DiabloWags said:

---

MinotStareBeav said:

---

Oh no...long time friends did things together. Call the gestapo! Maybe the FBI will raid his house looking for magazine subscriptions that he didn't pay for!

---

Is the bar really this low for people like yourself?
No ethics at all?
No integrity?

My long-term friends havent sent me money.
Have your friends given you $500,000?
Or are you really this naive???

---

I just need a better class of friends apparently.

That, or be appointed a Supreme Court Justice.

wifeisafurd said:

---

[You don't want me to get into some things Justice Douglas did.

---

Yes we do!

MinotStateBeav said:

---

okaydo said:

---

He got caught not reporting THESE EXACT GIFTS from THIS EXACT PERSON in 2004, he reported them, then he just went right back to not reporting them!https://t.co/RIO5rPSZaQ

— Max Moran (@MaxMoranHi) April 7, 2023

---

Oh no...long time friends did things together. Call the gestapo! Maybe the FBI will raid his house looking for magazine subscriptions that he didn't pay for!

---

That's not how I read this situation.
I read it as his enemies (leftists who are upset about
1 Ginny and J6, and
2 him/her being the potential Roe v Wade leaker)
Are trying to find patterns of illegality that fit.

If you connect a bunch of dots, what you have is a sort of renegade Justice. People are waking up to the fact that we don't have this austere body politic, rather a bunch of questionable characters making questionable (self serving, not for the people) decisions that really mess up the idealistic vision we once had about our experiment.

Trump was certainly the pinnacle of these types, but there are many others, and yes, you can throw in your collection of despised Democrats to the list.
Thomas is having his proctological examination.

How would you propose to write that code?

concordtom said:

---

How would you propose to write that code?

---

There are tests for cognitive function. Politicians and judges should have to take those regularly and the results made available to a congressional oversight committee.

There are far too many people hanging around far too long and that includes some Dems, too.

Maybe set an age limit. 80 and you are out.

concordtom said:

---

How would you propose to write that code?

---

20 years and you're done. You can then retire or go back to being a judge on lower courts.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How would you propose to write that code?

---

20 years and you're done. You can then retire or go back to being a judge on lower courts.

---

We should ensure that every presidential term gets to name 2 SCOTUS justices, so I would go to 10 judges for 20 year terms (and if someone dies during a term, the president can appoint someone for the remainder of the 20-year term).

I know some will complain that the court can deadlock at 5-5, I don't see that as a negative. It will cause the court to work together to compromise to get to 6-4. Also most decisions historically are not 5-4, so this would only impact the most controversial decisions which may not be a bad thing.

dimitrig said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How would you propose to write that code?

---

There are tests for cognitive function. Politicians and judges should have to take those regularly and the results made available to a congressional oversight committee.

There are far too many people hanging around far too long and that includes some Dems, too.

Maybe set an age limit. 80 and you are out.

---

I like the idea of cognition tests, but who is going to want to subject themselves to it?

And we should have it for all bodies. Feinstein would have joined the ranks of Storm Thurmond and my guy, Claiborne Pell.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How would you propose to write that code?

---

20 years and you're done. You can then retire or go back to being a judge on lower courts.

---

We should ensure that every presidential term gets to name 2 SCOTUS justices, so I would go to 10 judges for 20 year terms (and if someone dies during a term, the president can appoint someone for the remainder of the 20-year term).

I know some will complain that the court can deadlock at 5-5, I don't see that as a negative. It will cause the court to work together to compromise to get to 6-4. Also most decisions historically are not 5-4, so this would only impact the most controversial decisions which may not be a bad thing.

---

Tiebreaker goes to a popular vote!

This Constitution-writing stuff is easy!

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How would you propose to write that code?

---

20 years and you're done. You can then retire or go back to being a judge on lower courts.

---

We should ensure that every presidential term gets to name 2 SCOTUS justices, so I would go to 10 judges for 20 year terms (and if someone dies during a term, the president can appoint someone for the remainder of the 20-year term).

I know some will complain that the court can deadlock at 5-5, I don't see that as a negative. It will cause the court to work together to compromise to get to 6-4. Also most decisions historically are not 5-4, so this would only impact the most controversial decisions which may not be a bad thing.

---

9 judges for 18 year terms and reduced powers

OneKeg said:

---

I might not be seeing it in the linked editorial, but it looked like the trips which were reported "late" were months or a year late within the (lame) rules. Not over a decade "late" like Thomas. So the late ones don't seem relevant to Thomas' situation.

As for ones not reported at all, the article gives one example (Scalia for the trip on which he passed away) falling under the "Personal hospitality of an individual" exception. Which I agree is an incredibly broad exception just asking for abuse.

Did the linked editorial actually report specifics on anyone else that completely skipped reporting/disclosure as Thomas did? And is Thomas' disclosure covered by the "personal hospitality of an individual" exception that Scalia's was? I don't know enough about this stuff to be sure.

But even if so, the two concrete examples we have for complete lack of reporting/disclosure, based only on this 2016 editorial and the topic of this thread, are Scalia and Thomas. Is that correct?

---

Let's start off with Dojo, that when called out about his hypocrisy, has a propensity to make things-up. The three trips called out that Breyer made and were called out in my post were never reported by Breyer. It is pretty typical to determine when Dajo does that, because he adds a pity comment. That is his call. You would have to go on line and sign-up on the federal court disclosure portal to determine which of the over 1,000 trips are reported, reported late or not at all (Dajo simply made-up the month late of Breyer and 10 years for Thomas). Neither Breyer or Thomas reported the trips in question.


Second, Breyer and Thomas for junkets before 2023 probably were not required to make disclosures, and even now may not be required due to the exception you mention of personal hospitality. Supreme Court justices must follow strengthened financial disclosure requirements surrounding gifts and free hotel stays, which follows rising pressure from lawmakers about the high court's ethics rules which without much fanfare went into effect on March 14 and clarify that the justices must disclose gifts and free stays at commercial properties, or when gifts of hospitality are being reimbursed by a third party who is not the person providing it. The new rules say the Supreme Court justices must comply with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which did not formally apply to the SCOTUS Justices, but only governed the conduct of judges in lower federal courts .

The new rules retain the exception for food, lodging, or entertainment received as "personal hospitality." Under the new rules, "personal" means a judge has a personal relationship with the host and should include situations in which the invitation is being delivered personally. It is pretty clear from Thomas response that the junkets in question fell into the personal hospitality category given the long term personal relationship he had with GOP donor.


Prior to this, the Supreme Court justices only were required to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics and Government Act of 1978 (they still are, it just the Judicial Counsel has extended disclosures that other federal judges had to make to the Supreme Court). The disclosures were fairly minimal and relied on self-reporting. The ethics regime in place to guide the conduct of even the lowest level executive branch employee was not extended to Supreme Court. The new rule changes were surprisingly started by pressure from a Subcommittee led by Issa and then by his Democratic counterpart Johnson when control of Congress changed, to address the need for a more robust ethics program for the United States Supreme Court. As that Subcommittee noted, ethical failures are not limited to justices who subscribe to a particular judicial philosophy or who were nominated by presidents of one party or the other. The Subcommittee report indicates the finding that : Every justice who has served in the last decade has done something that has raised questions about propriety and impartiality.
https://fixthecourt.com/2022/03/ahead-house-hearing-scotus-ethics-recount-justices-many-ethical-lapses/

There are a plethora of articles discussing the sins of the Justices. More to come

Moving back to way Dajo operates, he drops points to focus on just one point, which some people have labelled deflection. But there remains the questions if Thomas on a junket with a buddy is that really changing how he votes on matters before him given his long time conservative judicial philosophy? Can you point to any cases Thomas would have decided differently because he was on a boat with a GOP donor? There is one thing to be a self-righteous hypocrite, and another to to rationally ask what is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Which gets to the problem that does need to be addressed.

It is clear that if is rare that any Justice is asked to recuse themselves. That is because is you go down that path on any issue that has political import, most of the Justices would have recuse themselves. To avoid even the specter of bias, a Supreme Court code of conduct should advise justices to avoid affiliating with organizations that cast doubt on the justices' impartiality, even if the organizations are not legally defined as "political" in nature, At this juncture only Justices Roberts and Kagan, have agreed to avoid appearances before any such organizations, potentially due to the heavy partisan perception they create. (I might add that doesn't mean Kagan won't go the same hunting club as Scalia or Roberts won't stop taking invitations to play famous golf courses). Recusals should be based on the conduct of a spouse or prior participation in a case before the court, private travel paid for by litigants before the court, and participation in events funded by litigants and potential beneficiaries of the court's decision-making. This would mean, for example, a Judge not speaking to the Federalist society or feminist organization, since these groups have countless number of amicus briefs before the court.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Moving back to way Dajo operates, he drops points to focus on just one point, which some people have labelled deflection. But there remains the questions if Thomas on a junket with a buddy is that really changing how he votes on matters before him given his long time conservative judicial philosophy? Can you point to any cases Thomas would have decided differently because he was on a boat with a GOP donor? There is one thing to be a self-righteous hypocrite, and another to to rationally ask what is the problem that needs to be addressed.

---

I just want to know what MBA school he went to that taught him that the "poor do better with inflation"

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

I might not be seeing it in the linked editorial, but it looked like the trips which were reported "late" were months or a year late within the (lame) rules. Not over a decade "late" like Thomas. So the late ones don't seem relevant to Thomas' situation.

As for ones not reported at all, the article gives one example (Scalia for the trip on which he passed away) falling under the "Personal hospitality of an individual" exception. Which I agree is an incredibly broad exception just asking for abuse.

Did the linked editorial actually report specifics on anyone else that completely skipped reporting/disclosure as Thomas did? And is Thomas' disclosure covered by the "personal hospitality of an individual" exception that Scalia's was? I don't know enough about this stuff to be sure.

But even if so, the two concrete examples we have for complete lack of reporting/disclosure, based only on this 2016 editorial and the topic of this thread, are Scalia and Thomas. Is that correct?

---

Let's start off with Dojo, that when called out about his hypocrisy, has a propensity to make things-up. The three trips called out that Breyer made and were called out in my post were never reported by Breyer. It is pretty typical to determine when Dajo does that, because he adds a pity comment. That is his call. You would have to go on line and sign-up on the federal court disclosure portal to determine which of the over 1,000 trips are reported, reported late or not at all (Dajo simply made-up the month late of Breyer and 10 years for Thomas). Neither Breyer or Thomas reported the trips in question.


Second, Breyer and Thomas for junkets before 2023 probably were not required to make disclosures, and even now may not be required due to the exception you mention of personal hospitality. Supreme Court justices must follow strengthened financial disclosure requirements surrounding gifts and free hotel stays, which follows rising pressure from lawmakers about the high court's ethics rules which without much fanfare went into effect on March 14 and clarify that the justices must disclose gifts and free stays at commercial properties, or when gifts of hospitality are being reimbursed by a third party who is not the person providing it. The new rules say the Supreme Court justices must comply with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which did not formally apply to the SCOTUS Justices, but only governed the conduct of judges in lower federal courts .

The new rules retain the exception for food, lodging, or entertainment received as "personal hospitality." Under the new rules, "personal" means a judge has a personal relationship with the host and should include situations in which the invitation is being delivered personally. It is pretty clear from Thomas response that the junkets in question fell into the personal hospitality category given the long term personal relationship he had with GOP donor.


Prior to this, the Supreme Court justices only were required to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics and Government Act of 1978 (they still are, it just the Judicial Counsel has extended disclosures that other federal judges had to make to the Supreme Court). The disclosures were fairly minimal and relied on self-reporting. The ethics regime in place to guide the conduct of even the lowest level executive branch employee was not extended to Supreme Court. The new rule changes were surprisingly started by pressure from a Subcommittee led by Issa and then by his Democratic counterpart Johnson when control of Congress changed, to address the need for a more robust ethics program for the United States Supreme Court. As that Subcommittee noted, ethical failures are not limited to justices who subscribe to a particular judicial philosophy or who were nominated by presidents of one party or the other. The Subcommittee report indicates the finding that : Every justice who has served in the last decade has done something that has raised questions about propriety and impartiality.
https://fixthecourt.com/2022/03/ahead-house-hearing-scotus-ethics-recount-justices-many-ethical-lapses/

There are a plethora of articles discussing the sins of the Justices. More to come

Moving back to way Dajo operates, he drops points to focus on just one point, which some people have labelled deflection. But there remains the questions if Thomas on a junket with a buddy is that really changing how he votes on matters before him given his long time conservative judicial philosophy? Can you point to any cases Thomas would have decided differently because he was on a boat with a GOP donor? There is one thing to be a self-righteous hypocrite, and another to to rationally ask what is the problem that needs to be addressed.

---

You seem really angry about the fact that you are struggling to make an equivalency argument. In a previous post you criticized me for not reading your preferred article and now you are telling me I'm wrong because of information you have found that wasn't in your preferred article (or reported anywhere else that I could find in my quick Google search yesterday). So, there's no hypocrisy on my side. If Breyer broke the law he should be named, shamed, and prosecuted. I haven't seen anything to indicate that is the case - and no, I'm not taking your word for it. But, if Breyer broke the law he should be prosecuted.

Also, I think you owe onekeg an apology for attributing his writing to me. What he wrote is certainly a reasonable takeaway from the USA Today article (much more reasonable than your stance, which does not come from the USA Today article you told us all we had to read or be lazy).

You can argue the legality of it with Dahlia Lithwick in the article below. If Thomas (or Breyer, or Kagan, or Gorsuch,etc.) broke the law he should be prosecuted and impeached. He won't be - whether he broke the law or not. That's the bigger problem.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/clarence-thomas-broke-the-law-harlan-crow.html

---

So you're calling Kagan a he, ...interesting. No, you said all the 1,000 plus items were disclosed within months, and Thomas was 10 years later, and then left a snide remark, even though what you said was utterly made-up. Of the two posts, I responded to the more reasoned post, and addressed the issues raised about disclosure and the rules (which you of course avoided) and that I only posted one editorial article. But yes, I used one post to respond to both responses to my post. Get over it.

Litwick says the new rules would apply to Thomas' junkets and in fact were designed to address them, and whether the old rules should apply to some of what he did, though she acknowledges there is doubt on the issue. Which is an odd position to say the law change was designed to go after what Thomas did, and if she was being honest the 8 other judges also do, but yet the old rules would apply to that conduct and it isn't even close, leaving one to wonder, why change the rules? Moreover, she then *****es about the fact the rules that prevented such disclosures were prevented by people like Crow. Huh? But she examined the wrong rules.

Thomas noted that he would comply with changes made to disclosure rules that were announced last month. Those revisions made it clear that trips on private jets and stays at privately owned resorts like one Crow owns in upstate New York would have to be disclosed. She has credentials, a Furdie that is a clear partisan, which she makes no bones about, who is an editor at left leaning Slate, and her bias comes through, just in the fact she only names Thomas. That is all very nice, but not really enforceable.

She correctly points out, the justices are left to police themselves and opt not to do so. So yes, the exception for what the justices do is a foregone conclusion that Thomas, and all other Justices, are in the right. As Litiwkc pointed out the matter can be viewed as academic. But she failed to understands the basis by which SCOTUS will enforce disclosure rules.

To be repetitive, Littwick points out that the same people who benefited from the lax status quo continue to fight against any meaningful reforms that might curb the justices' gravy train. Okay, maybe the rules governing Thomas' conduct over these years, while terribly insufficient, may have actually required him to disclose at least some benefits, such as private plane rides which even occur when the Justices speak at colleges, and although that is standard treatment for senior government officials for security reasons and is never reported, as a matter of practice. This all starts sounding petty at some point, especially when only applied to one Justice, and moreover when it misses the main problem, which is conflicts of interest. Justice Thomas isn't going to change his mind on a view talking to some old billionaire he knew forever while deep sea fishing, but he could get some very persuasive view points on cases talking to the Federalist Society. But also none of this applies. But again, that really doesn't speak to who will evaluate Thomas' conduct and on what basis.

That still doesn't respond to whether the Justices technically were breaking the law. That really is disputable.
The "personal hospitality" exemption means judges and justices don't have to disclose certain gifts, including accommodations and food, when the person involved is a friend. The new interpretation made it clear that travel by private jet and stays at resort-type facilities owned by private entities have to be disclosed. Most legal ethics professors say the old law was ambiguous at best. https://fortune.com/2023/04/07/did-clarence-thomas-break-law-propublica-supreme-court-ethics-vacations. In fact, most Democratic legislators say legislation is necessary. See the linked article. But again, none of that really applies from SCOTUS' standpoint


This Chief Justice and prior Chief Justices have said, with their colleagues blessing, the Supreme Court and other federal courts are not bound by Congressional disclose legislation, but voluntarily follow these rules, which isn't exactly true, since until recently, SCOTUS followed its own less rigorous standards (lower court judges were not so exempted) until a recent ruling by the Judicial Conference governing federal courts issued an opinion that SCOTUS was in fact so bound to follow the same rules as the federal courts below. In that regard, the U.S. Judicial Conference's Guide to Judiciary Policy has long included an exception to disclosure "from a relative or friend." The exception says accepting the gift is permissible if it does not impact official actions in matters of interest to the donor or if the gift is given "in connection with a special occasion, such as a wedding, anniversary, or birthday, and the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship." There is also an exception if the gift "consists of an invitation and travel expenses, including the cost of transportation, lodging, and meals for the officer or employee and a family member (or other person with whom the officer or employee maintains both a household and an intimate relationship) to attend a bar-related function, an educational activity, or an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice." Crow's statement shewed closely to much of the legalese, describing Justice Thomas and Ginni Thomas as "dear friends" given the kind of personal hospitality extended to any other close friend over a long period of time and without any attempt to influence or corrupt the judicial process.

Since SCOTUS will follow the court system's disclosure requirement, the discussion about what the law Congress passed says for disclosure is rather academic until the Judicial Counsel changes its rules, which may be happening. But Thomas' conduct would be governed under Judicial Counsel rules.

Well, he is known as Mr. Deflection.

DiabloWags said:

---

MinotStareBeav said:

---

Oh no...long time friends did things together. Call the gestapo! Maybe the FBI will raid his house looking for magazine subscriptions that he didn't pay for!

---

Is the bar really this low for people like yourself?
No ethics at all?
No integrity?

My long-term friends havent sent me money.
Have your friends given you $500,000?
Or are you really this naive???

---

It is a corrupt system. But it is the system the court's get to determine.

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

[You don't want me to get into some things Justice Douglas did.

---

Yes we do!

---

You got it Tom. Here is some deep dive material for the liberal icon. First, he wasn't that liberal. Second, he was an a-hole. Third the guy that founded the SEC hated big government and always voted for taxpayers, against the government. He believed in individual rights, particularly the right of association not be near any black people, and to many progressives he was intellectually weak, yet he wrote several ground breaking civil rights decisions. Fifth he lied about his qualifications or in stories a lot. Sixth, in his later years he was a drunk. Seventh, he openly harassed women who worked for him and well other stuff you can read about. These are a summary from a book by his biographer and Douglas's anti-government views from a taxation standpoint:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2003/03/09/courting-trouble/96367177-52a3-4657-841f-3368eadf2500/?tid=ss_mail

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/tragedy-william-o-douglas/

Urofsky on Murphy, 'Wild Bill: The Legend and Life ...H-Nethttps://networks.h-net.org node reviews urofsky-...


Behavior of Justice Douglas in Federal Tax CasesUniversity of Pennsylvaniahttps://scholarship.law.upenn.edu viewcontent

He also faced a political impeachment. His writings about using violence to overturn the government in Point of Rebellion were not well received. He was also accused of having a love for porn, he should have recused himself from certain cases due to conflicts (one case was he received $350 from one of the party's which seems trival), and there were some veiled references to his personal life. Gerald Ford, who led the impeachment charge later apologized.

That said, he also believed Judges had a First Amendment right and often shared strong opinions publicly on environmentalism, big government, individual rights, who should be a member of his clubs, etc. that today would mean he would never get on the Court or not hear many cases.

He is also considered to have written some of the most famous decisions rendered by SCOTUS, despite all his shortcomings as a person.

wifeisafurd said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Moving back to way Dajo operates, he drops points to focus on just one point, which some people have labelled deflection. But there remains the questions if Thomas on a junket with a buddy is that really changing how he votes on matters before him given his long time conservative judicial philosophy? Can you point to any cases Thomas would have decided differently because he was on a boat with a GOP donor? There is one thing to be a self-righteous hypocrite, and another to to rationally ask what is the problem that needs to be addressed.

---

I just want to know what MBA school he went to that taught him that the "poor do better with inflation"

---

Mr. Deflection

---

Diablo knows when I'm kidding.

concordtom said:

---

How would you propose to write that code?

---

It's not hard. They already wrote it several times for Article I judges:
Bankruptcy 14 years
Armed Forces Appeals 15 years
Tax 15 years
Veteran Claims 15 years

…and the thing that motivated her drunk phone call to Anita Hill was it p@issed her off how beautiful the object of his obsession was.

^^^ The Thomases must love that portrait: It really flatters Ginny! ^^^

Big C said:

---

^^^ The Thomases must love that portrait: It really flatters Ginny! ^^^

---

Go to Google image. It 'taint* exactly a caricature.

*…and we all know what 'taint is, don't we?

sycasey said:

---

When did Dianne Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi receive lifetime appointments to the nation's highest court?

---

Uhhh how long do you think they've been serving (themselves) for?