• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Deacfreak07 said:
Robert’s legacy is something else.
Click to expand...

5ggZ.gif
 
The goal is to justify their misdeeds with whataboutism. So yeah. Their followed just assume both sides are the same.
 
Shifting the conversation from Thomas to whether or not Crow is a nazi or not is just big brain media 4D chess.
 
Yeah. It sets of an argument that a SCOTUS justice getting millions in gifts from a billionaire is fine if he’s not a Nazi. And debating these issues normalizes admiration for Nazism.
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. It sets of an argument that a SCOTUS justice getting millions in gifts from a billionaire is fine if he’s not a Nazi. And debating these issues normalizes admiration for Nazism.
Click to expand...
Seems like at this point justices just won’t disclose any gifts so they don’t have to sully their good names. Not like disclosing means anything anyways.
 
John Roberts won't even pretend to care.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Click to expand...


In the past 9 months, my son (goes to college w/ Harlan's daughter) has been to 3 of the Crow properties mentioned in the recent articles. "Sprawling", "elegant" and "opulent" are misleading because they are gross understatements.

These Crow articles make for an interesting read, but there's little focus on (1) what's the law?...(2) was it violated?...(3) if no, what are the efforts to change it?
 
From my understanding, the law isn’t taking the benefit (bribe), but not reporting it. Again, if you are the law…
 
These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.
Click to expand...

Thomas didn’t report any of the trips ProPublica identified on his annual financial disclosures. Ethics experts said the law clearly requires disclosure for private jet flights and Thomas appears to have violated it.

Justices are generally required to publicly report all gifts worth more than $415, defined as “anything of value” that isn’t fully reimbursed. There are exceptions: If someone hosts a justice at their own property, free food and lodging don’t have to be disclosed. That would exempt dinner at a friend’s house. The exemption never applied to transportation, such as private jet flights, experts said, a fact that was made explicit in recently updated filing instructions for the judiciary.

Two ethics law experts told ProPublica that Thomas’ yacht cruises, a form of transportation, also required disclosure.

“If Justice Thomas received free travel on private planes and yachts, failure to report the gifts is a violation of the disclosure law,” said Kedric Payne, senior director for ethics at the nonprofit government watchdog Campaign Legal Center. (Thomas himself once reported receiving a private jet trip from Crow, on his disclosure for 1997.)
Click to expand...

All he had to do was disclose the gifts. Which he did, originally, and then he stopped.

Link
 
I am not allowed to buy my colleagues/friends in the fish and wildlife service dinner worth over $50 without out them having to file ethics disclosure forms just in case I later turn around and try to use the "gift" as leverage for getting some big government bird research grant. Gifting guidelines and regulations are incredibly strict for your everyday average government employee, yet Thomas thinks he can accept a $500,000 vacation for free without disclosing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top