Corruption in the SCOTUS

I'm more inclined to believe that Thomas was going to rule the way he did anyway, regardless of outside influence. If there was any impropriety, I'm sure that's how he justified it to himself - it's not like it changed his ruling because he took a trip on a yacht, had his kid's private school tuition covered, etc.

 

He certainly was unlikely to be swayed in any specific case based upon a direct gift. However, the general effect of the lifestyle that is created by the massive wealth of entertainment is to constantly ensure that the justice marinates in a world of far right ideology, where everyone agrees and reinforces a certain worldview without commenting on the merits of a specific case. Of course, the decision in a future case follows the generalized worldview. They may not talk about a specific case, but they'll generally talk about issues like the nondelegation doctrine, the proper role of executive agencies, how terrible the Democrats are generally and everything liberal, etc.

Also, when you're constantly entertained by people of a certain class, who go out of their way to treat you well, it takes an almost superhuman spirit not to be influenced by that in terms of your view of the role of the wealthy and what they're like as individuals. Because they literally put you in a bubble and "groom" you, to use the term of the moment, to think about issues in a way which will lead to decisions that further their interests.

The conservative legal movement is a very long-term enterprise, going back at least as far as then attorney Harry Blackmun's letter to the Chamber of Commerce in the early 70s. This is all part of that. It's not about persuading Clarence Thomas so a certain way on any single case; it's a matter of ensuring his ideology is fully shaped and inflexible to favor their point of view. Also getting generalized intelligence on the court and other justices so that they can come up with strategies to persuade other justices

 

Agreed. Our environment shapes us, including the people we spend our time around. We all have biases and blind spots.

 

Appears not all Supreme Court justices are ethically compromised. Kagan reportedly turned down a box of bagels and lox from a high school friend because she was concerned about the ethical implications.

Justice Elena Kagan was worried about the ethics of accepting bagels from friends, while Clarence Thomas was enjoying expensive vacations paid for by a GOP megadonor: report

 

Credit where due, or perhaps response to pressure, by less inflammatory rhetoric

 

reason for hope? Apparently Wyden has the ability to request anybody's tax returns at any time for any purpose. Hopefully he has some bean counters going through Crow's and Thomas's returns already.

Why the worst may be yet to come for Clarence Thomas: report (msn.com)

In an article published by The New Republic on May 15, journalist Michael Tomasky offers some reasons why he believes the Crow scandal won't be letting up in the weeks ahead.

Two senators who are scrutinizing Justice Thomas aggressively, according to Tomasky, are Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), who is also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.


"Wyden and Whitehouse mean business," Tomasky argues. "Whitehouse has been the Democrats' point person in the Senate for years on these ethics matters. But of the two, Wyden spells more potential trouble for Thomas and Crow because as chairman of one of Congress' tax-writing committees, he has what's called 6103 authority: the power to ask for any citizen's tax returns at any time for any reason."
...............................................

"It's my understanding that there's more news coming on Thomas and Crow," Tomasky explains. "It seems highly possible that what we know so far, ghastly as it is, barely scratches the surface. And Wyden and Whitehouse are going to keep at this." The journalist adds, "To paraphrase (Winston) Churchill, this isn't the end of the story. This is just the beginning of the end."

 

The best explanation I've heard for the gifts is that it keeps these guys on the court longer. Its not a great job and you make $250k a year, which is good money, but you cant live a really baller lifestyle on it. These guys could leave the court and make way more money in private practice or consultancy, but the with these gifts you basically get to live the baller lifestyle and they have less incentive to retire or leave for more lucrative work, and just stay on the court forever. Its not so much about the rulings, its to maintain that influence longer over the court.

 

I recall a poster here that argued govt employees should work for free or far under market value because they are “civil servants”. I guess heavy emphasis on the servant.

This was a conservative poster of course. Wonder what their take is on a Republican hack Supreme Court justice living the “baller life”? I’m
guessing their take magically flip flops. It’s like the totally unironic “best govt money can buy”.

 

Its counterintuitive, but paying politicians more would help things in that there would be less incentive to take gifts and cultivate patrons (I think this is especially true in state and local politics which no one seems to care about). Of course, with corruption basically being legal in the US, it probably doesnt matter, that's just more money for them lol.

 

I would extend that to staff. Otherwise you ensure that the only individuals in those positions have independent wealth such that they don't need a living wage to survive, which of course it skews their perspective

 

Oregon’s Secretary of State just resigned for having a side job in an industry her office was regulating and creating a potential conflict of interest. She dumbly argued that $77k wasn't enough to support her family and her student loans instead of showing it wasn’t a conflict. Needless to say the Republicans called for her immediate resignation but not a peep on Thomas.

 

Said it earlier in this thread if the SCOTUS Justice was Elana Kagan and the billionaire providing unreported benefits valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars to the justice was George Soros instead of Harlan Crow the Republicans led by Jim "I don't wear suit jackets" Jordan and James "I have Hunter Biden Derangement Syndrome" Comer would be screaming about corruption on the part of the justice.

 

Ideally, people would be barred by law from things like this, but when they arent, this is what happens. Pretty much anyone can say "it wont be a conflict" and unless they can be removed from office by impeachment, there really isn't anything you can do, you just kind of have to stupidly hope it isn't I guess. The other thing is that the incentives to resign or remove yourself from a case don't really exist either, particularly on the Supreme Court, where the stakes are always so enormous. Terrible system, we cant even let an old lady like Feinstein retire because of the judicial nomination process is so politicized given the stakes involved (and due to anti-democratic rules like the filibuster).

 

Oh, you mean like Sotomayor? What's 3 Million among friends? This didn't even get talked about in some media outlets? Oh and most of the left on here just ignored it. This is a worse allegation than anything any other Supreme Court Justice has done. But hey, back to your political talking points.

Liberal SCOTUS Justice Took $3M From Book Publisher, Didn’t Recuse From Its Cases | The Daily Wire

 

She probably should have recused herself but let's keep in mind that $3 million that she received were advance payments for books that she authored and that the payments were reported. Speaking of other recusals involving Thomas and they had nothing to do with the unreported gifts that he received from Harlan Crow, there was the fees that Ginni Thomas received for lobbying against the ACA which should resulted in the recusal of Clarence Thomas from cases challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Similarly, Ginni was an active participant in the "Stop the Steal" movement yet Clarence Thomas participated and will continue to participate in cases involving the January 6th insurrection. Interestingly Thomas was the only justice who supported Trump's claim of executive privilege with respect to documents requested by the House Committee investigating the insurrection.
Ginni Thomas told Jan. 6 committee she still believes the election was stolen, chair says
Supreme Court rejects Trump’s bid to shield records from Jan. 6 committee

Justice Thomas' wife says healthcare law is unconstitutional

 

"Probably" LOL. Stopped reading after that. I see you are just playing politics.

 

Even without the qualifier "probably" what Thomas did or more specifically failed to do with respect recusal is as least as serious and probably more so than what Sotomayor failed to do and your decision not to read my entire post is an indication that you wish to remain willfully ignorant. At least you could have read it and then tried to rebut it to the extent with which you disagreed my statements.

 

LOL. She literally ruled on a case involving a company she received $3 million dollars from and all you do is say "probably". At least try to hide your partisanship. I've said I want anyone who has serious ethics issues to be pulled from the High Court. I didn't pick parties. You are it seems. And no, I don't usually read on once I see someone is only playing politics. If you can't see that Sotomayor should've recused herself than I don't see the need to read any further.

 

If I was married to Gina, I would be a baller too.

 

In practical terms it would not have made a difference as to whether or not Sotomayor recused herself. In both cases the issue was whether or not the Court would hear the cases i.e. grant writs of certiorari. The Court never heard either of the two cases involving the publishers from which she received the payments on the substantive merits of either case. Given that the votes of only four justices are required for the writ, her absence would not have made a difference since her subtraction obviously would not have resulted in an additional positive vote which would have resulted in the court hearing case but rather one less negative vote.