SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mickeyrat

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-financial-disclosures-gifts-travel-d0873c92792f6c0791c9269fe05ed937   Thomas acknowledges more travel paid for by Harlan Crow. Colleagues report six-figure book payments

 

Washington news

Thomas acknowledges more travel paid for by Harlan Crow. Colleagues report six-figure book payments

By MARK SHERMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST

2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday belatedly acknowledged more travel paid by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, while several colleagues reported six-figure payments as part of book deals.

Thomas, who has faced criticism for failing to report luxury trips paid for by Crow and others over many years, said in his annual financial disclosure that, in 2019, Crow paid for a hotel room in Bali, Indonesia, for a single night, and food and lodging at a private club in Sonoma County, California. He did not report any travel paid by others last year.

The disclosure on Indonesia is curious for what it omits: the rest of the trip. ProPublica reported last year that Thomas flew to Indonesia on Crow’s private jet and then boarded his superyacht for an islands tour, one of many trips Crow has given to Thomas and his wife, Ginni, over the years.

Another justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, reported eye-popping numbers, a nearly $900,000 advance for her upcoming memoir, and attention-grabbing gifts, four tickets to a Beyoncé concert valued at $3,700 from the singer herself.

---

U.S. SUPREME COURT

Roberts rejects Senate Democrats' request to discuss Supreme Court ethics and Alito flag controversy

The Washington Post said it had the Alito flag story 3 years ago and chose not to publish

Democratic senators request meeting with Chief Justice Roberts over flags flown at Alito's homes

Upside-down flag at Justice Alito's home another blow for Supreme Court under fire

Jackson was one of four Supreme Court justices who reported sizable income from book deals. Justice Brett Kavanaugh reported being paid $340,000 by the conservative Regnery Publishing company. The company was sold and the book is to be published by an imprint at Hachette Book Group, according to Axios, which also reported this week that Kavanaugh's book will deal with his contentious confirmation hearing that included allegations of sexual misconduct, which he has denied. The court confirmed Friday that the justice is writing a legal memoir.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor reported royalty income of $250,000 and nearly $90,000, respectively.

In their day jobs, the justices are being paid $298,500 this year, except for Chief Justice John Roberts, who earns $312,200.

The only justice whose report was not available Friday is Samuel Alito, who received an extension for up to 90 days, as he does most years. The justice has separately been under scrutiny over flags that flew outside homes he owned. He has said they were raised by his wife.

Jackson, the first Black woman on the nation's highest court, signed a book contract soon after taking her seat in 2022. The book, “Lovely One,” is to be published in September.

The total value of her book deal has not been publicly disclosed, but it is expected to rival if not exceed what Sotomayor was paid for her memoir, “My Beloved World,” more than $3 million.

Among the current justices, only Roberts, Alito and Justice Elena Kagan have so far not cut book deals. Thomas received a $1.5 million advance, stunning at the time, for his 2007 book, “My Grandfather's Son.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2022 reported receiving $425,000 for a yet-to-be-released book, part of a reported $2 million deal she signed soon after joining the court in 2020.

The disclosures paint a partial picture of the justices' finances, as they are not required to reveal the value of their homes or, for those who are married, their spouses' salary.

The justices adopted an ethics code in November, though it lacks a means of enforcement. The code treats travel, food and lodging as expenses rather than gifts, for which monetary values must be reported. Justices aren't required to attach a value to expenses.

In March, the federal judiciary began requiring judges to disclose travel-related gifts and their values — rather than reporting such gifts as reimbursements. The justices say they generally abide by the same rules, but Thomas did not disclose the cost of the Bali hotel.

Some Democratic lawmakers are continuing to press legislation that would require the court to adopt a binding code of conduct and provide for investigations of alleged violations. But the prospect for such legislation is considered remote in a closely divided Congress.

Only two justices reported receiving gifts last year. Thomas said he was given two photo albums worth $2,000 by Terrence Giroux and his wife. Giroux is the executive director emeritus of the Horatio Alger Association.

Jackson received artwork for her Supreme Court office worth $12,500. And then there were the Beyoncé tickets, worth more than $900 a pop. Beyoncé performed two concerts in the Washington area in August 2023, though Jackson's disclosure does not say when or where the tickets were for.

“Justice Jackson is Crazy in Love with Beyonce’s music,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said, invoking a Beyoncé song. “Who isn’t?”

mickeyrat

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3/post/C77CIDmJiDy/?xmt=AQGzNvDgp89Jvs42AB26kXexnm0xzDmhtjsOCScjDPvRtQ

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3/post/C77CJUtJ8kT/?xmt=AQGz6dvFQKnFedScv-pPwr_m-VKu47yZFCQHtyx8DAmfEA

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3/post/C77CIDmJiDy/?xmt=AQGzNvDgp89Jvs42AB26kXexnm0xzDmhtjsOCScjDPvRtQ

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3/post/C77CJUtJ8kT/?xmt=AQGz6dvFQKnFedScv-pPwr_m-VKu47yZFCQHtyx8DAmfEA

Someone appears bitter from their confirmation hearings.

Regarding Thomas, time to look at the issues before the court, how Thomas voted, and whether the old crow benefited in any way.

cblock4life

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/martha-ann-alito-supreme-court-wife-anti-pride-flag.html 

mickeyrat

mrs alito recorded.....

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3/post/C8EJtcnM_rw/?xmt=AQGzhl7Aw3uQ9FS7zSh4tKjLh-1kUhIFb_zZq8O3pTGTNw

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

mrs alito recorded.....

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3/post/C8EJtcnM_rw/?xmt=AQGzhl7Aw3uQ9FS7zSh4tKjLh-1kUhIFb_zZq8O3pTGTNw

Any comments from the Log Cabin Repubs?

mickeyrat

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-lindsey-graham-says-will-block-democrats-effort-unanimously-pass-s-rcna156669

Congress

Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will block Democrats' effort to unanimously pass Supreme Court ethics bill

The South Carolina Republican’s objection means the bill won't be able to move forward under a unanimous consent request, which any senator can block.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in Washington in 2022.Eric Lee / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  

June 11, 2024, 8:51 PM EDT

By Zoë Richards, Sahil Kapur and Frank Thorp V

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, plans to block an effort by Senate Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill Wednesday on the Senate floor.

“I will object,” Graham, R-S.C., told NBC News.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said earlier Tuesday that he would make a unanimous consent request to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation that the panel advanced last July.

Graham's objection means the bill won't be able to move forward, because any senator can block a request.

It isn't clear whether the measure will come up for a vote under the normal process, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he’s considering it.

Even before Graham made his comments, Democrats doubted the legislation would advance. “I think I know the outcome, but we’re going to go through the exercise to make sure that both parties are in the record,” Durbin told reporters Tuesday afternoon.

The Democratic-led Judiciary Committee advanced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act on a party-line vote nearly a year ago, but it can't break a filibuster on the Senate floor without 60 votes. Democrats have 51 members, and no Republican is on board with the bill.

In a news release, Democrats said the vote follows "a myriad of apparent ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices, which demonstrate the need for ethics reform."

Chief Justice Roberts declines meeting with Senate Democrats over Alito concerns

A spokesperson for the Supreme Court didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night.

Recommended

Business NewsJamie Dimon, other CEOs will attend private Trump meeting — some will skip

Justice Clarence Thomas reported a pair of trips in 2019 with billionaire friend Harlan Crow to Bali and to the private Bohemian Grove club in California in his annual financial disclosure report, which was released last week. ProPublica reported on Thomas' and other justices' previously undisclosed lavish travel in a series of stories last year that raised questions about the court’s ethics.

The bill would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct, allowing the public to submit ethics complaints that would then be reviewed by a randomly selected panel of lower-court judges. It would also establish new rules for disclosing gifts and travel.

The legislation would also require justices to publicly explain any decisions to recuse from cases.

Durbin last month called on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from a pair of cases tied to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, after The New York Times reported that an upside-down American flag was displayed outside his home in the days after the riot. Alito declined to step away from those cases.

Zoë Richards

Zoë Richards is the evening politics reporter for NBC News.

Sahil Kapur

Sahil Kapur is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.

Frank Thorp V

Frank Thorp V is a producer and off-air reporter covering Congress for NBC News, managing coverage of the Senate.

© 2024 NBC UNIVERSAL

Halifax2TheMax

Seems like the IRS ought to be looking into this as well. For all of the gifts. With back taxes, interest and penalties due. Hey, but Hunter’s laptop and lying on his federal firearms form, amiright?

New documents show unreported trips by Justice Clarence Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas took three previously unreported trips paid for by conservative Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, according to documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took three previously unreported trips paid for by conservative Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, according to new documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.

Details of the private jet flights between 2017 and 2021 were obtained as part of an investigation the committee has been conducting into reports of lavish undisclosed travel and perks provided to justices by Crow and other wealthy benefactors that have sparked calls for reform.

Crow released the information after the committee issued a subpoena for him and conservative activist, Leonard Leo, to provide information to the body last November. The subpoenas have never been enforced.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the committee, said the documents provided necessary transparency and the trips should have been reported on financial disclosures.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information — like what we’ve revealed today — and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Durbin said in a statement.

Crow said in a statement that he had reached an agreement with the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide information going back seven years.

Thomas’s unreported flights include the following:

• A May 2017 private jet trip from St. Louis, Mo., to Kalispell, MT, and a return flight to Dallas, TX.
• A March 2019 private jet trip from Washington, D.C., to Savannah, GA, and back.
• A June 2021 private jet trip from Washington, DC, to San Jose, Calif., and back.

The documents did not list the cost of the trips or why Thomas took them.

Elliot S. Berke, an attorney for Justice Clarence Thomas, said in a statement: “The information that Harlan Crow provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee fell under the ‘personal hospitality exemption’ and was not required to be disclosed by Justice Thomas.”

Thomas has complied with new disclosure requirements, Berke said.

The disclosures come after Thomas revealed this month hat he failed to report two 2019 trips to California and Indonesia that were also paid for by Crow. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats attempted to expedite passage of a bill that would provide a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court, but the effort was scuttled by Republicans who said the legislation’s true aim was to undermine a conservative court whose rulings Democrats don’t like.

Leo said in a statement last November after the subpoenas were issued that he “will not cooperate with this unlawful campaign of political retribution.” Durbin’s office said the Judiciary Committee’s broader investigation of Supreme Court ethics is ongoing.

The committee probe was prompted by reports in ProPublica and other media outlets that Thomas and Justice Samuel A. Alito took expensive trips without disclosing them in recent years. Crow also paid tuition for a Thomas relative and purchased the home of the justice’s mother.

“It is astonishing that at this late date, there continue to be revelations of gifts to Justice Thomas that he has never disclosed,” said Steven Lubet, a professor and judicial ethics expert at Northwestern University Law School.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/13/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-travel/

Halifax2TheMax

Thanks SCOTUS. Did Harlan Crow pay for this?

https://youtu.be/B6fE2JkvVoo?si=Rf8ioUyR-qvQv646

mickeyrat

spoken under oath?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/what-justice-alito-said-on-ethics-and-recusal-in-his-confirmation-hearings/

 

What Justice Alito said on ethics and recusal in his confirmation hearings

By Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel and Connor Ganiats

June 17, 2024

Share:

• Share this page on Facebook

During Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in January 2006, he committed to holding himself to an even higher standard for recusals than the judicial code of conduct required. He also represented himself as an impartial judge who would have no ideological agenda and repeatedly asserted that the president is not above the law.  As the Supreme Court considers high stakes cases about presidential immunity and accountability for the January 6th insurrection, Alito has attracted scrutiny for failing to recuse from those cases despite flying flags associated with the insurrection and the “Stop the Steal” movement at his houses. Despite calls from members of Congress, CREW and several other groups to recuse, Alito has refused. Alito’s commitments to impartiality and abiding by the highest ethical standards during his confirmation hearings stand at odds with his failure to recuse despite the clear conflicts at play in cases related to January 6th and the 2020 election. Play the Video Recusals Alito faced scrutiny for his initial failure to recuse from a case against the financial company Vanguard while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, despite holding at least $390,000 in Vanguard funds. Alito maintained that his failure to recuse was a mistake that he later remedied, and that ruling in the case did not actually violate judicial ethics rules.  Alito repeatedly stressed that he would recuse from cases where the ethics code required him to do so, despite the broad duty for Supreme Court justices to hear cases. When asked about the case by Senator Orrin Hatch, Alito said, “I not only complied with the ethical rules that are binding on Federal judges—and they’re very strict—but also that I did what I have tried to do throughout my career as a judge, and that is to go beyond the letter of the ethics rules and to avoid any situation where there might be an ethical question raised.” When pressed further by Senator Russ Feingold, Alito said he would not commit to recusing from all Vanguard cases going forward, but, “I will very strictly comply with the ethical obligations that apply to Supreme Court Justices.”  Later, during a back and forth with Senator Edward Kennedy about his Vanguard mutual fund not being on his recusal list, Alito said: “I am one of those judges that you described who take recusals very, very seriously.”  Immunity While Alito’s insurrection-related flags clearly require his recusal from all January 6th related cases—should he continue to fail to recuse from the Trump immunity case, his comments during his confirmation hearing may come back to haunt him if he chooses to side with Trump. During questioning by Senator Patrick Leahy about whether presidents can authorize the use of torture, Alito said, “I think the first thing that has to be said is what I said yesterday, and that is that no person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president and it includes the Supreme Court.” And when asked by Senator Chuck Grassley whether he believed that the President of the United States is above the law and the Constitution, he said: “Nobody in this country is above the law, and that includes the president.” Impartiality As a member of the conservative Federalist Society nominated to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing vote on the Court, Alito faced questions about whether he would be an ideological justice. During his closing comments on the first day of his confirmation hearing, Alito said: “A judge can’t have any agenda. A judge can’t have any preferred outcome in any particular case.”  On the second day of his confirmation hearing, Senator Jeff Sessions asked Alito, “And if you take the definition of activism as an action by a judge who allows their personal, political, or social, or moral values to override their commitment to the law, do you believe that a judge who is conservative can be an activist just as easily as one who is liberal?” In response, Alito said, “Yes, I do. I don’t think that activism has anything to do with being a liberal or conservative. It has to do with not following the proper judicial role. It has to do with a judge’s substituting his or her own views for what the Constitution means and for what the laws mean.” Read More in Investigations Investigations Trump has spread conspiracy theories about January 6th more than 175 times on Truth Social Trump's posts blame entities from the FBI to antifa—but point to one false narrative: January 6th was someone else’s fault and ultimately no big deal anyway. Help CREW hold corrupt politicians accountable. From Donald Trump to Bob Menendez to Clarence Thomas, it’s clear our democracy needs a serious watchdog and real reform. Help CREW take on government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests. Make a donation to support our work for accountability→ $25 $50 $100 $250 $500 ...or chip in another amount *If you’ve saved your information, your donation will go through immediately.

• 
  

• Link to instagram

• About
• Legal Actions
• Reports & Investigations
• News
• Financial Statements
• Press Kit
• Send Us a Tip
• ContributeOpens in a new window

© Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 2020–2024

CFC 42218

mickeyrat

bookmark the link n the article....

https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-connections-database-updated-scotus-disclosures?utm_campaign=propublica-sprout&utm_content=1718672400&utm_medium=social&utm_source=threads

ProPublica Updates “Supreme Connections” Database With New Justice Disclosures

The update includes data from eight financial disclosures made public last Friday that cover 2023, as well as information from some older filings.

---

by Ken Schwencke June 12, 6 a.m. EDT

• 
  

Change Appearance

Republish This Story

Series: Friends of the Court: SCOTUS Justices’ Beneficial Relationships With Billionaire Donors

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

We updated our “Supreme Connections” database on Wednesday with new entries from recently released financial disclosures from Supreme Court justices, as well as five filings from 2003 to 2007 we had previously been missing.

Defend the facts. Support independent journalism by donating to ProPublica.

Donate Now

“Supreme Connections” is our database that makes it easy for anyone to browse justices’ financial disclosures and to search for connections to people and companies mentioned within them.

This update includes data from eight disclosures made public last Friday, covering the 2023 calendar year. It does not include data for Justice Samuel Alito, who received a 90-day extension.

The latest update includes two 2019 vacations retroactively added by Justice Clarence Thomas, which were paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow and which the justice had previously failed to disclose. ProPublica was the first to reveal those and an array of other significant gifts from several billionaires. Thomas previously argued he did not need to disclose such gifts.

We have also added information from a 2003 filing from Alito and information from Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2004-07 filings that were previously obtained by JudicialWatch and archived by the Internet Archive. While federal ethics law requires judges to file these disclosures each year, the law requires most of them to be destroyed after six years, making many disclosures from earlier years hard to find.

In total, the update adds $50,000 worth of gifts disclosed (including concert tickets given to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by Beyoncé herself), 18 new organizations and individuals, and more than 200 new connections, such as book deals, trips and reimbursements.

Twitter

Facebook

josevolution

So no immunity decision ha! This is how I see this going I’m not the most knowledgeable poster here on politics so I’m probably just being paranoid.
Trumpolini bought the services of the three judges he got seated on the SC bench in return they have to pay back the favor hence the delay, 
They are waiting for the election to happen so they can both side the issue of immunity, if Biden wins they will rule that no one is above the law!
if Trumpollini wins they will side with him and state that Presidents are immune to prosecution

Gern Blansten

Fucking Thomas the only dissent on the guns case...unreal

mickeyrat

https://www.threads.net/@griffinkyle/post/C8eyzVHuFw3/?xmt=AQGzXnthwspdkFplA7AtEWga6orVrqH0vvJHMQrMQ9S6ig

mickeyrat

gift article

https://wapo.st/3RATGiY 

 Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic-violence restraining orders
By Ann E. Marimow
June 21, 2024 at 10:27 ET
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms in its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights.
The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in its decision two years ago known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Bruen required the government to point to historic analogues when defending laws that place limits on firearms, leading to a spate of court challenges against limits on possessing firearms — including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.

continues..

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

gift article

https://wapo.st/3RATGiY 

 Supreme Court upholds gun ban for domestic-violence restraining orders
By Ann E. Marimow
June 21, 2024 at 10:27 ET
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms in its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights.
The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in its decision two years ago known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Bruen required the government to point to historic analogues when defending laws that place limits on firearms, leading to a spate of court challenges against limits on possessing firearms — including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.

continues..

a blind squirrel finds nuts every once in a while too.

ikiT

we're fucking waiting...

tempo_n_groove

Rough draft on abortion accidentally published.

Looking for the draft now...

tempo_n_groove

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-acknowledges-document-pending-abortion-case-accidentally-rcna159081

gimmesometruth27

they are REALLY dragging their feet on this trump is immune case. you know 3 or 4 of them will say he has immunity.