Clarence Thomas' shenanigans where he "took tens of thousands of dollars worth of hospitality, luxury travel and other favors from a conservative donor" is most likely going to drive bipartisan support for Supreme Court ethics reform in Congress. Let's admit it --- SC justices taking in thousands of dollars worth of free stuff coupled with questionable financial reporting while ruling on significant cases does not have a good look. No matter which party drove the appointment of the justice. Thomas’s ethics issues stir GOP unease, set up reform push https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...questions-stir-gop-unease-set-up-reform-push/ Some Republican senators are feeling uneasy about the reports that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of hospitality, luxury travel and other favors from a conservative donor — and that unease could fuel bipartisan support for a Supreme Court ethics reform bill. Their growing concern comes amid declining public approval of the Supreme Court and evidence that Americans increasingly believe the courts and law enforcement agencies have become politicized. “I think we are moving dangerously close to a place where the public has lost faith and trust in the credibility of our governing institutions. They don’t trust the court, I don’t think what’s going on with Justice Thomas is helping anything,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said. Murkowski said she spoke on Tuesday with Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) about a proposal he is circulating among colleagues to require the Supreme Court to adopt a judicial code of conduct. She said she supported the approach outlined in the proposal: to require justices — not members of Congress — to set ethics rules for the Supreme Court. “I see no reason not to be able to support this other than are Republicans worried that we don’t want to embarrass the conservative members of the court. We need to be worried about the credibility of the court right now. If I were Chief Justice Roberts, I would have been working on this the minute this news broke,” she said. Reporting by ProPublica that Thomas failed to disclose luxury trips he accepted regularly from Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, as well as the sale of a property in which he owned a one-third interest to one of Crow’s company has prompted a public outcry. Democrats on Capitol Hill are calling on Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate the matter and the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to hold a hearing about the high court’s ethical standards. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), declined to comment on directly the allegations that Thomas vacationed on Crow’s superyacht or regularly flew on his Bombardier Global 5000 jet, without disclosing it, but she said she supports the Judiciary Committee looking into the court’s ethics. “I think it’s an issue the Judiciary Committee should take a look at,” she said. “I think the Judiciary Committee should have a hearing and hear from the Judicial Conference.” The Judicial Conference is the policymaking body for federal courts. She said senators should “hear from legal experts” and “then make some sort of decision.” Collins said when she learned of that Thomas had accepted hospitality and travel from a wealthy friend, “my reaction was that I wondered what the judicial practices were in this area.” “I know that personal hospitality is exempt and that he has known the Crow family for a long time, they’re personal friends, but that doesn’t usually extend to the use of airplanes to pick up someone to bring someone to a site,” she said. The 1978 Ethics in Government Act requires high-level government officials, including Supreme Court justices, to file publicly available financial disclosure statements. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, noted on the floor Tuesday that while the disclosure rules exempt food, lodging or entertainment received as personal hospitality, they do not exempt transportation and travel. He said “each one of those trips” Thomas took on Crow’s plane “seems to be a slam-dunk violation of this provision.” He also pointed out that the law required Thomas to disclose “any purchase, sale or exchange in real property other than the property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual.” Members of the Supreme Court do not have to abide by the Judicial Conference’s code of conduct for U.S. judges, which binds every other member of the federal judiciary. When Democrats on the Judiciary Committee asked Roberts to adopt that code of conduct for himself and fellow justices, Roberts responded that the high court “had no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance.” Even Republicans who don’t think Congress should police the Supreme Court’s ethics tacitly acknowledge that Thomas’s close relationship with the Dallas businessman, which comes with many fancy perks, may appear problematic to regular Americans. “My first reaction was the court being a separate branch of government should have the first opportunity to police it or to monitor or to respond to it,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said. He noted that Thomas plans to amend his financial disclosure documents to reflect the real estate transaction he made with Crow. “I think sometimes we get to the point where we see something bad happening and we say, ‘Well, we have to do something,’ but we don’t know what it is and we end up doing something in a knee-jerk fashion,” he said, adding Thomas’s acceptance of hospitality and travel “is being identified” in a negative light. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he thinks the court will move on its own to adopt new ethical guidelines and that Congress shouldn’t intervene. “A lot of us are really leery of micromanaging the other branch but I think that’s where the court is headed, at least that’s where I hope they are,” he said. “I think the court is on the track of making sure the perception problem is dealt with,” he added. “Clarence Thomas is a friend. I like him and I take his word for what happened. The reason we have these [ethics] rules on our side [of government] is to make sure people feel confident and I think that’s where the court is headed.” Other Republicans are taking a harder line in defending Thomas. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said “most of” the criticism of Thomas is “partisan.” “When I look at Clarence Thomas’s long career, I see a courageous intellectual,” he said. “He’s been an amazingly independent sort of libertarian-leaning intellectual.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary panel, said, “I think the topic of judicial ethics is certainly an appropriate topic for the Judiciary Committee” but said “I don’t think that’s actually what Senate Democrats are interested in.” “Senate Democrats are driving a smear campaign directed very particularly at Justice Clarence Thomas because they despise Justice Thomas. They disagree with his jurisprudence,” he said. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) didn’t outright defend Thomas, but on Tuesday defended the Supreme Court’s independence and said he had “total confidence” in Roberts to handle any ethical issues facing the court. The Supreme Court controversy comes at the same time two federal district court judges — one appointed by former President Trump and one appointed by former President Obama — issued dueling rulings on the abortion pill Mifepristone. And the Senate’s confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees has become more and more partisan over the past two decades. Murkowski argues that it’s important to restore Americans’ faith in their institutions, including the federal judiciary. “I think there have been some recent rulings that have rattled people and their confidence in the impartiality of our process that [judicial nominees] go through for confirmation,” she said. “We’re losing — I don’t know — credibility in our systems,” she said.
Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Friend Did Have Business Before the Supreme Court https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...business-before-the-supreme-court/ar-AA1ahfYE
Supreme Court draws fire for ethics inaction The court doubled down on its decision not to adopt a formal code of conduct, prompting a swift response from ethics experts. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-draws-fire-ethics-inaction-rcna81544 A new statement signed by all nine Supreme Court justices stressing their commitment to ethics principles has come under immediate fire for failing to respond to recent calls for the court to adopt a binding code of conduct. The statement was attached to a letter from Chief Justice John Roberts to Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., made public Tuesday, in which he declined an invitation to testify at a committee hearing on the Supreme Court's ethics rules. The statement, which notes that the justices “reaffirm and restate” their commitment to ethical principles, falls short on several fronts, legal ethics experts said. Democratic lawmakers were also quick to criticize it. Several experts faulted the court for doubling down on its decision not to adopt a formal code of conduct when public trust in the institution has plummeted after high-profile ethical concerns as well as a public backlash to some of its rulings on hot-button issues like abortion and guns. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. “It’s reflecting kind of a startling level of intransigence given the problems the court’s confronted," said Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, noting that public support for the court had plunged. District court and appeals court judges are bound by a judicial ethics code that requires judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” Judges who breach the code can be investigated and reprimanded via a separate complaint process. The Supreme Court, however, has no procedure for complaints to be investigated short of the substantial step of impeachment. The nine justices say they follow the spirit of the code, but they have never adopted one of their own. On Wednesday, Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said they will introduce legislation to require the court to create its own code of conduct as well as appoint an official to review public complaints and publish annual reports disclosing them. A similar bill had already been introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said that the justices' statement of ethics is “a step forward,” but insufficient to address ethics concerns that have swirled around the court in recent years. It also serves as a sign that the court has no plan to adopt a binding code of ethics without substantial pressure from Congress, he said. Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law, said that amending the current code of conduct for the Supreme Court would be "simple" and would pose no threat to the separation of powers. "There is no excuse for failing to do so," Gillers said. "While it is true that there is no way sensibly to enforce an ethics code against the justices, that is not a reason not to adopt one. The enforcement will rely on the justices’ honor and respect for the court itself." Roberts had been invited to testify at the Senate Judiciary Committee's May 2 hearing on the Supreme Court's ethical rules and potential reforms to those rules. But he suggested his participation in the hearing could infringe on judicial independence. In recent weeks, the court has come under increased scrutiny after a ProPublica report described how Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted gifts and lavish trips from Harlan Crow, a Republican donor and billionaire. Thomas did not disclose the gifts he received from Crow, prompting calls from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for Roberts to investigate Thomas' conduct. The justice has since called the gifts "personal hospitality." But concerns over ethical lapses by the justices are nothing new. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg came under fire for her heavy criticism of then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 election. Still, conservative justices have faced the most public backlash in recent years, coinciding with the court's rightward shift. Geyh said that conservative justices may feel they are being "unfairly attacked," leading them to reject a code of conduct. “It’s not a conservatives problem, but I think it’s something they perceive as such," Geyh said. Roberts' refusal to engage on the issue appeared to further enrage Democrats, with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., saying that the court was engaging in "self-policing" that "has not served the American people well." "This new statement of principles has virtually no utility," Whitehouse said in a statement Tuesday. "There is still no inbox to file a complaint, no process for fact finding, no way of making ethics determinations, and thus no way of holding justices accountable." Whitehouse has introduced legislation to create a new procedure to investigate and enforce Supreme Court disclosure rules, becoming one of the latest Democratic senators to do so. Durbin said that Supreme Court ethics reforms“must happen whether the Court participates in the process or not.” “I am surprised that the Chief Justice’s recounting of existing legal standards of ethics suggests current law is adequate and ignores the obvious," Durbin said in a statement responding to Roberts' letter. The justices' statement stipulated that they file the same annual financial disclosure reports as other federal judges do. Allegations of errors in these reports are referred to the Committee on Financial Disclosure, which can send a letter of inquiry to a justice. They follow the same general principles and standards for recusal as other justices do, but the application of the principles can differ due to the court's unique position, the justices wrote. Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonpartisan watchdog Fix the Court, said about the justices' statement: "My main takeaway is that beyond the utter disappointment I have in reading and rereading it, it’s self-contradictory in a really disappointing way." "Roberts says he’s looking to 'address certain recurring issues,' but it’s the very fact that these issues are recurring that make them so problematic," Roth added.
Oh you sweet summer child... Nice try to backpedal. Anita Hill warned y'all....as you were warned about Kavanaugh and that bible freak.
Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition. Crow paid for private school for a relative Thomas said he was raising “as a son.” “This is way outside the norm,” said a former White House ethics lawyer. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided to send his teenage grandnephew to Hidden Lake Academy, a private boarding school in the foothills of northern Georgia. The boy, Mark Martin, was far from home. For the previous decade, he had lived with the justice and his wife in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was “raising him as a son.” Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martin’s tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow. The payments extended beyond that month, according to Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school. Crow paid Martin’s tuition the entire time he was a student there, which was about a year, Grimwood told ProPublica. “Harlan picked up the tab,” said Grimwood, who got to know Crow and the Thomases and had access to school financial information through his work as an administrator. Before and after his time at Hidden Lake, Martin attended a second boarding school, Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia. “Harlan said he was paying for the tuition at Randolph-Macon Academy as well,” Grimwood said, recalling a conversation he had with Crow during a visit to the billionaire’s Adirondacks estate. (Much more at above url)
A bought and paid for SC is a decades old problem. A highly political SP is a decades old problem. You guys just now catching on? The government, the ENTIRE government, all three branches are corrupt as hell and have been for decades. Try to keep up.
Clarence Thomas' wife Ginni was paid nearly $100,000 for 'consulting' by a nonprofit that ended up filing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court: report https://www.businessinsider.com/ginni-thomas-paid-by-nonprofit-amicus-brief-supreme-court-2023-5
Clarence Thomas Reversed Position After Gifts And Family Payments The Supreme Court justice switched sides on a landmark legal doctrine, satisfying his benefactors’ conservative advocacy machine. https://www.levernews.com/clarence-thomas-reversed-position-after-gifts-and-family-payments/ May 9, 2023