the Committee’s investigative authority” and is tainted by partisan politics. ProPublica first reported the trip, which Alito did not include on his financial disclosure forms.

“By selectively targeting Mr. Leo for investigation on a politically charged basis, while ignoring other potential sources of information on the asserted topic of interest who are similarly situated to Mr. Leo but have different political views that are more consistent with those of the Committee majority, your inquiry appears to be political retaliation against a private citizen in violation of the First Amendment,” the lawyer, David B. Rivkin Jr., wrote.

What a big baby.

Sounds like a fair point to me.
"Hey, your guys bribed him too!"
Shouldn't that make it all good?

 

[ZiprHead]

SCOTUS: You can't regulate us!
Congress: Writes legislation saying they can.

Which the SC then declares unconstitutional.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, Mr. Leo's attorney is attempting to challenge a precedent established by the Supreme Court, which has affirmed on two occasions that Congress has the authority to conduct investigations, provided such investigations are pertinent to legislative functions? Sounds like he's wrestling with the wrong arm of the government.

He should have spent more money buying Congresspeople, too, I guess.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "What a surprise, ..." / X

What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him.

Too bad!

Corruption and abuse of power must be stopped, no matter the source. In fact, the court should be *most* subject to scrutiny, bc it is unelected & life appointed.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Alito’s next opinion piece in the WSJ is about to be “I am a little king, actually. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say I’m not”" / X
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "And it’d be boosted by some billionaire who secretly thinks voting rights should only belong to landed gentry" / X

 

[Shadowy Man]

Maybe the other branches of government should just start ignoring Supreme Court opinions. It’s not like they have their own way to enforce their rulings.