Yeah I see it as a job offer. Leave the Court and I will pay you one million per year to be my go to guy.
Yeah I see it as a job offer. Leave the Court and I will pay you one million per year to be my go to guy.No. SCOTUS has defined bribery so narrowly now that it’s basically impossible for anyone to be convicted of it.
Bribery would require money for Thomas to rule a specific way on a case, not offering to pay him if he quits.
It is also possible that he uses it to negotiate betterIf it is truly about the money then he should take it…. If he doesn’t it is about something else
He wants the money, but he also doesn't want to lose the power of his station. He can't wait until he has a chance to replace Roberts as Chief Justice.If it is truly about the money then he should take it…. If he doesn’t it is about something else
His life long cause is the same cause of all conservative Republicans. Stick it to the libs.He wants the money, but he also doesn't want to lose the power of his station. He can't wait until he has a chance to replace Roberts as Chief Justice.
I can't really put into words how perfect that show was. I usually enjoy his show when I catch it. This was a whole new level. I don't know if it can ever be replicated.The show is on YT now. Makes more sense with the context. Thomas told conservatives that the job paid too little and signal he might leave. This got conservative billionaires to step up and offer him the benefits to entice him to stay on the court. So John's offer was the reverse of that.
The show is on YT now. Makes more sense with the context. Thomas told conservatives that the job paid too little and signal he might leave. This got conservative billionaires to step up and offer him the benefits to entice him to stay on the court. So John's offer was the reverse of that.
FFSIt is estimated Thomas has received $4.2 million in gifts. Thomas has been allowed to file amended gift statements in which he is still omitting items.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received millions in gifts over 20 years, group says
Advocacy group Fix the Court said Thomas accepted $2.4 million in gifts and $1.8 million in 'likely gifts,' more than the rest of the court combined.www.usatoday.com
i know if i hid financial gifts from other parties for years, and only disclosed them because i had been found out, that i would certainly still have my job /s.It is estimated Thomas has received $4.2 million in gifts. Thomas has been allowed to file amended gift statements in which he is still omitting items.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received millions in gifts over 20 years, group says
Advocacy group Fix the Court said Thomas accepted $2.4 million in gifts and $1.8 million in 'likely gifts,' more than the rest of the court combined.www.usatoday.com
I don't know. Tickets to an artists own concert seems like an actual grey area. The book deals are a bit more concerning, IMHO.Waits for the torches and pitchforks
But dumb move to accept the tickets. Doubt Beyoncé is going to be in front of the Supreme Court at time soon though.
The man who supposedly is chosen to make judgements and interpret the law from the constitution, can't interpret a tax law.It is estimated Thomas has received $4.2 million in gifts. Thomas has been allowed to file amended gift statements in which he is still omitting items.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received millions in gifts over 20 years, group says
Advocacy group Fix the Court said Thomas accepted $2.4 million in gifts and $1.8 million in 'likely gifts,' more than the rest of the court combined.www.usatoday.com
Trapped in a room with a mouse and elephant and can’t tell the difference in sizeI don't know. Tickets to an artists own concert seems like an actual grey area. The book deals are a bit more concerning, IMHO.
Overall we really do need to have a national discussion about what is appropriate, and what is not, and then apply some hard rules that apply to everyone from the president down to the dog catcher. And they will probably have to be implemented by a Constitutional Amendment.
I don't know. Tickets to an artists own concert seems like an actual grey area. The book deals are a bit more concerning, IMHO.
Overall we really do need to have a national discussion about what is appropriate, and what is not, and then apply some hard rules that apply to everyone from the president down to the dog catcher. And they will probably have to be implemented by a Constitutional Amendment.
Under current law, the dog catcher would already be in prison for taking the bribes that the Supremes are pocketing.I don't know. Tickets to an artists own concert seems like an actual grey area. The book deals are a bit more concerning, IMHO.
Overall we really do need to have a national discussion about what is appropriate, and what is not, and then apply some hard rules that apply to everyone from the president down to the dog catcher. And they will probably have to be implemented by a Constitutional Amendment.
In a perfectly round universe with no friction that might work, but here in the real world it is a bit more complex than that. This is not the first time we have had corrupt SC Justices, and it won't be the last. It is time we put some checks and balances on the SC.I argue that we shouldn't even have to have a discussion because those Justices are supposed to behave in ways that are beyond reproach to begin with.
That is the real problem, there is no real way to reign in the justices except impeachment, which is all but impossible, and has been nearly since the foundation of our country. We need some rails put on the SC. But importantly they need to be carefully formed so as not to make The Court too beholden to political machinations. I don't know how to do that right now, which is why we need a national conversation. Together maybe we can figure something out.These crooked justices need to be reigned in and Roberts has proven to be an abject failure in this regard.
And that is the problem. Ethics for thee, but not for me. They currently operate on Aristocratic Ethics, where is it more of a matter if you can get away with something without pissing off someone or some group more powerful than you rather than if it is ethical.Under current law, the dog catcher would already be in prison for taking the bribes that the Supremes are pocketing.
Expanding the court is the only way. If the judges act corruptly you dilute their power so the corruption means less. It also makes buying justices less attractive.In a perfectly round universe with no friction that might work, but here in the real world it is a bit more complex than that. This is not the first time we have had corrupt SC Justices, and it won't be the last. It is time we put some checks and balances on the SC.
That is the real problem, there is no real way to reign in the justices except impeachment, which is all but impossible, and has been nearly since the foundation of our country. We need some rails put on the SC. But importantly they need to be carefully formed so as not to make The Court too beholden to political machinations. I don't know how to do that right now, which is why we need a national conversation. Together maybe we can figure something out.
And that is the problem. Ethics for thee, but not for me. They currently operate on Aristocratic Ethics, where is it more of a matter if you can get away with something without pissing off someone or some group more powerful than you rather than if it is ethical.
Is this actually possible? The devil may be in the details. I used to work temporary agencies. It was bare existence and lasted around a decade. I was a mile below the poverty line. A few jobs were with a small book publisher who had 2nds, books on pallets that weren't boxed, meant to be given away. We could take them, and I still have quite a few. One job was a couple days in a tiny warehouse by a European guy who imported items, IIRC, mostly food. We moved boxes around. On the last day he gave us each an ~8oz bar of European chocolate (our pay was by our agency). If there were such an ammendment would this action make me a criminal?I don't know. Tickets to an artists own concert seems like an actual grey area. The book deals are a bit more concerning, IMHO.
Overall we really do need to have a national discussion about what is appropriate, and what is not, and then apply some hard rules that apply to everyone from the president down to the dog catcher. And they will probably have to be implemented by a Constitutional Amendment.