Bought and paid for

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think House Dems need to call for an impeachment. Yeah, I know the Republicans would block it but it would be another demonstration of how corrupt the Republicans are.

If he was being bribed to rule a certain way, yes absolutely. But he isn't being bribed to change his rulings. He is being bribed to keep the seat warm.

Is bribery not a crime anymore, or at least a huge ethical violation?

As it is compensation for his employment, it should be taxed. I get taxed on a cell phone stipend! He needs to be paying taxes on his employment benefits.

 

[RVonse]

The fucker is corrupt as shit,

I thought you were talking about Nancy Pelosi for a brief moment. The only difference I see between her and Thomas is that there are actually insider trading laws she should get charged for, but (so far as I'm aware) supreme justices can take all the shit they want. Legally.

So spare me all this liberal media drama and the big pony show over how corrupt Thomas is (which he no doubt is).

Clean up Pelosi first if you want to have some credibility. Her corruption is actually unlawful and starring everyone in the face.

You have been asked before and you have yet to demonstrate any insider trading done by Pelosi. Please do so now or drop the derail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/01/congress-stock-trading-trackers-pelosi/

About 500k more results on google as well.

And this isn't a derail. Pelosi is by far more damaging to the majority of middle class America than Thomas could hope to be. That is because stock trading is a zero game which means when she gains her unfair profits, those profits by definition have to be coming from someones elses 401k balance. Pelosi knows even before some CEO's which companies will be affected by new laws from congress. It is about as unfair as you can get that she hits the trough like a pig in advance before anyone else knows what is going to happen.

So at least when Thomas takes a nice cruise vacation it is someone else who is paying for it. It may be corrupt as hell.....but at least its not coming out of MY retirement 401k investments.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Doesn’t that assume that conservative rulings ban the e Supreme Court don’t impact the country in a way that diminishes the value of your stock portfolio? It may be harder to trace but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Presumably, the billionaires are paying for his trips because somewhere else it is saving them even more money that could have benefited you and others in society. Why else would they spend so much on this one guy? Just good friends as Thomas claims?

 

[Ford]

So at least when Thomas takes a nice cruise vacation it is someone else who is paying for it. It may be corrupt as hell.....but at least its not coming out of MY retirement 401k investments.

Time for the "that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works" meme.

You seriously believe that your 401k is worth less because ONE person made money trading stock with a bit of inside information? Then you should be absolutely furious at the CEOs for taking massive pay packages that include enough in stocks to make Nancy Pelosi's accountant faint. Or maybe you really do think there's a line item in your 401k that says something like "deduction for Nancy Pelosi" and the number is so massive you won't be able to retire. "I'm sorry, honey, but we'll have to put off buying that house on the lake, because Nancy Pelosi took all the money out of my 401k."

And if you wanna talk about hurting middle class Americans, why not talk about the obscene profit-taking that happens at the expense of those people?: When a company lays off 10,000 workers, cuts benefits for the remaining ones, spends millions fighting whatever unionization efforts might be underway, and as a result the CEO gets a bonus so big he can buy TWO new private jets.

No, American middle class. The real fault for all your troubles doesn't lie there. It lies with wicked Nancy "I "Trigger More Right Wingers Than George Soros" Pelosi.

Meanwhile, little old Clarence just joins in on a small decision to overturn 50 years of precedent and strip the rights of half the population, leading to women bleeding out in an ER because....reasons.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I’m sure that designing and building private jets are decent paying jobs. Why take those away from the public?

 

[thebeave]

I think House Dems need to call for an impeachment. Yeah, I know the Republicans would block it but it would be another demonstration of how corrupt the Republicans are.

An impeachment of who? And what's the charge?

Thomas, of course. For ethics violations and accepting bribes.

Are you pretty sure that other justices, especially ones you like, would not get swept up in the same ethics violations that CT is guilty of?

I haven't been following (very closely anyway) the other thread (or news) about CT and his corruption, but is the bribery charge a pretty clear cut quid pro quo or does it just kind of "feel" wrong at this point?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think House Dems need to call for an impeachment. Yeah, I know the Republicans would block it but it would be another demonstration of how corrupt the Republicans are.

An impeachment of who? And what's the charge?

Thomas, of course. For ethics violations and accepting bribes.

Are you pretty sure that other justices, especially ones you like, would not get swept up in the same ethics violations that CT is guilty of?

Why should they matter? If judges we like are violating judicial ethics or taking bribes then they should be investigated too.

 

[Ford]

I think House Dems need to call for an impeachment. Yeah, I know the Republicans would block it but it would be another demonstration of how corrupt the Republicans are.

An impeachment of who? And what's the charge?

Thomas, of course. For ethics violations and accepting bribes.

Are you pretty sure that other justices, especially ones you like, would not get swept up in the same ethics violations that CT is guilty of?

I haven't been following (very closely anyway) the other thread (or news) about CT and his corruption, but is the bribery charge a pretty clear cut quid pro quo or does it just kind of "feel" wrong at this point?

Second question first, the answer is not...really...maybe? It does not appear that Clarence's pet billionaire - wait, no...scrub that...Clarence is the pet - took the Justice out for a lavish vacation shortly before an issue near and dear to his bank account came before the Court. It is not clear-cut, but rather the appearance of impropriety that's at work here. A government employee, who is well-paid by comparison to most others, is nonetheless living well beyond his means thanks to the "generosity" of not just one, but several very wealthy and powerful people.

I have a very, very hard time believing that these billionaires fly Clarence out to their private islands and buy him million-dollar RVs because he's just that much of an amazing guy to hang out with. Very wealthy people tend to be very transactional. I have a friend who is in the nine-figure net worth club, and you are either his friend, or his employee, or you're in business with him. There is no in between, and he NEVER gives out money unless he gets something in return. As our mutual friend said "Dave didn't get rich by being nice to everybody."

As to your first question? If it turned out that Ketanji Brown Jackson was being flown around the world, wined and dined by liberal billionaires, given lavish gifts by the likes of Bill Gates or George Soros, dragged her feet about admitting to accepting such largesse, and flatly refused to recuse herself on a case related to something that her husband had made a large part of his political identity? If Elena Kagan had a stable of Lamborghini's given to her by Tom Steyer and when questioned about it said "oh, we're just old friends who share a love of Italian exotic cars?"

Yeah, I'd be just as concerned about the appearance of impropriety. And then some.

 

[thebeave]

I think House Dems need to call for an impeachment. Yeah, I know the Republicans would block it but it would be another demonstration of how corrupt the Republicans are.

An impeachment of who? And what's the charge?

Thomas, of course. For ethics violations and accepting bribes.

Are you pretty sure that other justices, especially ones you like, would not get swept up in the same ethics violations that CT is guilty of?

I haven't been following (very closely anyway) the other thread (or news) about CT and his corruption, but is the bribery charge a pretty clear cut quid pro quo or does it just kind of "feel" wrong at this point?

Second question first, the answer is not...really...maybe? It does not appear that Clarence's pet billionaire - wait, no...scrub that...Clarence is the pet - took the Justice out for a lavish vacation shortly before an issue near and dear to his bank account came before the Court. It is not clear-cut, but rather the appearance of impropriety that's at work here. A government employee, who is well-paid by comparison to most others, is nonetheless living well beyond his means thanks to the "generosity" of not just one, but several very wealthy and powerful people.

I have a very, very hard time believing that these billionaires fly Clarence out to their private islands and buy him million-dollar RVs because he's just that much of an amazing guy to hang out with. Very wealthy people tend to be very transactional. I have a friend who is in the nine-figure net worth club, and you are either his friend, or his employee, or you're in business with him. There is no in between, and he NEVER gives out money unless he gets something in return. As our mutual friend said "Dave didn't get rich by being nice to everybody."

As to your first question? If it turned out that Ketanji Brown Jackson was being flown around the world, wined and dined by liberal billionaires, given lavish gifts by the likes of Bill Gates or George Soros, dragged her feet about admitting to accepting such largesse, and flatly refused to recuse herself on a case related to something that her husband had made a large part of his political identity? If Elena Kagan had a stable of Lamborghini's given to her by Tom Steyer and when questioned about it said "oh, we're just old friends who share a love of Italian exotic cars?"

Yeah, I'd be just as concerned about the appearance of impropriety. And then some.

Well, KBJ was gifted four concert tickets from a liberal billionaire (Beyonce) so there's that. Not a big deal to me at all (or anyone I would think), but if its, strictly speaking, an ethics violation for a SCJ to accept gifts from a billionaire, then she has a problem, no? Unless there is some cap on gifts, which I don't think there is now, but maybe someone can clarify.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well, KBJ was gifted four concert tickets from a liberal billionaire (Beyonce) so there's that.

Did she conveniently forget to disclose that?

Not a big deal to me at all (or anyone I would think), but if its, strictly speaking, an ethics violation for a SCJ to accept gifts from a billionaire, then she has a problem, no?

Define “problem”.

Unless there is some cap on gifts, which I don't think there is now, but maybe someone can clarify.

I guess we would have to look at the exact judicial ethics rules.

But I am guessing that a reasonable set of rules would be able to distinguish between a set of concert tickets that a justice discloses and a half million dollar vacation in Bali that a justice doesn’t disclose.

 

[Ford]

I think House Dems need to call for an impeachment. Yeah, I know the Republicans would block it but it would be another demonstration of how corrupt the Republicans are.

An impeachment of who? And what's the charge?

Thomas, of course. For ethics violations and accepting bribes.

Are you pretty sure that other justices, especially ones you like, would not get swept up in the same ethics violations that CT is guilty of?

I haven't been following (very closely anyway) the other thread (or news) about CT and his corruption, but is the bribery charge a pretty clear cut quid pro quo or does it just kind of "feel" wrong at this point?

Second question first, the answer is not...really...maybe? It does not appear that Clarence's pet billionaire - wait, no...scrub that...Clarence is the pet - took the Justice out for a lavish vacation shortly before an issue near and dear to his bank account came before the Court. It is not clear-cut, but rather the appearance of impropriety that's at work here. A government employee, who is well-paid by comparison to most others, is nonetheless living well beyond his means thanks to the "generosity" of not just one, but several very wealthy and powerful people.

I have a very, very hard time believing that these billionaires fly Clarence out to their private islands and buy him million-dollar RVs because he's just that much of an amazing guy to hang out with. Very wealthy people tend to be very transactional. I have a friend who is in the nine-figure net worth club, and you are either his friend, or his employee, or you're in business with him. There is no in between, and he NEVER gives out money unless he gets something in return. As our mutual friend said "Dave didn't get rich by being nice to everybody."

As to your first question? If it turned out that Ketanji Brown Jackson was being flown around the world, wined and dined by liberal billionaires, given lavish gifts by the likes of Bill Gates or George Soros, dragged her feet about admitting to accepting such largesse, and flatly refused to recuse herself on a case related to something that her husband had made a large part of his political identity? If Elena Kagan had a stable of Lamborghini's given to her by Tom Steyer and when questioned about it said "oh, we're just old friends who share a love of Italian exotic cars?"

Yeah, I'd be just as concerned about the appearance of impropriety. And then some.

Well, KBJ was gifted four concert tickets from a liberal billionaire (Beyonce) so there's that. Not a big deal to me at all (or anyone I would think), but if its, strictly speaking, an ethics violation for a SCJ to accept gifts from a billionaire, then she has a problem, no? Unless there is some cap on gifts, which I don't think there is now, but maybe someone can clarify.

I can't speak to the cap on gifts or any ethics rules of the Supreme Court, but I know a bit about free concert tickets. And free lunches/dinners from record labels. Free tickets to an NBA game or two. Hotels, airfare (coach) and then this one time when Disney basically paid for my little family to spend 3 days at Disneyland in California. I worked in the morning broadcasting live promoting the park, and the rest of the day was rides, a nice dinner, and a stay at the hotel.

With the notable exception of the aforementioned Disney trip, none of the "perks" I got approached the level of "okay, you need to declare this on your taxes," and in no case was I being compensated for something that would change the lives of Americans for a generation or more.

Actually, let me retract that earlier statement. I can speak on this stuff. If someone takes a Supreme Court Justice out to lunch, that's fine. If they get tickets to a concert or a sports ball game? Sure...whatever. A plane ticket in anything other than economy?

Yeah, you're gonna have to declare that on your taxes. A million dollar recreational vehicle? We need a full Congressional hearing to examine your ethics and your obligations to this person who has given you so much.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The fucker is corrupt as shit,

I thought you were talking about Nancy Pelosi for a brief moment. The only difference I see between her and Thomas is that there are actually insider trading laws she should get charged for, but (so far as I'm aware) supreme justices can take all the shit they want. Legally.

So spare me all this liberal media drama and the big pony show over how corrupt Thomas is (which he no doubt is).

Clean up Pelosi first if you want to have some credibility. Her corruption is actually unlawful and starring everyone in the face.

You have been asked before and you have yet to demonstrate any insider trading done by Pelosi. Please do so now or drop the derail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/01/congress-stock-trading-trackers-pelosi/

About 500k more results on google as well.

And this isn't a derail. Pelosi is by far more damaging to the majority of middle class America than Thomas could hope to be. That is because stock trading is a zero game which means when she gains her unfair profits, those profits by definition have to be coming from someones elses 401k balance. Pelosi knows even before some CEO's which companies will be affected by new laws from congress. It is about as unfair as you can get that she hits the trough like a pig in advance before anyone else knows what is going to happen.

So at least when Thomas takes a nice cruise vacation it is someone else who is paying for it. It may be corrupt as hell.....but at least its not coming out of MY retirement 401k investments.

RE: the bolded bit: this shows a misunderstanding of basic economics. The money that person pays doesn't come from thin air, the person got that money directly or indirectly from the general wealth of the nation. You yourself said it about zero sum games, their wealth comes from you and everyone else.
Also, as Shadowy Man said, if she gets a little wealthier it doesn't have a significant effect on the nation and its people, whereas decisions by Supreme Court justices affect everyone in USA, and often adversely, as they have recently.

 

[ZiprHead]

The fucker is corrupt as shit,

I thought you were talking about Nancy Pelosi for a brief moment. The only difference I see between her and Thomas is that there are actually insider trading laws she should get charged for, but (so far as I'm aware) supreme justices can take all the shit they want. Legally.

So spare me all this liberal media drama and the big pony show over how corrupt Thomas is (which he no doubt is).

Clean up Pelosi first if you want to have some credibility. Her corruption is actually unlawful and starring everyone in the face.

You have been asked before and you have yet to demonstrate any insider trading done by Pelosi. Please do so now or drop the derail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/01/congress-stock-trading-trackers-pelosi/

About 500k more results on google as well.

And this isn't a derail. Pelosi is by far more damaging to the majority of middle class America than Thomas could hope to be. That is because stock trading is a zero game which means when she gains her unfair profits, those profits by definition have to be coming from someones elses 401k balance. Pelosi knows even before some CEO's which companies will be affected by new laws from congress. It is about as unfair as you can get that she hits the trough like a pig in advance before anyone else knows what is going to happen.

So at least when Thomas takes a nice cruise vacation it is someone else who is paying for it. It may be corrupt as hell.....but at least its not coming out of MY retirement 401k investments.

That article does not show any insider trading on the part of Nancy Pelosi. It implies it but there are no concrete examples shown. What it does show is the huge distrust people have with congress.

Pelosi's husband is a professional investor. Of course he makes money from the stock market.

And you'll have to explain how one person making money from the stock market hurts someone else, especially more than the Supreme Court. You may have heard of a recent ruling by the court that took away a long standing right from half of Americans. Women will literally die from that ruling.

 

[laughing dog]

Fascinating. Nancy Pelosi’s alleged corruption is a smoke screen because even granting that the tenuous assumptions that her trading hurt middle class investors and that is an example of corruption, it is totally irrelevant to the appearance of buying of influence in yhe justice system. At best, it is a “whataboutism “.

The other “defense” from the conservative side is “everyone is doing it, so why pick on Slito snd Thomas” which ignores bith the scope and breadth of the gifts, as well as the damning fact that both justices’ apparent negligence and ignorance of their judicial ethics.

 

[Elixir]

why pick on Slito snd Thomas

I think you misspelled Slizo.

 

[Patooka]

So at least when Thomas takes a nice cruise vacation it is someone else who is paying for it. It may be corrupt as hell.....but at least its not coming out of MY retirement 401k investments.

RVonse, I've got a couple of questions for you;

1) Is this you?

I prefer that people have a choice in the form of government as well. But that's not at all how it works in the US at this point.....especially after citizens united, the US is unrecognizable to any kind of democracy today.

2( Is this you?

Changes to The Constitution. (in order of importance)​

1) No more lobbies, bribery, or money given to any politician with SEVERE penalties approaching those for treason acts. The federal government would equally distribute marketing time for the candidate advertisements. All based on popularity and NOT private and/or secret dark money.

2) Total size of the federal government linked to the productivity and size of the private economy. In no circumstance allow the federal government bigger than 50% of the total economy. During a serious downturn, federal employees would be laid off in proportion to the private economy. All federal employees would have a retirement systems identical to the average private wage earner. If the average private earner has no defined pension than neither will the average federal employees.

3) No more insider stock trading for the speaker of the house and/or other members of congress. Anyone caught corrupting themselves with private enrichment would be barred from federal office....forever.

4) Salaries of members of congress would be carefully linked to average compensation for the average private wage earner of the United States. Congress will NOT have the ability (as they do now) to increase their own salary. Other compensation such as social security and medical benefits would be exactly the same systems every other US citizen is compelled to use.

5) Language to specifically undue "citizens united ruling". Large corporations to never have the same rights as private citizens

3) Is this you?

In a better world (before citizens united) a big conglomerate corporation would not have 1st amendment rights in the first place. A huge corporation with other obvious advantages should not be treated with the same rights as an individual human citizen IMO

4) Is this you?

Rather than worry about convincing willful ignorance for your boogyman Trump, perhaps your time might better be served looking to the future and not the past. Seeking new direction for individual representation to make a comeback. Because without that, you can forget about your so called "preservation of American democracy". Here might be 2 examples to start the list:

1) Get rid of citizens united
2) Get rid of lobbying and congressmen bribary

5) Is this you?

The tell (whether we are lawyers or not) citizens united is a failure is that pay to win politics has increased rather than decreased being a clear threat to democracy.


In any other field, when you do something causing a worse situation you stop or reverse what you have done. Citizens United needs to be reversed.

6) Is this you?

[
What Citizens United ruled was that a large group of poor people banding together to form a corporation collectively richer than any of them remain covered by the First Amendment just like an individual rich person is.

But that was exactly the problem. Poor people are not sophisticated enough to organize like the billionaires who have unlimited resources. So the ruling tilted power and wealth inequality even further towards that end of the population. In general it is always going to be much more likely the billionaire class will have the authority to say what a large organization will do politically.

Take a wild guess what side of Citizens United Clarence is on and then tell me with a straight face Pelosi is more dangerous to your fucking 401k.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That chart is a little misleading. Thomas has been in the SC for the whole twenty years, and many of the others much less than that (Jackson and O'Connor, especially). So you would expect him to have more on that basis alone. And what is the policy anyway on SC justices' accepting "gifts"? If its a no-no, then aren't they all behaving badly, and its just a matter of degree?

It's not automatically wrong. Being a justice doesn't mean they can't have personal lives. The problem comes when those gifts appear to be bribes rather than just normal personal things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That chart is a little misleading. Thomas has been in the SC for the whole twenty years, and many of the others much less than that (Jackson and O'Connor, especially). So you would expect him to have more on that basis alone. And what is the policy anyway on SC justices' accepting "gifts"? If its a no-no, then aren't they all behaving badly, and its just a matter of degree?

As I recall from my training, government employees for all intents and purposes accept no gifts, it's like $10 value or something very low. It gets a bit convoluted between gifts, company sponsored events (receiving a plaque), and (eating at) social gatherings but I do not remember anything about exceptions for SCJs, congress critters, etc.
As a govt employee, you're not even suppose to accept someone else paying for lunch.

As an NPS employee all I ever got was a "Muffin Monster" ballcap and t-shirt from a company rep after installing the controllers for some new grinders. Fuck me. I missed out.

Exactly. I used to work for a major defense contractor and I recall from our regular mandatory ethics training that we were not allowed to accept gifts or meals from vendors, subcontractors, consultants, etc. Except for maybe a small $10 item like a branded coffee mug or calendar, etc. It wasn't exactly difficult to do. The fact that the SC was not subject to similar conditions is a little baffling.

Note, though, that the SC data is all gifts, not merely gifts from those you only have a business relationship with.

And even those places they only have a business relationship with I can easily see the possibility of some "gifts" that basically quasi-business. Say, inviting someone to speak--cover their costs in a lavish way, the quid pro quo being the place that invited them to speak gets a high status speaker. While this blurs the lines between gifts and income it doesn't imply corruption. What's important is to look at the relationship--is there an overt but harmless benefit to explain it? If not, then figure the real purpose is improper.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have been asked before and you have yet to demonstrate any insider trading done by Pelosi. Please do so now or drop the derail.

Exactly.

One should expect some shrewd deals by those in Congress. They are expected to be intelligent and to pay attention to what the country needs. As such, I would expect them to see developing issues faster than most people. It's not insider trading to be shrewd in putting the dots together and seeing where things are likely to go. Insider trading requires information not available to the public, not merely information that most people didn't realize the importance of. Nor does it even require that anyone else actually have the information so long as it was obtained in a way anyone could do. If I take a telescope and point it at someone's loading dock and have cameras note how much the trucks sag when loaded to figure out how much they're shipping that's legal (assuming my telescope is not on their property.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fucker is corrupt as shit,

I thought you were talking about Nancy Pelosi for a brief moment. The only difference I see between her and Thomas is that there are actually insider trading laws she should get charged for, but (so far as I'm aware) supreme justices can take all the shit they want. Legally.

So spare me all this liberal media drama and the big pony show over how corrupt Thomas is (which he no doubt is).

Clean up Pelosi first if you want to have some credibility. Her corruption is actually unlawful and starring everyone in the face.

You have been asked before and you have yet to demonstrate any insider trading done by Pelosi. Please do so now or drop the derail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/01/congress-stock-trading-trackers-pelosi/

About 500k more results on google as well.

And this isn't a derail. Pelosi is by far more damaging to the majority of middle class America than Thomas could hope to be.

Thomas mentioned revisiting Obergefell, Griswold, and Lawrence! That is part of why Thomas is gifted with vacations, trailer, a place for his Mom, etc...