Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[Hutch Starskey]

Uncle Toms can only be republicans now.

?

 

[jbander]

SC justices are the only federal judges not bound by an ethics code. They’re solely self reporters with no system in place to recognize or investigate possible violations.

This is part of the ethics code they are bound to

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)
Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)
Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)
He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)
Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)
Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)
Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c)
A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)
“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2)
the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3)
“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4)“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i)
Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii)
An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii)
The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv)
Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e)
No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f)
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 93–512, § 1, Dec. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 214(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1007, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4667; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is part of the ethics code they are bound to

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge​

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)
Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)
Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)
He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)
Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)
Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)
Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c)
A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)
“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2)
the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3)
“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4)“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i)
Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii)
An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii)
The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv)
Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e)
No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f)
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 93–512, § 1, Dec. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 214(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1007, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4667; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)

Why is this relevant?

 

[jbander]

Why is this relevant?

Because he hasn't Disqualified himself in cases where people who have given handouts to him that he hasn't reported are involved in these cases.

 

[struth]

Every time you write or say something, you prove just how stupid you are. Have you said one thing that is true here even ,

yes,

 

[struth]

YOU are so full of shit , that you don't even know when you are lying, This is a ridiculous unsupportable lie. Typical brain-dead thinking from a group that only lies.

nor it’s very true

 

[struth]

Fuck you
Financial Disclosure and the Supreme Court
April 14, 2023
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) established financial disclosure reporting requirements for
many high-level government officials and employees, including the Chief Justice of the United States and
the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices must file publicly available financial
disclosure statements that report certain financial transactions. A recent article detailing undisclosed trips
by an Associate Justice has increased interest in Supreme Court ethics and the interpretation of the
EIGA’s reporting requirements.
This Legal Sidebar provides an overview of financial disclosure requirements under the EIGA and how
they apply to the judicial branch. It also examines recent statutory and regulatory updates to judicial
branch financial disclosure requirements. The Sidebar concludes with a discussion of potential
congressional action on Supreme Court ethics and highlights legal considerations regarding Congress’s
authority to regulate the Supreme Court.
Federal Financial Disclosure Laws
The EIGA was enacted, in part, to “preserve and promote the integrity of public officials and institutions.”
To help achieve this goal, the EIGA requires, among other things, that covered employees file annual
financial disclosure statements reporting:
 income from any source (other than from current employment by the federal government)
including honoraria; payments made to charity in lieu of honoraria; and any dividends,
rents, interest, and capital gains that exceed $200;
 gifts and reimbursements (although filers do not have to report gifts received from
relatives or food, lodging, or entertainment “received as personal hospitality of an
individual”);
 interests in property;
 liabilities exceeding $10,000 owed to any creditor other than a close family member
(with certain exceptions such as mortgages for personal residences);
 transactions that exceed $1,000 in real property (other than a personal residence) and
securities;
 positions with outside entities and major sources of compensation;

it applies to judges not justices

 

[gipper]

SC justices are the only federal judges not bound by an ethics code. They’re solely self reporters with no system in place to recognize or investigate possible violations.

Okay. Do think he shouldn’t face consequences for his actions?

 

[struth]

Every time you write or say something, you prove just how stupid you are. Have you said one thing that is true here even ,

everything is true. quote me one time saying something that wasn’t

 

[jbander]

it applies to judges not justices

You are so full of shit and here is just one of your lies

28 U.S. Code § 455 -​

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." He has not recluse himself in cases that were involved with free money (bribes) he got from people. Without claiming it. Fucking liar.

 

[jbander]

um she's allowed to have a job and get paid for it.

Geez....

Second lie, she had no job involved with the bribe money.

 

[jbander]

it applies to judges not justices

fucking liar One more time "
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Legal Sidebari
Financial Disclosure and the Supreme Court
April 14, 2023
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) established financial disclosure reporting requirements for
many high-level government officials and employees, including the Chief Justice of the United States and
the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices must file publicly available financial
disclosure statements that report certain financial transactions. A recent article detailing undisclosed trips
by an Associate Justice has increased interest in Supreme Court ethics and the interpretation of the
EIGA’s reporting requirements." https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10949

 

[jbander]

Struth is so full of shit, Nothing he says is true, all typical right wing gibberish from one of many right wing gibberish sites. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10949

 

[struth]

You are so full of shit and here is just one of your lies

28 U.S. Code § 455 -​

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." He has not recluse himself in cases that were involved with free money (bribes) he got from people. Without claiming it. Fucking liar.

provide us the case names

that’s actually just the codification of existing judical rules

 

[struth]

Second lie, she had no job involved with the bribe money.

what bride money are you talking about? the post i was responding to was clearly about her job as a lobbiest

 

[struth]

fucking liar One more time "
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Legal Sidebari
Financial Disclosure and the Supreme Court
April 14, 2023
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) established financial disclosure reporting requirements for
many high-level government officials and employees, including the Chief Justice of the United States and
the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices must file publicly available financial
disclosure statements that report certain financial transactions. A recent article detailing undisclosed trips
by an Associate Justice has increased interest in Supreme Court ethics and the interpretation of the
EIGA’s reporting requirements." https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10949

even if true your link highlights that the things he’s exposed of accepting are exempted…ie hospitality

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Okay. Do think he shouldn’t face consequences for his actions?

Without a doubt he should. No lower court judge could get away with their career intact after having done as much. If Thomas has a shred of honest patriotism left he’d resign. It’s the only honorable thing to do.

 

[gipper]

Without a doubt he should. No lower court judge could get away with their career intact after having done as much. If Thomas has a shred of honest patriotism left he’d resign. It’s the only honorable thing to do.

We are in agreement, yet you gave my post a thumbs down. Why?

 

[Orangecat]

So it's okay to bribe judges?

What was he bribed to do?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We are in agreement, yet you gave my post a thumbs down. Why?

Because other judges don’t get away with similar things. The SC Justices are unique in their ability to do so.