Corruption in the SCOTUS

Chief Justice Roberts has finally released a statement about Clarence Thomas corruption:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

The man seems corrupt - a corruption likely born of entitlement. Chief Justice Roberts absolutely needs to defend what integrity remains in the court by helping him to leave.

 

Here are my thoughts on the statement:

.
.
.
.

 

It appears that the Pubs have also tapped Roberts to release the Republican Budget and Health Plan as well.

 

2 weeks!

 

Yeah ... this is seems, uh ... pretty bad. Funneling money through a company is called money laundering, doesn't help that the company has been closed since 2006 and therefore has no legit business income. Seems like that makes it pretty obvious. Can't think of way this isn't a pay-off/buying influence scheme. Can't wait for the explanation ... er ... lie ... to cover this.

 

Not just Clarence. Just regular corruption of the type that John Roberts and the rest of the conservatives do not even view as corrupt

 

'Crisis of public confidence': GOP warns chief justice against testifying over ethics crisisYet, Roberts gives lip service to caring about the image of the court.

 

Roberts to be questioned by the senate Judiciary committee or will he refuse the invitation? will Durbin finally get a code of ethics out of Roberts 4 years after Roberts promised to do one?

Roberts asked to testify on court ethics amid Thomas reports (msn.com)

The Senate Judiciary chairman has invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify next month on ethical standards at the court, a hearing that would undoubtedly focus on business transactions and travel involving Justice Clarence Thomas.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said that there has been a “steady stream of revelations” regarding Supreme Court justices “falling short of ethical standards expected of other federal judges."

“The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court's ethical standards. I invite you to join it, and I look forward to your response,” Durbin wrote in a letter Thursday to the chief justice.
......................................
The letter from Durbin asked Roberts — or another justice he chooses to testify instead — to appear before the committee on May 2. He told Roberts that the scope of his testimony would be limited to the ethics rules governing justices of the Supreme Court and potential changes to those rules.

 

Yep... A vote for a Democrat is a vote for enslavement to the government... perpetual servitude.

And by the way, the biggest criminal in the SCOTUS is justice John Roberts... He has allowed and voted for the Dem's that went completely against the Constitution and written laws, passed by a previous congress, and signed by a previous president in our immigration laws. To this day he has allowed Obama's EO to exist as legal Constitutionally passed law of the land, which is is NOT.

It all started with the EO that Obama signed in the Dreamer's Act. And then Trump tried to write his counter EO essentially nullifying Obama's power grab and illegal act, but justice Roberts interfered and said that Obama's EO is the law of the land.

Roberts also ruled against the Constitution in the state rights to sue other states... in the Texas versus Michigan lawsuit during the 2020 elections. That is a Constitutional right! Yet Roberts said Texas had no standing in suing Michigan.

There are other crimes against the Constitution that that criminal sided with... Like changing state voting laws to let the governor take over elections in states, voting is clearly controlled by their state's Legislatures, to help them keep the mail in voting in several Liberal states open way past the the election NIGHT deadline.

The real criminal in the SCOTUS are the liberals and especially chief justice John Roberts... the biggest CRIMINAL in SCOTUS history.

 

Gorsuch in on the act. Right after confirmation, the head of Greenberg Traurig, a national law firm heavily connected on the Right with regular appearances before the Court, buys a piece of property NG had an interest in that had been languishing. Just so obvious.

Unclear how much this reporting will piss off the petulant child Alito, as Gorsuch is not well liked personally, but the sheer effrontery of anyone so common questioning their absolute power is off putting. This type of pedestrian corruption has been realized as their right for years, and crossing that line is part of way the days of a free press may be numbered

 

Drip, drip, drip. Thomas had at least one case come before him involving his friend Harlan Crow but did not recuse.

Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself from a 2004 appeal tied to Harlan Crow's family business, per Bloomberg

Justice Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself from a 2004 appeals case, even though the company being sued was part of the real estate empire run by Harlan Crow, the GOP mega-donor who has showered Thomas with lavish trips starting in 1997 and more recently bought Thomas' childhood home, according to Bloomberg.

 

That’s significant because it fits definitions in ethical codes but misses the larger point. The Crow connection is not about trying to influence specific cases but part of a larger philosophical movement to use the judicial machinery as radical policy making arm through coordinated efforts to create cases to reach the circuit courts and the Supreme Court. The Crow social life was full of regular interactions with Leo and numerous other actors to create decisions that generally benefit Crow’s class and their allies like social conservatives as necessary to maintain power.

It’s so common they have lost the chance to see themselves as corrupt. Part of the networking is to reinforce the “rightness” of their role as the true victims of the current world and their legitimacy as the only valid ruling class, and also to repeat arguments like the Major Questions doctrine or their bizarre and indefensible Second Amendment constructions so often that something that obviously nonsensical BS that an individual would have recognized as ridiculous in a prior life now sees the Emperor’s clothes.

 

Really difficult to find an innocent explanation here. Gorsuch didn't know the buyer, which would represent a conflict of interest, for a property that had been on the market for two years, sells it days after being confirmed, AND he forgot to disclose the income from the sale? That is a real stretch to believe.

 

Bingo! Unfortunately this kind of influence lacks the bright shining line that the law requires but provides much deniability just the other side of that line.

 

Add all of these topics to the list of things you don't know about.

 

Domestic help is hard to get. Pointing out that her beliefs aren’t consistent won’t change her mind. All it might do is force you to hire another helper.

 

There was a book, maybe the Pelican Brief where someone was murdering Supreme Court justices to influence a decision. It’s funny that all Crow had to do was by some trinkets to own his own justice.