Why can't we get the pissed off emoji back? Dems should not wait for Roberts to investigate. The Seante Judiciary Committee needs to open hearings, IMMEDIATELY!!
Why can't we get the pissed off emoji back? Dems should not wait for Roberts to investigate. The Seante Judiciary Committee needs to open hearings, IMMEDIATELY!!Looks like Crow was putting money directly in Thomas' pocket and Thomas did not report it, an explicit violation of the law.
Harlan Crow Bought Property from Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.
The transaction is the first known instance of money flowing from Crow to the Supreme Court justice. The sale netted the GOP megadonor two vacant lots and the house where Thomas’ mother was living.www.propublica.org
Why can't we get the pissed off emoji back? Dems should not wait for Roberts to investigate. The Seante Judiciary Committee needs to open hearings, IMMEDIATELY!!
Why can't we get the pissed off emoji back? Dems should not wait for Roberts to investigate. The Seante Judiciary Committee needs to open hearings, IMMEDIATELY!!
His presence on the court is a mockery to the American judicial system, undermining the USA at the fundamental level of fairness and decency.
They are damning, but he will not resign and congress will not remove him. It’s sad that over the last 10 years or so we have essentially legalized bribery and corruption.There's no sane/rational way to explain away these most recent revelations as anything less than damning.
Which is petty problematic since the other Justices are certainly watching this closely, because somewhere out there is Sam Murdoc going all...They are damning, but he will not resign and congress will not remove him. It’s sad that over the last 10 years or so we have essentially legalized bribery and corruption.
To be honest I think he has been pretty consistent in his rulings from the bench. What's the shittiest choice that fucks over the most people has been his guiding star as a justice.Wonder how many times this damning kompromat has been used to sway his vote one way or the other?
Wonder how many times this damning kompromat has been used to sway his vote one way or the other?
I think it very well could be a coincidence as Thomas has always been an ultra, ultra right wing judge. There's no way to know though, which is kind of the point.I read somewhere yesterday that in the 8 Crow related cases that had been identified so far, that he ruled in Crow's favor in all 8. I'm sure it's just coincidence though.
I think it very well could be a coincidence as Thomas has always been an ultra, ultra right wing judge. There's no way to know though, which is kind of the point.
The code of ethics isn't just to prevent clear corruption - it is also there for the integrity of the institution. Simply put, if people can put thousands or millions of dollars in a justice's pocket secretly then we have no reason to believe the court rules with integrity, even if they do!
While I don't agree he would survive something THAT obvious it's a sad statement to our system that I'm definitely not sure that's the case.At this point, I think even if we had a video of Thomas being handed a pile of money with audio explicitly stating he would rule one way, there wouldn't be anything done about it.
We're broken.
There is not much that can really be done. All that you can really do is impeach him, and as long as he votes the way they want him too, the GOP does not care.At this point, I think even if we had a video of Thomas being handed a pile of money with audio explicitly stating he would rule one way, there wouldn't be anything done about it.
We're broken.
This is where expanding the court comes in. You will basically never get 67 senators to vote to remove Thomas but you can take away a lot of his power with 51 senators. Now of course so far we haven't been able to do that either but it does seem like an achievable goal, unlike the 67 vote threshold.There is not much that can really be done. All that you can really do is impeach him, and as long as he votes the way they want him too, the GOP does not care.
I agree to an extent, it is one of the few things we can get done, and should. The problem is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. If it is okay for billionaires to bribe SCOTUS then it hardly matters how many people we put on the court, they will just get bought.This is where expanding the court comes in. You will basically never get 67 senators to vote to remove Thomas but you can take away a lot of his power with 51 senators. Now of course so far we haven't been able to do that either but it does seem like an achievable goal, unlike the 67 vote threshold.
^^^ This. Most codes of judicial conduct clearly state that judges must avoid not only "impropriety" but also even the appearance of impropriety!I think it very well could be a coincidence as Thomas has always been an ultra, ultra right wing judge. There's no way to know though, which is kind of the point.
The code of ethics isn't just to prevent clear corruption - it is also there for the integrity of the institution. Simply put, if people can put thousands or millions of dollars in a justice's pocket secretly then we have no reason to believe the court rules with integrity, even if they do!
Even low level weenies like me who wield no power have to follow similar rules and get trained on this annually.^^^ This. Most codes of judicial conduct clearly state that judges must avoid not only "impropriety" but also even the appearance of impropriety!
I agree to an extent but also the idea that SCOTUS is immune from all ethics laws is a SCOTUS invented concept. You could nominate judges who would rule against such an idea.I agree to an extent, it is one of the few things we can get done, and should. The problem is that it does not really solve the underlying problem. If it is okay for billionaires to bribe SCOTUS then it hardly matters how many people we put on the court, they will just get bought.
If this is allowed to pass without any real consequence then the US Justice system will eventually become a marketplace with the law favoring whoever puts in the highest bid.
While I don't agree he would survive something THAT obvious it's a sad statement to our system that I'm definitely not sure that's the case.
I mean we had a situation for four years where foreign governments and interest groups spent huge amounts of money at a hotel the president ran down the street from the White House. When Trump lost the presidency all that business immediately dried up but nobody seems bothered by that fact or the completely obvious implications of it.