THE ACCURATE RELOADING POLITICAL CRATER

Page 1 2 

Moderators: DRG
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
DA FUQ! CLARENCE THOMAS Login/Join 
One of Us
posted
https://www.propublica.org/art...&utm_content=feature

"For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures."


Give me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of buffalo shit.
 
Posts: 1612 | Location: IOWA | Registered: 27 October 2018Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Lock him up. A crook is a crook
 
Posts: 16199 | Location: Iowa | Registered: 10 April 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 12448 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
Very funny!

And all your politicians demanding DONATIONS is any different??


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 68918 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


From the link.

"These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said."


Give me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of buffalo shit.
 
Posts: 1612 | Location: IOWA | Registered: 27 October 2018Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
I see they that. Failure to report for financial reasons is different than an ethical rule or law preventing the gifts in the first place.


Two separate, but related issues
 
Posts: 12448 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
We have an ex-prez who is above the law, why not a SC justice?
 
Posts: 16199 | Location: Iowa | Registered: 10 April 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Did Biden have to report a financial claim when he stayed at his friends Nantucket place for Thanksgiving?
 
Posts: 7383 | Registered: 10 April 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 12448 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


So the question is did he provide any benefits in exchange? For gifts of that magnitude it's hard to believe that he didn't.


Give me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of buffalo shit.
 
Posts: 1612 | Location: IOWA | Registered: 27 October 2018Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 12448 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


So getting engaged and getting an engagement ring is verboten?

Your previously made point is standing. You can’t write a law that makes sense 100%.

They passed a rule against allowing physicians to get gifts of more than $20 value from drug companies here. There went my lunches and game farm trips…

But, oddly, the pharmacists decide on what is on formulary and they still can accept gifts. Nurses and nurse practitioners can still accept gifts…

Of course, politicians can also accept gifts or donations from lobbyists as well.

What does that say?

I’d prefer if you had to disclose receipts rather than ban them.
 
Posts: 11111 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Would be considered intimate family.

The states already have these rules.

It is not hard. Every state has a statute or ethical rule that can be used to model legislation for the Supreme Court.

This is appropriate work of Congress.

https://apple.news/AOQQglkKZQ9qqax5sdPMe9Q

What is good enough for state judges and state prosecutors is good enough for the Supreme Court.

There is a legal question if Congress can force this regulation upon the High Court.

The Court may be convinced to adopt an ethical rule when it thinks it may be forced to accept Congress regulation or lose more legitimacy with the citizens.
 
Posts: 12448 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Kanec
posted Hide Post
Stupid as the moment you as judge cannot possibly even go to friends dinner or cabin over the weekend?
You people are retarded
 
Posts: 201 | Location: Heart of Europe where East meets the West | Registered: 19 January 2023Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 12448 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


He didn't even recuse from a case involving his own wife and voted just the way that you'd ecpect him to. IIRC his was the only dissent.

I expect now that the cat is out of the bag that someone will be going over all of his decisions with a fine tooth comb.


Give me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of buffalo shit.
 
Posts: 1612 | Location: IOWA | Registered: 27 October 2018Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of tomahawker
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 3585 | Registered: 27 November 2014Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
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.


This is THE NEW AMERICA!

Giving a new meaning to the word STUPID! rotflmo


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 68918 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 10419 | Location: Houston, Texas | Registered: 26 December 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 6935 | Location: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, USA | Registered: 08 March 2013Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
How the hell can a Supreme Court judge keeps away from politics! rotflmo


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 68918 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of ledvm
posted Hide Post
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.


Justices are people. They don’t live in a vacuum. They have political feelings and thoughts like anyone else. They watch news and have internet.

They also are allowed to have friends and carry on a life outside of the court.

Can you point to any landmark case where Thomas was the swing vote and changed his mind in the 12th hour like he was bought or influenced? He was never been an activist, he isn’t particularly vocal, he is consistently low-profile, and always has voted consistently with his known philosophy.

I know of zero SCOTUS cases which directly impacted Harlan Crow. And I know of zero SCOTUS cases where Thomas was the swing vote.

The guy just happens to be friends with a rich guy — at least it appears to me.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.
 
Posts: 38139 | Location: Gainesville, TX | Registered: 24 December 2006Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
Bloody hell!

Even a convicted criminal like Trump is getting “donations!” clap


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 68918 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


Give me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of buffalo shit.
 
Posts: 1612 | Location: IOWA | Registered: 27 October 2018Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


Based on what I'm reading, this one may be a legal problem for Thomas.

Unethical piece of shit.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16281 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of bluefish
posted Hide Post
Did Thomas follow the rules? Yup. Move on.
 
Posts: 5232 | Location: The way life should be | Registered: 24 May 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
If he followed the rules, fine, it’s done.

Want the rules to be more stringent? I really don’t have a problem with that.
 
Posts: 11111 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of jdollar
posted Hide Post
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?? Confused I don’t think so. coffee


Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend…
To quote a former AND CURRENT Trumpiteer - DUMP TRUMP
 
Posts: 13556 | Location: Georgia | Registered: 28 October 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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?? Confused I don’t think so. coffee


Correct.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16281 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of bluefish
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 5232 | Location: The way life should be | Registered: 24 May 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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?


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16281 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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?


Nor does it mean we should continue to permit such behavior, or not discuss if such such behavior should be permitted.
 
Posts: 12448 | Location: Somewhere above Tennessee and below Kentucky  | Registered: 31 July 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of bluefish
posted Hide Post
I think we should let it play out and then we can take our positions, if there are positions to take. Maybe we'd all even see eye to eye. What a shock that would be!
 
Posts: 5232 | Location: The way life should be | Registered: 24 May 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Justices on the SCOTUS should not be accepting million dollar vacations from anybody.

Justices on the SCOTUS should not be selling their mom's house to somebody paying for their million dollar vacations who then allows that Justice's mom to continue living in the house.

The whole thing stinks.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16281 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Life lease on a home is nothing unusual Done here all the time.
Even if all this is allowed. The rules should be changed to report it.
If there was a case with his friend involved, he should remove himself.
Should be simple rules to follow.
 
Posts: 7383 | Registered: 10 April 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good.

 
Posts: 16281 | Registered: 20 September 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Thomas is the kind of judge that makes us need conflict of interest rules in the first place.

Honest judges don't need the rule.
 
Posts: 6935 | Location: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, USA | Registered: 08 March 2013Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Hopefully he can room with that princess in the big house...Robert's should ask him to resign..
 
Posts: 2647 | Registered: 25 June 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
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.


I would beg to differ.

If there had been solid proof of Anita Hill's allegations, he would have never been seated. It was hearsay then and is hearsay now.

I agree that Thomas is not nearly of the intellectual caliber of Scalia- I'm not a lawyer and I can see the difference. But I can't say he's lower than Kagan or Sotomayor.
 
Posts: 11111 | Location: Minnesota USA | Registered: 15 June 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sor...losed-123000789.html


Give me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of buffalo shit.
 
Posts: 1612 | Location: IOWA | Registered: 27 October 2018Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia

Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: