honestly though. roberts is not accountable to anybody for anything, so why would he go and maybe say something that will leave the supreme court with an even smaller approval rating?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
honestly though. roberts is not accountable to anybody for anything, so why would he go and maybe say something that will leave the supreme court with an even smaller approval rating?
It's crazy and I agree. There are two paths, neither are likely. Either Robert (or Thomas) could be formally censured, which takes a majority vote of the Senate. The second is impeachment. While censure seems weak (it is), it would be embarrassing for both of them.
I am not aware of any other path, but we'll see what Schumer does.
honestly though. roberts is not accountable to anybody for anything, so why would he go and maybe say something that will leave the supreme court with an even smaller approval rating?
It's crazy and I agree. There are two paths, neither are likely. Either Robert (or Thomas) could be formally censured, which takes a majority vote of the Senate. The second is impeachment. While censure seems weak (it is), it would be embarrassing for both of them.
I am not aware of any other path, but we'll see what Schumer does.
and impeachment does or doesn't require house vote?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
honestly though. roberts is not accountable to anybody for anything, so why would he go and maybe say something that will leave the supreme court with an even smaller approval rating?
It's crazy and I agree. There are two paths, neither are likely. Either Robert (or Thomas) could be formally censured, which takes a majority vote of the Senate. The second is impeachment. While censure seems weak (it is), it would be embarrassing for both of them.
I am not aware of any other path, but we'll see what Schumer does.
and impeachment does or doesn't require house vote?
Good question. My guess is it doesn't since confirmation does not, but I should look that up. Either way, there are not 2/3 ready to do that.
Supreme Court on ethics issues: Not broken, no fix needed
By JESSICA GRESKO
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is speaking with one voice in response to recent criticism of the justices' ethical practices: No need to fix what isn't broken.
The justices' response on Tuesday struck some critics and ethics experts as tone deaf at a time of heightened attention on the justices' travel and private business transactions. That comes against the backdrop of a historic dip in public approval as measured by opinion polls.
Deeply divided on some of the most contentious issues of the day — including abortion, gun rights and the place of religion in public life — the court's six conservatives and three liberals seem united on this particular principle: on ethics they will set their own rules and police themselves.
Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and legal ethics expert, said everything the justices detailed Tuesday evening about ethics was essentially outlined in Chief Justice John Roberts' annual year-end report from 2011, more than a decade ago.
“They’re basically saying ... What we’ve been doing is just fine. Let’s just re-say it for those of you at the back...That just strikes me as, you know, pretty empty,” Geyh said.
The most recent stories about the questionable ethics practices of justices began earlier this month. First came a ProPublica investigation that revealed that Thomas has for more than two decades accepted luxury trips nearly every year from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow without reporting them on financial disclosure forms. Thomas responded by issuing a statement saying that he was not required to disclose the trips.
A week later, ProPublica revealed in a new story that Crow had purchased three properties belonging to Thomas and his family, a transaction worth more than $100,000 that Thomas never disclosed. Politico reported more recently that when Justice Neil Gorsuch sold property he co-owned shortly after becoming a justice, he disclosed the sale but omitted that the property was purchased by a person whose firm frequently has cases before the high court.
And earlier this year, there were stories about the legal recruiting career of Chief Justice John Roberts' wife and whether it raised ethical concerns that she was paid large sums for placing lawyers at firms that appear before the court.
The series of revelations has provoked outcry and calls for reform particularly from Democrats. On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Angus King, the independent from Maine, announced legislation that would require the Supreme Court to create a code of conduct and appoint an official to oversee potential conflicts and public complaints. Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Supreme Court ethics reform.
“The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s ethical standards. I invite you to join it,” wrote Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., in a letter.
Roberts declined in his own letter made public Tuesday evening. He wrote that testimony by previous holders of his office before Congress is "exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light or separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”
To his letter, however, Roberts attached a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” signed by all nine justices describing the ethical rules they follow about travel, gifts and outside income. “This statement aims to provide new clarity to the bar and to the public on how the Justices address certain recurring issues, and also seeks to dispel some common misconceptions,” the statement read.
But ethics experts and other court observers said the statement that followed and ran just over two pages was nothing new, just “the rehashing of things we already knew and found insufficient,” said Gabe Roth of the watchdog group Fix the Court in a statement.
The statement signed by the justices essentially said that they consult a wide variety of sources to address ethical issues, decide for themselves when a conflict requires that they step away from a case and file the same annual financial disclosure reports as other judges.
The justices have previously resisted calls to write a formal code of conduct.
Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said in her view the problem is that the justices “have not been subjected to basic accountability that just about everybody else in the federal government has to comply with.”
What was striking to her about the statement, she said, was “a failure to grapple with the fundamental problem of lack of accountability.” The justices "seem to be utterly clueless about the problem they have ... They're in a bubble apparently. They don't see what a big problem they have with the lack of accountability,” she said.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
When you start messing around with peoples right to choose or right to marry whomever they want you better have never, ever done anything wrong because a lot of people are going to be looking into your personal space and past. It amazes me how seriously ignorant these so called “leaders” and “law makers” are. If I had three ounces of weed in my car I certainly wouldn’t go over the speed limit. If I’m getting gifts from those with motive then I’d be keeping my nose out of other’s business. Why would you do stupid shit that draws attention to yourself? Americas finest have no common sense.
Supreme Court Justice Stevens' private papers open to public
By JESSICA GRESKO and MARK SHERMAN
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly opened records that belonged to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens give the public a behind-the-scenes glimpse at his decades on the court, including the tense struggle over the 2000 presidential election and major cases on affirmative action and abortion.
Documents that became available Tuesday show the justices' strong, personal reactions as they considered Bush v. Gore, with conservatives complaining about the tone of their liberal colleagues' writings.
They also show Stevens crowing about the court's 2003 decision upholding affirmative action, which he termed a “great victory.” The current, more conservative court in contrast seems likely to do away with that very decision by early summer.
As a group, the papers reflect a different time on the court, which was more moderate and less divided in the years before Stevens retired in 2010. Today, the court has six conservatives and three liberals. Just last year conservatives won major victories on issues including gun rights and abortion, overturning Roe v. Wade in a momentous decision that gave states the ability to ban abortion after nearly 50 years.
Bush v. Gore, which ended Florida’s presidential recount and sent Republican George W. Bush to the White House over Democrat Al Gore was perhaps the most momentous case during Stevens' tenure. His papers show that two justices in the majority that ruled for Bush griped privately that the liberal justices’ dissents were overly harsh and would contribute to negative public reaction.
“The dissents, permit me to say, in effect try to coerce the majority by trashing the Court themselves, thereby making their dire, and I think unjustified, predictions a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the main opinion, wrote in a memo.
Justice Antonin Scalia noted in another memo that he “is the last person to complain” about hard-hitting dissents, having written his fair share. Still, Scalia wrote, “Going home after a long day, I cannot help but observe that those of my colleagues who were protesting so vigorously that the Court’s judgment today will do it irreparable harm have spared no pains — in a blizzard of separate dissents — to assist that result.”
Stevens himself was the author of one of those dissents, writing: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
Polling after the Bush v. Gore decision did in fact show a modest decrease in confidence in the court and, like for many of the country’s democratic institutions, confidence has waned in the last two decades. But more recently, polling after the court’s abortion decision showed a sharp drop in public approval.
Stevens, who died in 2019, is among 38 justices who have donated their papers to the Library of Congress, which is adjacent to the Supreme Court. His papers include drafts of opinions, communications between the justices and Stevens' notes from the justices' private conferences. Much of the material is typed, but there are also handwritten notes, though Stevens' cramped and angular handwriting can be hard to decipher.
Stevens was appointed to the court in 1975 by Republican President Gerald Ford and at first was considered a centrist, but he came to be seen as the court’s leading liberal. Stevens said that he hadn’t changed but that the court had grown more conservative around him. He did change his views on some issues, however. He came to believe the death penalty is wrong and morphed from a critic of affirmative action to a supporter.
In the Grutter v. Bollinger case from 2003, Stevens was in the majority that voted to preserve affirmative action. Shortly before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion for the court came out, Stevens wrote to fellow liberal Justice David Souter: “If either one of us had written it, we would have said much more, but on balance we really have a great victory.”
Other cases covered by the newly available documents include:
— The court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the right to abortion and was thrown out last year along with Roe v. Wade. The court's most recent abortion decision became public in an explosive leak ahead of its publication, and Stevens' papers show there were similar concerns about a leak in Casey. After an article in Newsweek magazine about what was allegedly going on inside the court in regards to the case, Chief Justice William Rehnquist sent a note admonishing the justices' law clerks they were to communicate as little as possible with members of the press. “In the case of any matter pending before the court, the least possible communication is none at all,” he wrote, underlining the last three words.
— The court's 2002 opinion in Atkins v. Virginia that outlawed the execution of people with intellectual disabilities, then referred to as mentally retarded. Stevens was the author of the opinion, and a draft of it began: “Like children, the mentally retarded…” Kennedy wrote that the phrasing was “likely to cause disappointment, perhaps even resentment, among persons and groups who work to advance the cause of retarded persons.” Stevens omitted the reference in the final 6-3 opinion, which Kennedy joined.
The Library of Congress first made a selection of Stevens' papers available in 2020. Those papers largely covered 1975 to 1984. The newly opened selection includes cases decided as recently as the middle of 2005.
The justices' papers are considered personal property, and nothing dictates the justices must keep any records or make them public. Stevens is among several justices, along with Harry Blackmun and Thurgood Marshall, whose papers became public while at least one colleague still was on the bench.
Stevens' most recent files covering the period of 2005 to 2010, when the court ruled in two major gun rights cases, will not be open until 2030. That most recent period is when Stevens served with several current members of the court: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The only current justice represented in the newly opened papers is Justice Clarence Thomas.
___
Associated Press reporter Hannah Fingerhut contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The same Texas billionaire who treated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to lavish vacations paid private boarding school tuition for Thomas’s grandnephew, a boy the justice has said he raised as a son, according to a new report that said Thomas did not disclose the payments.
ProPublica reported that Harlan Crow, a prominent Republican donor, paid tuition at Hidden Lake Academy, a boarding school in Georgia, as well as at Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia, for Mark Martin. Thomas had legal custody of the boy.
The publication cited a bank statement that showed Crow paid $6,200 in monthly tuition at Hidden Lake Academy in July 2009 and quoted Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school, as saying that Crow “picked up the tab” for the entire time Martin was a student there, about a year. Grimwood also told ProPublica that Crow told him that he paid tuition as well for Martin at Randolph-Macon Academy, which Martin attended both before and after his time at Hidden Lake Academy.
ProPublica said the exact total Crow paid for Martin’s education remains unclear. But if he paid for all four years at the two schools, the cost could have exceeded $150,000, based on public records of tuition rates at the schools, the publication reported.
ProPublica said Thomas did not respond to questions about the tuition arrangement. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday from The Washington Post. Neither Thomas nor the court’s public information office have responded to previous questions about Crow’s spending.
In a previous statement following a ProPublica report on Crow paying for his vacations, Thomas said he and his wife considered Crow and his wife to be “among our dearest friends” and that he had been advised he didn’t have to disclose the couple’s hospitality, which included travel on a private jet and yacht.
In a statement Thursday, Mark Paoletta, a friend of Thomas, said that Crow’s assistance had been limited to two years, one at Randolph Macon, Crow’s alma mater, and one at Hidden Lake Academy.
Paoletta said the funds went directly to the school and that Thomas was not required to disclose them because the definition of a “dependent child” in the Ethics in Government Act does not include a grandnephew.
“Justice Thomas and his wife devoted twelve years of their lives to taking in and caring for a beloved child — who was not their own — just as Justice Thomas’s grandparents had done for him,” Paoletta said. “They made many personal and financial sacrifices to do this. And along the way, their friends joined them in doing everything possible to give this child a future.”
Crow’s office issued a statement in which it did not dispute that Crow paid for Martin’s education.
“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education and giving back to those less fortunate, especially at-risk youth,” the statement said. “As part of his desire to perpetuate the American dream for all, and believing education is the great equalizer, he and his wife have supported many young Americans through scholarship and other programs at a variety of schools.”
“It’s disappointing that those with partisan political interests would try to turn helping at-risk youth with tuition assistance into something nefarious or political,” the statement said.
The latest revelations come as Democrats are pushing for greater transparency from the Supreme Court and calling on the justices to set stronger rules for reporting and acting on potential conflicts of interest.
Federal ethics law requires top officials from all three branches of government, including Supreme Court justices, to file annual financial disclosure forms listing outside income and investments. A separate judicial code of conduct directs lower court judges to avoid “the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” In addition, a federal law allows for the filing and investigating of misconduct complaints against lower-court judges.
The nine justices do not have such a code, though court transparency advocates and some lawmakers have long pressed the high court to adopt one. The justices have discussed but failed to reach consensus on a binding policy, The Washington Post reported this year, despite talks dating to at least 2019.
In addition to Crow paying for vacations for Thomas, ProPublica has previously reported that he purchased three properties in Savannah, Ga., from Thomas in 2014, including the single-story house where Thomas’s mother was living and two vacant lots nearby.
Thomas did not disclose the $133,363 real estate transaction on his financial disclosure forms. Crow told ProPublica that he wanted to preserve the first property as a museum dedicated to Thomas in the future, and said he had spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements to the house “to preserve its long-term viability.”
Thomas has not spoken publicly about the purchase.
The latest report comes just days after a Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics in which even some Republican senators suggested the justices should be paying attention to public calls for a more robust and clear code of conduct.
This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
because he isn't accountable to anybody for anything, other than the person giving him all that money.
the supreme court is corrupt as hell.
No, certain justices are corrupt as hell as well as ethically challenged. Very ethically challenged. Not surprising given who nominated them.
If you have 2 or 3 compromised that taints and delegitimizes the entire court. How many 5-4 decisions could have gone the other way if Thomas wasn't receiving gifts from people?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
because he isn't accountable to anybody for anything, other than the person giving him all that money.
the supreme court is corrupt as hell.
No, certain justices are corrupt as hell as well as ethically challenged. Very ethically challenged. Not surprising given who nominated them.
If you have 2 or 3 compromised that taints and delegitimizes the entire court. How many 5-4 decisions could have gone the other way if Thomas wasn't receiving gifts from people?
True but justices are individuals and not all of them are corrupt. The libs on the court should be shaming the cons at every opportunity, whether in hearings, deliberations or interactions within chambers. If you had a POS colleague like Clarence in your place of employment whereas you knew the largess being showered upon them and how certain business decisions were made, would you smile and be collegial?
Only god is their witness and their god is an evangelical god. Good luck with that. ‘Murikkka is no better off than any other country with a non-existent or corrupt judicial system. Welcome to the third world.
I don’t think anyone is or should be surprised by the whole CT ethical discoveries. First and once again a woman is not taken seriously so we end up with a pervert and a liar in the SC. He needs to resign. Kavanaugh’s day is coming.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.
Yeah...honestly I don't understand why the media and dems in congress aren't lighting themselves on fire. Imagine if this shit came out about Kagan or Sotomayor
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.
Yeah...honestly I don't understand why the media and dems in congress aren't lighting themselves on fire. Imagine if this shit came out about Kagan or Sotomayor
"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances."
I can only imagine there are plenty more stories like this from the SCOTUS but hearsay does not count. It's pretty pathetic that people still believe the stories about Kavanaugh. If you have proof, let's see it. Believing all women is a crock of shit. Funny how those that believe the Kavanaugh accusations don't believe the accusations against Biden. You can't have it both ways. If we have to believe one woman, we have to believe all women.
This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.
Yeah...honestly I don't understand why the media and dems in congress aren't lighting themselves on fire. Imagine if this shit came out about Kagan or Sotomayor
"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances."
I can only imagine there are plenty more stories like this from the SCOTUS but hearsay does not count. It's pretty pathetic that people still believe the stories about Kavanaugh. If you have proof, let's see it. Believing all women is a crock of shit. Funny how those that believe the Kavanaugh accusations don't believe the accusations against Biden. You can't have it both ways. If we have to believe one woman, we have to believe all women.
These are public disclosures in plain view. Thomas was neither declaring them or recusing himself. You don't see the difference?
This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.
Yeah...honestly I don't understand why the media and dems in congress aren't lighting themselves on fire. Imagine if this shit came out about Kagan or Sotomayor
"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances."
I can only imagine there are plenty more stories like this from the SCOTUS but hearsay does not count. It's pretty pathetic that people still believe the stories about Kavanaugh. If you have proof, let's see it. Believing all women is a crock of shit. Funny how those that believe the Kavanaugh accusations don't believe the accusations against Biden. You can't have it both ways. If we have to believe one woman, we have to believe all women.
These are public disclosures in plain view. Thomas was neither declaring them or recusing himself. You don't see the difference?
There are no code of ethics for the SCOTUS so there's problem number one. I have no idea why that is but I know it is above my paygrade.
Yes, I see the difference but that doesn't change the fact that Sotomayor should have recused herself like any judge below SCOTUS would of had to do.
This is fucking insane....how does Thomas not resign?
And here I thought John Roberts was so concerned about the optics of the supreme court. If he gave a rat's ass, he'd compel this guy to pack his shit and get out now, or call for an investigation immediately and put him on suspension for the duration.
Yeah...honestly I don't understand why the media and dems in congress aren't lighting themselves on fire. Imagine if this shit came out about Kagan or Sotomayor
"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances."
I can only imagine there are plenty more stories like this from the SCOTUS but hearsay does not count. It's pretty pathetic that people still believe the stories about Kavanaugh. If you have proof, let's see it. Believing all women is a crock of shit. Funny how those that believe the Kavanaugh accusations don't believe the accusations against Biden. You can't have it both ways. If we have to believe one woman, we have to believe all women.
These are public disclosures in plain view. Thomas was neither declaring them or recusing himself. You don't see the difference?
There are no code of ethics for the SCOTUS so there's problem number one. I have no idea why that is but I know it is above my paygrade.
Yes, I see the difference but that doesn't change the fact that Sotomayor should have recused herself like any judge below SCOTUS would of had to do.
First, yes there are. These are barred attorneys that follow a very specific code. Second, there are federal disclosure requirements and it seems plainly obvious that Thomas violated them. But it's up to Roberts to enforce them,. Congress can only censure or Impeach. The DOJ could file federal charges but that's unlikely.
Third, you keep forgetting about Gorsuch in your criticism. Just a simple oversight?
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I am not aware of any other path, but we'll see what Schumer does.
and impeachment does or doesn't require house vote?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is speaking with one voice in response to recent criticism of the justices' ethical practices: No need to fix what isn't broken.
The justices' response on Tuesday struck some critics and ethics experts as tone deaf at a time of heightened attention on the justices' travel and private business transactions. That comes against the backdrop of a historic dip in public approval as measured by opinion polls.
Deeply divided on some of the most contentious issues of the day — including abortion, gun rights and the place of religion in public life — the court's six conservatives and three liberals seem united on this particular principle: on ethics they will set their own rules and police themselves.
Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and legal ethics expert, said everything the justices detailed Tuesday evening about ethics was essentially outlined in Chief Justice John Roberts' annual year-end report from 2011, more than a decade ago.
“They’re basically saying ... What we’ve been doing is just fine. Let’s just re-say it for those of you at the back...That just strikes me as, you know, pretty empty,” Geyh said.
The most recent stories about the questionable ethics practices of justices began earlier this month. First came a ProPublica investigation that revealed that Thomas has for more than two decades accepted luxury trips nearly every year from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow without reporting them on financial disclosure forms. Thomas responded by issuing a statement saying that he was not required to disclose the trips.
POLITICS
House Republicans pass US debt bill, push Biden on spending
Biden, Yoon warn N. Korea on nukes, unveil deterrence plan
Appeals court rejects Trump effort to block Pence testimony
Biden bats away questions about age, polls; launches 2024 ad
A week later, ProPublica revealed in a new story that Crow had purchased three properties belonging to Thomas and his family, a transaction worth more than $100,000 that Thomas never disclosed. Politico reported more recently that when Justice Neil Gorsuch sold property he co-owned shortly after becoming a justice, he disclosed the sale but omitted that the property was purchased by a person whose firm frequently has cases before the high court.
And earlier this year, there were stories about the legal recruiting career of Chief Justice John Roberts' wife and whether it raised ethical concerns that she was paid large sums for placing lawyers at firms that appear before the court.
The series of revelations has provoked outcry and calls for reform particularly from Democrats. On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Angus King, the independent from Maine, announced legislation that would require the Supreme Court to create a code of conduct and appoint an official to oversee potential conflicts and public complaints. Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Supreme Court ethics reform.
“The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s ethical standards. I invite you to join it,” wrote Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., in a letter.
Roberts declined in his own letter made public Tuesday evening. He wrote that testimony by previous holders of his office before Congress is "exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light or separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”
To his letter, however, Roberts attached a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” signed by all nine justices describing the ethical rules they follow about travel, gifts and outside income. “This statement aims to provide new clarity to the bar and to the public on how the Justices address certain recurring issues, and also seeks to dispel some common misconceptions,” the statement read.
But ethics experts and other court observers said the statement that followed and ran just over two pages was nothing new, just “the rehashing of things we already knew and found insufficient,” said Gabe Roth of the watchdog group Fix the Court in a statement.
The statement signed by the justices essentially said that they consult a wide variety of sources to address ethical issues, decide for themselves when a conflict requires that they step away from a case and file the same annual financial disclosure reports as other judges.
The justices have previously resisted calls to write a formal code of conduct.
Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said in her view the problem is that the justices “have not been subjected to basic accountability that just about everybody else in the federal government has to comply with.”
What was striking to her about the statement, she said, was “a failure to grapple with the fundamental problem of lack of accountability.” The justices "seem to be utterly clueless about the problem they have ... They're in a bubble apparently. They don't see what a big problem they have with the lack of accountability,” she said.
___
Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly opened records that belonged to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens give the public a behind-the-scenes glimpse at his decades on the court, including the tense struggle over the 2000 presidential election and major cases on affirmative action and abortion.
Documents that became available Tuesday show the justices' strong, personal reactions as they considered Bush v. Gore, with conservatives complaining about the tone of their liberal colleagues' writings.
They also show Stevens crowing about the court's 2003 decision upholding affirmative action, which he termed a “great victory.” The current, more conservative court in contrast seems likely to do away with that very decision by early summer.
As a group, the papers reflect a different time on the court, which was more moderate and less divided in the years before Stevens retired in 2010. Today, the court has six conservatives and three liberals. Just last year conservatives won major victories on issues including gun rights and abortion, overturning Roe v. Wade in a momentous decision that gave states the ability to ban abortion after nearly 50 years.
Bush v. Gore, which ended Florida’s presidential recount and sent Republican George W. Bush to the White House over Democrat Al Gore was perhaps the most momentous case during Stevens' tenure. His papers show that two justices in the majority that ruled for Bush griped privately that the liberal justices’ dissents were overly harsh and would contribute to negative public reaction.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
Women sue Texas over abortion ban, say it risked their lives
In Selma, Biden says right to vote remains under assault
Missouri debates ban on LGBTQ education for all grades
Supreme Court student loan hearing: What you need to know
“The dissents, permit me to say, in effect try to coerce the majority by trashing the Court themselves, thereby making their dire, and I think unjustified, predictions a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the main opinion, wrote in a memo.
Justice Antonin Scalia noted in another memo that he “is the last person to complain” about hard-hitting dissents, having written his fair share. Still, Scalia wrote, “Going home after a long day, I cannot help but observe that those of my colleagues who were protesting so vigorously that the Court’s judgment today will do it irreparable harm have spared no pains — in a blizzard of separate dissents — to assist that result.”
Stevens himself was the author of one of those dissents, writing: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
Polling after the Bush v. Gore decision did in fact show a modest decrease in confidence in the court and, like for many of the country’s democratic institutions, confidence has waned in the last two decades. But more recently, polling after the court’s abortion decision showed a sharp drop in public approval.
Stevens, who died in 2019, is among 38 justices who have donated their papers to the Library of Congress, which is adjacent to the Supreme Court. His papers include drafts of opinions, communications between the justices and Stevens' notes from the justices' private conferences. Much of the material is typed, but there are also handwritten notes, though Stevens' cramped and angular handwriting can be hard to decipher.
Stevens was appointed to the court in 1975 by Republican President Gerald Ford and at first was considered a centrist, but he came to be seen as the court’s leading liberal. Stevens said that he hadn’t changed but that the court had grown more conservative around him. He did change his views on some issues, however. He came to believe the death penalty is wrong and morphed from a critic of affirmative action to a supporter.
In the Grutter v. Bollinger case from 2003, Stevens was in the majority that voted to preserve affirmative action. Shortly before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion for the court came out, Stevens wrote to fellow liberal Justice David Souter: “If either one of us had written it, we would have said much more, but on balance we really have a great victory.”
Other cases covered by the newly available documents include:
— The court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the right to abortion and was thrown out last year along with Roe v. Wade. The court's most recent abortion decision became public in an explosive leak ahead of its publication, and Stevens' papers show there were similar concerns about a leak in Casey. After an article in Newsweek magazine about what was allegedly going on inside the court in regards to the case, Chief Justice William Rehnquist sent a note admonishing the justices' law clerks they were to communicate as little as possible with members of the press. “In the case of any matter pending before the court, the least possible communication is none at all,” he wrote, underlining the last three words.
— The court's 2002 opinion in Atkins v. Virginia that outlawed the execution of people with intellectual disabilities, then referred to as mentally retarded. Stevens was the author of the opinion, and a draft of it began: “Like children, the mentally retarded…” Kennedy wrote that the phrasing was “likely to cause disappointment, perhaps even resentment, among persons and groups who work to advance the cause of retarded persons.” Stevens omitted the reference in the final 6-3 opinion, which Kennedy joined.
The Library of Congress first made a selection of Stevens' papers available in 2020. Those papers largely covered 1975 to 1984. The newly opened selection includes cases decided as recently as the middle of 2005.
The justices' papers are considered personal property, and nothing dictates the justices must keep any records or make them public. Stevens is among several justices, along with Harry Blackmun and Thurgood Marshall, whose papers became public while at least one colleague still was on the bench.
Stevens' most recent files covering the period of 2005 to 2010, when the court ruled in two major gun rights cases, will not be open until 2030. That most recent period is when Stevens served with several current members of the court: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The only current justice represented in the newly opened papers is Justice Clarence Thomas.
___
Associated Press reporter Hannah Fingerhut contributed to this report.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Couldn’t swing it on $272,800, eh Clarence?
Hey, buh, buh, buh Hunter’s laptop, right? Anyone get Gym Jordan’s thoughts? Anyone?
The same Texas billionaire who treated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to lavish vacations paid private boarding school tuition for Thomas’s grandnephew, a boy the justice has said he raised as a son, according to a new report that said Thomas did not disclose the payments.
ProPublica reported that Harlan Crow, a prominent Republican donor, paid tuition at Hidden Lake Academy, a boarding school in Georgia, as well as at Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia, for Mark Martin. Thomas had legal custody of the boy.
The publication cited a bank statement that showed Crow paid $6,200 in monthly tuition at Hidden Lake Academy in July 2009 and quoted Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school, as saying that Crow “picked up the tab” for the entire time Martin was a student there, about a year. Grimwood also told ProPublica that Crow told him that he paid tuition as well for Martin at Randolph-Macon Academy, which Martin attended both before and after his time at Hidden Lake Academy.
ProPublica said the exact total Crow paid for Martin’s education remains unclear. But if he paid for all four years at the two schools, the cost could have exceeded $150,000, based on public records of tuition rates at the schools, the publication reported.
ProPublica said Thomas did not respond to questions about the tuition arrangement. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday from The Washington Post. Neither Thomas nor the court’s public information office have responded to previous questions about Crow’s spending.
In a previous statement following a ProPublica report on Crow paying for his vacations, Thomas said he and his wife considered Crow and his wife to be “among our dearest friends” and that he had been advised he didn’t have to disclose the couple’s hospitality, which included travel on a private jet and yacht.
In a statement Thursday, Mark Paoletta, a friend of Thomas, said that Crow’s assistance had been limited to two years, one at Randolph Macon, Crow’s alma mater, and one at Hidden Lake Academy.
Paoletta said the funds went directly to the school and that Thomas was not required to disclose them because the definition of a “dependent child” in the Ethics in Government Act does not include a grandnephew.
“Justice Thomas and his wife devoted twelve years of their lives to taking in and caring for a beloved child — who was not their own — just as Justice Thomas’s grandparents had done for him,” Paoletta said. “They made many personal and financial sacrifices to do this. And along the way, their friends joined them in doing everything possible to give this child a future.”
Crow’s office issued a statement in which it did not dispute that Crow paid for Martin’s education.
“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education and giving back to those less fortunate, especially at-risk youth,” the statement said. “As part of his desire to perpetuate the American dream for all, and believing education is the great equalizer, he and his wife have supported many young Americans through scholarship and other programs at a variety of schools.”
“It’s disappointing that those with partisan political interests would try to turn helping at-risk youth with tuition assistance into something nefarious or political,” the statement said.
The latest revelations come as Democrats are pushing for greater transparency from the Supreme Court and calling on the justices to set stronger rules for reporting and acting on potential conflicts of interest.
Federal ethics law requires top officials from all three branches of government, including Supreme Court justices, to file annual financial disclosure forms listing outside income and investments. A separate judicial code of conduct directs lower court judges to avoid “the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” In addition, a federal law allows for the filing and investigating of misconduct complaints against lower-court judges.
The nine justices do not have such a code, though court transparency advocates and some lawmakers have long pressed the high court to adopt one. The justices have discussed but failed to reach consensus on a binding policy, The Washington Post reported this year, despite talks dating to at least 2019.
In addition to Crow paying for vacations for Thomas, ProPublica has previously reported that he purchased three properties in Savannah, Ga., from Thomas in 2014, including the single-story house where Thomas’s mother was living and two vacant lots nearby.
Thomas did not disclose the $133,363 real estate transaction on his financial disclosure forms. Crow told ProPublica that he wanted to preserve the first property as a museum dedicated to Thomas in the future, and said he had spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements to the house “to preserve its long-term viability.”
Thomas has not spoken publicly about the purchase.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch has also come under scrutiny following a Politico report that he did not disclose that the chairman of a major law firm in 2017 bought a Colorado property in which the justice held an interest.
The latest report comes just days after a Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics in which even some Republican senators suggested the justices should be paying attention to public calls for a more robust and clear code of conduct.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/04/clarence-thomas-tuition-harlan-crow/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
the supreme court is corrupt as hell.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Only god is their witness and their god is an evangelical god. Good luck with that. ‘Murikkka is no better off than any other country with a non-existent or corrupt judicial system. Welcome to the third world.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009 and has been paid millions of dollars from the publisher over the years, declined to recuse herself in all three instances."
I can only imagine there are plenty more stories like this from the SCOTUS but hearsay does not count. It's pretty pathetic that people still believe the stories about Kavanaugh. If you have proof, let's see it. Believing all women is a crock of shit. Funny how those that believe the Kavanaugh accusations don't believe the accusations against Biden. You can't have it both ways. If we have to believe one woman, we have to believe all women.
Yes, I see the difference but that doesn't change the fact that Sotomayor should have recused herself like any judge below SCOTUS would of had to do.
Third, you keep forgetting about Gorsuch in your criticism. Just a simple oversight?