quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
This is a great area we can all agree with for judicial reform. The Supreme Court has no rules concerning these gifts.

I just had to sign Professional State Prosecutor’s ethics addendum that says I will not accept gifts of over 100 dollars except from immediate family not before the court.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Do not know. What I do know is I cannot accept those gifts as a state prosecutor and commissioner.

I see no reason that a Supreme Court Justice should receive such gifts. The reasons are obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would pass a law banning gifts obverse 10” dollars by non intimate family members like we do across the country for Judges and Prosecutors.

Thereby eliminating the possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Going to my known lawyer’s buddies house would not be a gift. However, if I went to his house with a case he had interest pending that would be considered an impermissible gift. The answer would be to immediately conflict my self out (recuse) from that case. When that happens the car goes to a completely different prosecution team in another office.

That is the problem with the Supreme Court he is taking lavish gifts from s political donor. Them he is deciding cases.

The answer is to recuse if you want the gifts. The punishment comes when you take these gifts and do not recuse.

Hence, even if a state does not define a fiancé as intimate family. The issue becomes when you take the gift and do not decide from a case involving the fiancé or a case the fiancé has an interest in.

Since, the Supreme Court decided national policy to take such gifts from a vested observer and stay on cases he wants decided is unethical.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Thomas is guilty of being black and conservative. Yes we must get out the fine toothed comb. Never mind when Ginsburg officiated a gay wedding before her decision on gay marriage. This is all political theatre.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
A judge IS supposed to be like a priest. He should keep himself apart from political influences and the arguments of lobbyists. This part of the code of judicial conduct has been developed in common law over the centuries. There are judicial canons of ethics that make this clear.

Lower court judges know about it, and 99 percent abide by it... so how come a Supreme Court justice doesn't? A Supreme Court Justice, a member of our highest court, should set an example. He should be above the appearance of impropriety.

But this is more than an appearance. If you really believe that Thomas and his benefactor-friend didn't talk about political and legal issues while on their lavish vacations together, you must also believe in the Easter bunny.

Instead we see Thomas receiving multi-million-dollar benefits from a lobbyist and big donor to one party. It shouldn't matter which party it was--but I know it does to some of you.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
https://www.propublica.org/art...w-real-estate-scotus

So Crow also bought property from Thomas... Which Thomas failed to disclose... and which Thomas's mother lived in (for free?) after the sale.

In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies purchased a string of properties on a quiet residential street in Savannah, Georgia. It wasn’t a marquee acquisition for the real estate magnate, just an old single-story home and two vacant lots down the road. What made it noteworthy were the people on the other side of the deal: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives...

The purchase put Crow in an unusual position: He now owned the house where the justice’s elderly mother was living. Soon after the sale was completed, contractors began work on tens of thousands of dollars of improvements on the two-bedroom, one-bathroom home, which looks out onto a patch of orange trees. The renovations included a carport, a repaired roof and a new fence and gates, according to city permit records and blueprints.

A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.

The disclosure form Thomas filed for that year also had a space to report the identity of the buyer in any private transaction, such as a real estate deal. That space is blank.

“He needed to report his interest in the sale,” said Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer now at the watchdog group CREW. “Given the role Crow has played in subsidizing the lifestyle of Thomas and his wife, you have to wonder if this was an effort to put cash in their pockets...”

The justice’s failure to report the transaction suggests “Thomas was hiding a financial relationship with Crow,” said Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis who reviewed years of Thomas’ disclosure filings...

It’s unclear if Crow paid fair market value for the Thomas properties. Crow also bought several other properties on the street and paid significantly less than his deal with the Thomases. One example: In 2013, he bought a pair of properties on the same block — a vacant lot and a small house — for a total of $40,000...

Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there. Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Did Thomas follow the rules? Yup. Move on.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Did Thomas follow the rules? Yup. Move on.

So selling property to a real estate developer who gave him hundreds of thousands of dollars in free travel and vacations plus allowed his mother to live in said properties for free is following the rules?? I don’t think so.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Not so fast. If he followed the rules then no foul. If he was found to have violated the rules then we have something to discuss.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
Not so fast. If he followed the rules then no foul. If he was found to have violated the rules then we have something to discuss.

If these facts are correct and you really don't think we have something to discuss, rules violation or not, you're not thinking it through. Judges operate under an "appearance of impropriety" standard when it comes to accepting gratuities.

And, Thomas' dealings with this guy stink to high heaven.

Would you want your case against Harlan Crowe heard by a judge who goes on vacations paid for by Harlan Crowe?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Wasn't required to be reported and he didn't. Rules changed. How do you think you even know about it. Because he disclosed it. He's about the best Justice on the Court since Scalia passed.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Wasn't required to be reported and he didn't. Rules changed. How do you think you even know about it. Because he disclosed it. He's about the best Justice on the Court since Scalia passed.

That is a laughable statement and an insult to Justice Scalia's memory.

Scalia was an intellectual giant. I disagreed with pretty much every single opinion he ever authored but never questioned his legal acumen and incredibly well-crafted, well-reasoned solid legal arguments in the opinions he wrote. He made me question my own opinions his opinions were so well-written and so legally supportable.

Thomas never asked a question in oral argument at the SCOTUS for ten years. He's never authored an opinion of any consequence. He only got appointed to the SCOTUS after extensive hearings about his sexual harassment of Anita Hill. Comparing him to Scalia is absurd.