Thomas has accepted $4M in gifts during career: Watchdog

[Leweman]

You mean bribes?

Yeah. Politicians. That includes supreme court justices.

 

[MarathonMike]

Well, now we know you can turn a SCOTUS seat into a going concern business. I am mightily impressed with his entrepeneurial spirit.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4708390-thomas-has-accepted-4m-in-gifts-during-career-watchdog/mlite/

Democrat Haters have been hounding Clarence Thomas for 4 decades. You people are pathetic. He's a great American and all you do is throw mud at him.

 

[rightwinger]

Better than being indebted to to retards. Which doesn't exclude them from the latter.

What a stupid post
You should apologize for it

 

[rightwinger]

Democrat Haters have been hounding Clarence Thomas for 4 decades. You people are pathetic. He's a great American and all you do is throw mud at him.

Clarence Thomas shows that those who opposed him 35 years ago were right

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I supported Thomas during the hearings 35 years ago. He has proved me wrong, betrayed my hopes.

 

[rightwinger]

Only to you. But then, you’re just a hack.

Why can’t he accept gifts as long as he thereby has no actual conflict of interest.

Your “appearance of impropriety” argument is facile and silly.

Because it calls his rulings into question.
Judges integrity should be beyond questioning.
Lower court judges must report any financial contributions and be reviewed by an ethics panel.
Supreme Court Justices should meet a tougher standard. But they aren’t ……Judges get to decide their own ethics.

No judge at any level should be accepting “Free Stuff”

 

[BackAgain]

Because it calls his rulings into question.
Judges integrity should be beyond questioning.

No: it sure doesn’t.

Lower court judges must report any financial contributions and be reviewed by an ethics panel.

Irrelevant.

Supreme Court Justices should meet a tougher standard. But they aren’t ……Judges get to decide their own ethics.

Zzz

No judge at any level should be accepting “Free Stuff”

Why not?

 

[jwoodie]

No, it was never debunked and the Roberts Court did nothing to show they are not corrupted

Wow, a quadruple negative! Good job!

 

[White 6]

The OP is of course suspect.

I don’t care if a billionaire pal shares some valuable things with a jurist until and unless that billionaire has a legal matter before the court.

I’m ok with it unless it poses an actual conflict of interest. Otherwise, it’s quite unclear why it would be of any concern to you. Except of course for partisan hackery.

With that kind of money, he has the ear, whether for him or friends. It doesn't come anywhere near propriety, as is required of officials in every other single branch, department, or office of government, Federal or State. I have enough friends that had long careers in government to know. We have never seen or heard of anything like it, because the appearance of impropriety arrived long before the dollars got the the Million($) Dollar mark and everybody elses requirements are meant to avoid, even the appearance. That is not so, for these guys. Which do you feel better about, 12 random people on a jury unpaid or, or specific judge accepting millions. The answer depend on what side of a particular problem you are on, doesn't it, who his friends are and if your are friends with them. There is no appeal above the Supreme Court and they are the bunch with the least effective and supervised non-binding policy on accepting gifts in the United States Government.

 

[BackAgain]

With that kind of money, he has the ear, whether for him or friends. It doesn't come anywhere near propriety, as is required of officials in every other single branch, department, or office of government, Federal or State. I have enough friends that had long careers in government to know. We have never seen or heard of anything like it, because the appearance of impropriety arrived long before the dollars got the the Million($) Dollar mark and everybody elses requirements are meant to avoid, even the appearance. That is not so, for these guys. Which do you feel better about, 12 random people on a jury unpaid or, or specific judge accepting millions. The answer depend on what side of a particular problem you are on, doesn't it, who his friends are and if your are friends with them. There is no appeal above the Supreme Court and they are the bunch with the least effective and supervised non-binding policy on accepting gifts in the United States Government.

None of it matters.

If there is no conflict, then this whole thing is just mindless chatter.

There is no conflict.

 

[jwoodie]

I supported Thomas during the hearings 35 years ago. He has proved me wrong, betrayed my hopes.

What hopes? That he would be a good little negro for the Democrats? How dare he express his own opinions!

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What hopes? That he would be a good little negro for the Democrats? How dare he express his own opinions!

You are such a shrub. I don't care about party when it comes to the Constitution. That should be above party, but you slimeballs want it all in line with your weird MAGA beliefs.

 

[rightwinger]

None of it matters.

If there is no conflict, then this whole thing is just mindless chatter.

There is no conflict.

Accepting millions of dollars from wealthy conservative donors creates a conflict of interest.

It calls every judgement that supports Conservative causes into question.

 

[BackAgain]

Accepting millions of dollars from wealthy conservative donors creates a conflict of interest.

No. Saying that nonsense doesn’t make it so.

It calls every judgement that supports Conservative causes into question.

No. It simply does not.

 

[JLW]

Clarence Thomas is the poster boy of corruption on SCOTUS. If Thomas were sitting on a Federal Appellate court or even a state court, his conduct of accepting these “gifts” would have warranted an investigation if not removal from the bench, Since the justices of the Supreme Court have no code of ethics they have to follow, they are Free to engage in outlandish conduct that would never be tolerated in the lower federal courts,

The justices of the US Supreme Court are exempt from the Code of Conduct for United Sates judges that all lower federal judges and justices must follow,

To wit:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

******************

Thomas has made a mockery of these ethic rules that every other federal judge must follow. Thomas is a disgrace to the federal bench.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

www.uscourts.gov

 

[rightwinger]

No. Saying that nonsense doesn’t make it so.

No. It simply does not.

Afraid it does make it so

A judge in a lower court would be dismissed as biased for accepting millions in gifts from partisan donors.

However, in our Supreme Court, who should be above reproach, judges get to decide for themselves if gifts have biased their decisions

 

[BackAgain]

Afraid it does make it so

No need to fear. You’re just wrong.

A judge in a lower court would be dismissed as biased for accepting millions in gifts from partisan donors.

Nope.

However, in our Supreme Court, who should be above reproach, judges get to decide for themselves if girts have biased their decisions

Again. Not a matter of any concern.

 

[rightwinger]

No need to fear. You’re just wrong.

Nope.

Again. Not a matter of any concern.

Once again, when facing an argument you can’t refute
You fall back on denial

 

[BackAgain]

Once again, when facing an argument you can’t refute
You fall back on denial

Not at all.

You’re making empty claims which you cannot support.

And we all see it, you hack fraud.

 

[rightwinger]

Not at all.

You’re making empty claims which you cannot support.

And we all see it, you hack fraud.

You really got nothing Skippy

When faced with an argument you can’t refute, you just cover your ears and deny, deny, deny

You are a one trick pony