As long as where talking spouses, it is amazing how successful DiFi's husband become. It was almost like she was talking about upcoming legislation in her sleep.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

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?

---

Yes, they've had to run for re-election several times. And?



Is it running for re-election if the outcome is never in doubt though?

---

---

If you're popular enough to be safe, then yes.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

bearister said:

---

That singer died jerking off. How appropriate.

---

There's only one way better to go out.

---

What's that?
("disallowed word"-"disallowed-word" to save the world from Trumpism?

(Disclaimer: that's a dark joke)

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

bearister said:

---

That singer died jerking off. How appropriate.

---

There's only one way better to go out.

---

What's that?
("disallowed word"-"disallowed-word" to save the world from Trumpism?

(Disclaimer: that's a dark joke)

---

So Tom, after reading about Justice Douglas, should he have been impeached at some point?

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

bearister said:

---

That singer died jerking off. How appropriate.

---

There's only one way better to go out.

---

What's that?
("disallowed word"-"disallowed-word" to save the world from Trumpism?

(Disclaimer: that's a dark joke)

---

So Tom, after reading about Justice Douglas, should he have been impeached at some point?

---

Prior to your post, I never heard of the man. Allow me some time to get to know him and the issues.

I did just learn of the (Truman) steel seizure case where Douglas rules against the government being able to commandeer the steel from a plant in Youngstown Ohio. Aside from the fact that my grandmother's eldest brother lost a hand in a Youngstown steel plant, I thought it interesting to consider tgat the government can implore a man to take up arms to kill, yet not take steel in the defense of the nation?
Okay, well, I stretch truth a bit. I had an uncle who was a conscientious objector to Nam and he had to serve a rigorous duty in support (administratively). Others would just go to jail, (Mohammed Ali). So, the government can seize people, but not steel. Hmmm. Okay, that digression aside, I'll continue to bone up on the issues at hand.

https://kansaspress.ku.edu/9780700628483/
No, I'm not reading this book! But it sounds like it would address what you're asking better than the more flattering Citizen Justice book I listened to an hour of (the author's book tour interview) on YouTube.

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

Re the part where you wrote

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.

I say hogwash. Utter hogwash.

The canons I previously pasted would seem to cover the issues which Clarence Thomas is now trying to say he will subject himself to.

"The appearance of…"
That covers an awful lot.

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

I make note that Ford's presidency was opening an investigation into a supreme court justice, while Biden has stated that he will offer no instruction or opinion on such matters, while the current attorney general has to hire some special investigator to do it.
Pfft.
They all want to avoid the appearance of.
Well, not the thomases

Further thoughts…

There are certain life decisions, callings, commitments that people make all the time.

Typically, at the wedding altar, a vow of monogamy is exchanged. And often, if tgat is broken, so is the marriage.

In Catholic priesthood, one marries the church. No sex. Breaking this meant expulsion.

Doctors and the Socratic Oath.

People enter willingly.

We do not hold elected officials or judges to sex commitments, and law is not written to do so.

But it seems to me that we should not be so timid as to hold the 9 Supreme Court Justices to a HIGH high standard. Moreover, they should be holding themselves to a high standard.

I have had the opportunity to cheat and fudge many financial rules. Front running trades in my prior profession would have been oh so easy, and lucrative.

A person needs to have personal integrity.
Too many politicians these days lack inspiring character. Judge Thomas and his wife do not. They want the advantages but not the restraints required of the position. And I'm not even talking about the vacations.

McConnell also lacks respectable character. How he held up Garland was despicable. That's just flat out cheating.

I could go on.
DC is, sadly, lacking many inspiring individuals. Bend rules where it suits you.

I want officials who I can trust the way a church trusts it's clergy - without the inherent sex-starvation principle at work (that's for you, Bearister, because I know you're all over that one).

DiabloWags said:

---

Judge Clarence Thomas was looked at because he FAILED TO DISCLOSE.

---

that is a crime, "failing to disclose while a black conservative " LOL

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

As long as where talking spouses, it is amazing how successful DiFi's husband become. It was almost like she was talking about upcoming legislation in her sleep.

---

Richard Blum died over a year ago at age 87.
Cancer.

Started at Sutro at age 23, partner before age of 30.
Bought Ringling Bros for $8 million and sold it to Mattel just four years later for $40 million.

Served on numerous boards, including CB Richard Ellis where he was Chairman. In 2001, CBRE was acquired by Blum Capital for $800 million via an LBO. In 2004, Blum Capital flipped it back out as a public company via an IPO. In 2006, its shares were added to the S&P 500. Pretty amazing trajectory in a very short amount of time after the Dot-Com bust.

He was also the chairman and founder of American Himalayan Foundation, which built schools and hospitals in Tibet and Nepal.

A Haas alum and UC Regent for 12 years.
I could be wrong, but I dont think he needed his wife to make money.

---

yes, he didn't need her to be successful, but he was smart enough to use her.

Harlan Crow is not only friend$ with Justice Thomas, but the numerous other Republican$.

We are NOT surprised.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clarence-thomas-billionaire-benefactor-harlan-154855533.html

concordtom said:

---

Further thoughts…

There are certain life decisions, callings, commitments that people make all the time.

Typically, at the wedding altar, a vow of monogamy is exchanged. And often, if tgat is broken, so is the marriage.

In Catholic priesthood, one marries the church. No sex. Breaking this meant expulsion.

Doctors and the Socratic Oath.

People enter willingly.

We do not hold elected officials or judges to sex commitments, and law is not written to do so.

But it seems to me that we should not be so timid as to hold the 9 Supreme Court Justices to a HIGH high standard. Moreover, they should be holding themselves to a high standard.

I have had the opportunity to cheat and fudge many financial rules. Front running trades in my prior profession would have been oh so easy, and lucrative.

A person needs to have personal integrity.
Too many politicians these days lack inspiring character. Judge Thomas and his wife do not. They want the advantages but not the restraints required of the position. And I'm not even talking about the vacations.

McConnell also lacks respectable character. How he held up Garland was despicable. That's just flat out cheating.

I could go on.
DC is, sadly, lacking many inspiring individuals. Bend rules where it suits you.

I want officials who I can trust the way a church trusts it's clergy - without the inherent sex-starvation principle at work (that's for you, Bearister, because I know you're all over that one).

---

Tom, I'm not going to address every item, but as you can tell as you read about Douglas, that SCOTUS judges have a long history of doing things we think they should not do and also as they age, being unfit physically or mentally for the position. Yet the the other Justices simply look the other way. More often than not because they engage in similar conduct when it comes to financial benefit (such as having clerks write books for you like Douglas) for taking junkets and perks, like Douglas. Douglas was an extreme case, well beyond Thomas, but he was tolerated.

The reality is Congress can say whatever it wants, but SCOTUS makes its own rules of conduct through its control over the Judicial Commission, and it can and does give simple lip service to Congress. The fact that self-professed experts don't even know that is rather shocking and reflects political bias, and while they admittedly say SCOTUS interprets Congress rules, that is not accurate. They have their own set of rules under the Judicial Commission, which SCOTUS has great influence.

It is accurate when critics say SCOTUS judges itself, and impeachment is the only check and balance. The problem is even impeachment is a slippery path, because most of the Justices are not going to give up their gravy train, so one impeachment will lead to other impeachments as control over Congress changes. In reaction to Congressional pressure, Kagan and Roberts said they would stop attending "political" events that were sponsored by groups who were in front to SCOTUS or took positions on SCOTUS decisions, and they could not get one other Justice to join them. It is not just Thomas, the Justices as a whole feel they can set their own rules and seem quite prepared to protect each other regardless of political persuasion. It is a great club to belong to.

An impressive display of false equivalency going on here

The other question that remains that doesn't seem to be addressed here is why are we hung-up on disclosure, as opposed to addressing conduct. Does anyone really think if Sotomeyer goes on a junket with George Soros or speaks to the ACLU or Thomas goes on a junket with Crow or speaks to the Federalist Society, that is really going to change their mind on how they vote? Because disclosure isn't going to stop the Justices from engaging in such conduct.

If you think that conduct is unacceptable because it impacts how the Justice votes, then have Congress and the President pass laws prohibiting such conduct, and if the Justices don't comply, impeach them.

wifeisafurd said:

---

The other question that remains that doesn't seem to be addressed here is why are we hung-up on disclosure, as opposed to addressing conduct. Does anyone really think if Sotomeyer goes on a junket with George Soros or speaks to the ACLU or Thomas goes on a junket with Crow or speaks to the Federalist Society, that is really going to change their mind on how they vote? Because disclosure isn't going to stop the Justices from engaging in such conduct.

If you think that conduct is unacceptable because it impacts how the Justice votes, then have Congress and the President pass laws prohibiting such conduct, and if the Justices don't comply, impeach them.

---

I actually agree with you that whether the Koch brothers gave perks to Scalia and Thomas or not, they were still going to be on the same side of Citizens United, as well as philosophically aligned with the Koch brothers on every other decision.

If there is an article comparing Justice Sotomeyer's conduct with the conflict of interest conduct of Justices Scalia and Thomas, I would love to read it.

There is a smattering of details on Sotomayor, usually in connection with the annual articles that come from the same sources about SCOTUS junkets. Here are some examples:

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor flew commercial when she gave the University of Rhode Island's commencement speech in 2016, but her roundtrip flights from Washington, D.C. to Providence, Rhode Island, still cost more than $1,0oo. Once in Providence, Sotomayor, her security detail and some of her family friends stayed in a bloc of between five and 11 hotel rooms at The Break, a boutique hotel in Narragansett that advertises rooms at about $200 $250 a night." Roll Call Legislative Journal March 24, 2020.

Sotomayor has reported law school teaching income in various years. Reuters June 17, 2020 (me- most Justices teach at law schools when SCOTUS if off term). Sotomayor also has the most investment income of all Judges per Reuters [most of those investments are in blind trust - me again as source].

There is an entire June 16, 2022 article from "Fix the Court" that takes Sotomajor to task for leaving out "six free or reimbursed excursions off her 2016 financial disclosure report, which she amendment last year but was only released to the public (i.e., us) today".

April 14, 2017 article on C-Span on an unreported visit to Stanford Law School (had to throw this in given the latest controversy at Furd).

There were some articles when Sotomayor was the sole dissent (8 to 1 vote) where SCOTUS ruled Congress can exclude residents of Puerto Rico from some federal disability benefits available to those who live in the 50 states,. Sotomayor's parents are from Puerto Rico, and she visits the island to see relatives, often on trips paid for by Puerto Rican businesses. E.G., CNN Politics April 20, 2022.

She spends a lot more time doing school speeches, but occasionally goes off on political issues, which you would think would disqualify from hearing cases on these issues (or do Justices have First Amendment rights?). her is an example. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/sonia-sotomayor-conservative-supreme-court. This is essentially the same thing Ginsburg said, and Ginsburg had to apologize after conservative critics stated suggesting she disqualified herself from hearing certain cases.


On I assume the non-controversial side: Sonia Sotomayor disclosed more than $3.3 million in book payments since 2010reported earning $115,593 in book royalties from Penguin Random House last year, with whom she has released multiple children's books and her autobiography. Washington Post


Thomas clearly has other issues than Sotomayor, such as his wife may have created conflicts. But Sotomayor is not a perfect angel, and it is interesting how the mass media has not picked-up on certain things even when reported by more left leaning sources such s Fix the Court. That said, she has independent income and seems to take far less on the gravy trains than some other Justices such as Beyer and Thomas, who seem to be the worst in recent times. Sotomeyor probably gets mentioned by Fix the Court and other reform minded groups, just so they don't look like they are playing favorites. She may take advantage so perks, but she probably is the cleanest Justice, though again, Kagan and Roberts recently have chosen to back off on speaking engagements and junkets.

They need to get Thomas off the court before Biden's term. They know this. They will look for anything.

wifeisafurd said:

---

There is a smattering of details on Sotomayor, usually in connection with the annual articles that come from the same sources about SCOTUS junkets. Here are some examples:

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor flew commercial when she gave the University of Rhode Island's commencement speech in 2016, but her roundtrip flights from Washington, D.C. to Providence, Rhode Island, still cost more than $1,0oo. Once in Providence, Sotomayor, her security detail and some of her family friends stayed in a bloc of between five and 11 hotel rooms at The Break, a boutique hotel in Narragansett that advertises rooms at about $200 $250 a night." Roll Call Legislative Journal March 24, 2020.

Sotomayor has reported law school teaching income in various years. Reuters June 17, 2020 (me- most Justices teach at law schools when SCOTUS if off term). Sotomayor also has the most investment income of all Judges per Reuters [most of those investments are in blind trust - me again as source].

There is an entire June 16, 2022 article from "Fix the Court" that takes Sotomajor to task for leaving out "six free or reimbursed excursions off her 2016 financial disclosure report, which she amendment last year but was only released to the public (i.e., us) today".

April 14, 2017 article on C-Span on an unreported visit to Stanford Law School (had to throw this in given the latest controversy at Furd).

There were some articles when Sotomayor was the sole dissent (8 to 1 vote) where SCOTUS ruled Congress can exclude residents of Puerto Rico from some federal disability benefits available to those who live in the 50 states,. Sotomayor's parents are from Puerto Rico, and she visits the island to see relatives, often on trips paid for by Puerto Rican businesses. E.G., CNN Politics April 20, 2022.

She spends a lot more time doing school speeches, but occasionally goes off on political issues, which you would think would disqualify from hearing cases on these issues (or do Justices have First Amendment rights?). her is an example. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/21/politics/sonia-sotomayor-conservative-supreme-court. This is essentially the same thing Ginsburg said, and Ginsburg had to apologize after conservative critics stated suggesting she disqualified herself from hearing certain cases.


On I assume the non-controversial side: Sonia Sotomayor disclosed more than $3.3 million in book payments since 2010reported earning $115,593 in book royalties from Penguin Random House last year, with whom she has released multiple children's books and her autobiography. Washington Post


Thomas clearly has other issues than Sotomayor, such as his wife may have created conflicts. But Sotomayor is not a perfect angel, and it is interesting how the mass media has not picked-up on certain things even when reported by more left leaning sources such s Fix the Court. That said, she has independent income and seems to take far less on the gravy trains than some other Justices such as Beyer and Thomas, who seem to be the worst in recent times. Sotomeyor probably gets mentioned by Fix the Court and other reform minded groups, just so they don't look like they are playing favorites. She may take advantage so perks, but she probably is the cleanest Justice, though again, Kagan and Roberts recently have chosen to back off on speaking engagements and junkets.

---

I'm for full disclosure. Let's make sure to disclose that the 6 trips Sotomayer took and failed to disclose until later were all for public service to state universities and the universities paid the expenses.

sycasey said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

They need to get Thomas off the court before Biden's term. They know this. They will look for anything.

---

---

Seriously, how do they even think this would happen? You're never getting enough Senate votes to remove him.

---

You'd be surprised what you can accomplish when you own the american media and intelligence services.

DiabloWags said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

They need to get Thomas off the court before Biden's term. They know this. They will look for anything.

---

---

Seriously, how do they even think this would happen? You're never getting enough Senate votes to remove him.

---

You'd be surprised what you can accomplish when you own the american media and intelligence services.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Dont forget George Soros!

LMFAO.

---

You anti-semite.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

They need to get Thomas off the court before Biden's term. They know this. They will look for anything.

---

---

Seriously, how do they even think this would happen? You're never getting enough Senate votes to remove him.

---

You'd be surprised what you can accomplish when you own the american media and intelligence services.

---

Powerful though they may be, I don't think they have the power to remove a Supreme Court justice.

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

They need to get Thomas off the court before Biden's term. They know this. They will look for anything.

---

---

Seriously, how do they even think this would happen? You're never getting enough Senate votes to remove him.

---

You'd be surprised what you can accomplish when you own the american media and intelligence services.

---

Powerful though they may be, I don't think they have the power to remove a Supreme Court justice.

---

Hillary Clinton paid $1 million for a fake dossier to have Trump impeached with the help of the intelligence services and media shills.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

They need to get Thomas off the court before Biden's term. They know this. They will look for anything.

---

---

Seriously, how do they even think this would happen? You're never getting enough Senate votes to remove him.

---

You'd be surprised what you can accomplish when you own the american media and intelligence services.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Dont forget George Soros!

LMFAO.

---

You anti-semite.

---

Yeah, that's me.
My Great Great Grandfather was a California State Senator.... Phillip Cohn.

DiabloWags said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

They need to get Thomas off the court before Biden's term. They know this. They will look for anything.

---

---

Seriously, how do they even think this would happen? You're never getting enough Senate votes to remove him.

---

You'd be surprised what you can accomplish when you own the american media and intelligence services.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Dont forget George Soros!

LMFAO.

---

You anti-semite.

---

Yeah, that's me.
My Great Great Grandfather was a California State Senator.... Philip Cohn.

---

Sounds like white privilege.

You got me.

He owned a hardware store in Folsom.
What do you do for a living again.... wash cars?

Youre not part of one of those Militias in Southern Oregon are you?

DiabloWags said:

---

You got me.

He owned a hardware store in Folsom.
What do you do for a living again.... wash cars?

---

Own you.

Sorry bro.
I dont let Archie Bunker's anywhere near my GT3.