Corrupt Supreme Court Justice Thread

StillH2OEgger

JohnInCarolina said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ginni-thomas-founded-nonprofit-with-funding-harlan-crow-2023-9

Just when you think the corruption train might come to a halt at some point it sinks in that we're still at (just) the tip of this iceberg.

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1705183051381166439?s=20

lousubcap

Here's the article that the above was extracted from:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus 

StillH2OEgger

Still just the tip, I'm sure.

lousubcap

Been a few months but the latest:

"Well, the Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics for the first time. New requirements? Nope. Enforceable? Nah. "The policy, agreed to by all nine justices, does not appear to impose any significant new requirements on them, and, indeed, they said in an unsigned statement that they have long adhered to ethics standards. 'The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,' the justices wrote. 'To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.'" And the kicker: "The code leaves compliance to the justices themselves and does not create any other means of enforcement." In short, we have clearance, Clarence. "

HeavyG

It's kinda ironic that the highest court of our land seems to think they are above the law. Time for another amendment to the Constitution methinks.

Legume

HeavyG said:

It's kinda ironic that the highest court of our land seems to think they are above the law. Time for another amendment to the Constitution methinks.

It's hard to imagine who would argue against a toothier rule and what the rationale would be, other than don't crowd my grift, man.

lousubcap

And today_

Republicans storm out of hearing over subpoenas GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee walked out of a hearing Thursday in opposition to Democrats' push to subpoena two conservativeslinked to controversies involving Supreme Court justices.   Eleven Democrats voted in favor of authorizing the subpoenas, with all Republicans absent by the roll call's end. The approval was largely symbolic since enforcement would require 60 Senate votes — and that's a long-shot.   The Hill's Alexander Bolton gives us the background:    "The meeting came after weeks of partisan fighting among members of the Judiciary Committee over plans to subpoena conservative donor Harlan Crow and activist Leonard Leo, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, in response to reporting by ProPublica that revealed the two men played roles in taking conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on luxury vacations."   Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared, "This is about an ongoing effort to destroy this court, to destroy [conservative Justice] Clarence Thomas’s reputation."    Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) accused Chair **** Durbin (D-Ill.) of "destroying" the committee by calling for votes on judicial nominees without allowing a third round of debate on them earlier in the meeting.   Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argued the subpoenas aren't valid due to rules around having a committee quorum and time limits.

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/HeidiReports/status/1731350916291285228?s=20

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/1735742307897405572?s=20

lousubcap

From ProPublica today-

A “Delicate Matter”: Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus

lousubcap

And related to Justice Thomas-

"House Dems call for Thomas recusal from Trump case Several House Democrats signed a letter calling on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case reviewing former President Trump's immunity defense in the federal case into efforts to overturn 2020 election results. From the letter: "If you want to show the American people that the Supreme Court’s recent Code of Conduct is worth more than the paper it is written on, you must do the honorable thing and recuse yourself from any decisions in the case of United States v. Trump." Senate Democrats sent Thomas a similar letter last week. Lawmakers in both chambers noted that Ginni Thomas, the justice's wife, supported Trump's unfounded election fraud claims."

My comment: There is no chance he will comply.

fishlessman

Maybe the supreme court could end women suffraging so Thomas would not feel the need to recuse himself