Corruption in the SCOTUS

I read this new code of ethics and the whole time I was reading it I kept wondering who will enforce this. There is a code but no system of accountability.

 

You are not the only one. I read it halfway through and then stopped due to work obligations. But everyone else is been raising the lack of an enforcement mechanism on twitter. I thought they would be a weak wholly internal enforcement mechanism at the end that had not gotten to yet. I did not think there would be no enforcement mechanism. I suspect that in terms of public relations, this may only make things worse. But what do I know?

 

It's not even a code. It's a list of suggestions.

 

The liberals are so used to running all the courts that they constantly attack the highest count in the land in an attempt to sway their opinions. We know how the Dems work... simple psychology applied here.

 

C’mon man. The SCOTUS has the final say - there is no back stop. A code of ethics that’s enforceable would apply to each justice equally. Can’t think of a single advantage to we the people allowing them the billionaires to unduly influence deliberations.

 

Clarence Thomas’s salary complaints sparked rightwing fears he would resign

So Clarence Thomas was threatening to resign his seat unless a way was found to funnel him more cash. He was in deep debt in the early 2000s. In came Harlan Crow and others and suddenly he had cash and a rich person's lifestyle.

Clarence is as corrupt as they come and should be impeached immediately.

 

Thomas should be required to recuse himself from agent smith's pleading. No way he can ignore his wife's activities and claim to be impartial. If the rest of the bench ever wants any credence of credibility they need to force that issue

 

The kind of thing that agents of a foreign adversary look for and exploit. Appears to be what Harlan Crow did and beat them to it.

 

Don't hold your breath. He's there until he croaks.

 

If the GOP takes back the White House and Senate next year (both of which are very possible), I think Thomas would retire so Republicans could replace him.

 

lmao. this should be interesting. the facts seem pretty clear that CT broke the law and any citizen has a right to go after him for it and claim a share of the proceeds

Exclusive: Republican Hits Clarence Thomas With Lawsuit Over His Taxes (msn.com)

The complaint, which was shared with Newsweek, alleges that in violation of VFATA, "Clarence Thomas knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false and fraudulent claim (i.e., his 2005 Virginia State Income Tax Return) to the Virginia Department of Taxation on or about April 15, 2016, that failed to report income from discharge of indebtedness."

Thomas has faced immense scrutiny and calls for his resignation after it was reported that he failed to disclose several transactions, including a $267,230 loan that he received from wealthy friend Anthony Welters. Last year, an investigation from the Senate Finance Committee revealed that Thomas never repaid a "substantial portion" of that loan, raising concerns about whether the justice properly reported it in his tax filings.
......................................................................................
"Under Section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code, he would have had a legal obligation to report [the loan] as taxable income and the tax alone would have been, probably $40,000 or $50,000. That's a third of his annual salary," Castro said on Friday. "And that's when I was like, 'There's no way he reported that because that'd be financially disastrous for him.'"

Castro is suing Thomas under VFATA, which allows private citizens anywhere in the country to bring a claim against a Virginia resident for making a knowingly false or fraudulent claim to the commonwealth for money or property, essentially empowering regular Americans to take on the role of a de factor agent of the Virginia attorney general. "It basically allows you to bring a tax enforcement action against a taxpayer," Castro said of the law.

 

interesting but not holding my breath.

 

Has Crow been involved in any of Thomas's cases?

 

Sounds like he's damned if he reports it, damned if he doesn't.

The only apparent acceptable answer is to not have wealthy friends who are politically active.

 

I think the targeting of Thomas's reputation on this thread by some of our friends from the left while ignoring Nancy Pelosi accumulating her mysterious fortune is telling regarding the prejudices of a lot of folks on this forum.

Seems like Thomas was guilty of AWB ("adjudicating while Black").

 

Yep.

Defend the institutions you control with everything you have. Do whatever it takes, even if it means lying or burying your opposition.

Hijack the institutions you don't through selective enforcement of rules and media scrutiny.

Any Republican questioning Thurgood Marshall's impartiality, despite having open ties to the NAACP and being openly politically active himself prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, would be called racist by the very same people screaming bloody murder about this.

We're just supposed to pretend none of that exists because Thurgood Marshall was so "obviously" on the right side of all of these issues. The way they see it, he wasn't fighting for political wins, he was fighting for righteousness and justice. When in reality, sometimes he was fighting for one, and sometimes he was fighting for the other, and sometimes they were one and the same.

 

There is another option. Don't let your wealthy friends give you lavish gifts and trips. And no, he's really not "damned." As a public official, the people are allowed to criticize hm. He doesn't get to refuse to follow the law because he doesn't like being scrutinized.

 

He's not immune from public scrutiny. But let's not pretend this is a one side of the aisle thing.

How did Pelosi accumulate her wealth? She was well-compensated was she not?

The real reason behind the outrage is conservatives have a clear majority on the Supreme Court and Thomas is a conservative justice. The fact that he happens to be Black is also inconvenient for Democrats I'm sure.

 

Let me solve the mystery for you. NP is married to Paul who founded and owns a venture capital firm. He has been successful That accounts for the lion’s share of the wealth.

 

There is nothing mysterious of how Nancy (and Paul) Pelosi became wealthy. Already stated, Paul Pelosi was a successful real investor and venture capitalist before Nancy Pelosi ever ran for office. Also already stated, when it was revealed that Abe Fortas was receiving a small stipend from a former client he was forced to resign from the Supreme Court under threat of impeachment, the in-kind benefits that Thomas has received from Crow are/were worth considerably more than the amount the stipend that Fortas was receiving and even if Crow was not an actual party in the SCOTUS cases that Thomas was or would be deciding he had a strong interest in their outcome.