Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?

[Horace]

@Mik said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:

As am I with mine.

We agree then.

I've listened to a few conversations among liberal followers of the court, and they are disappointed that she did not retire. At those moments in the conversation, the subject quickly changes. Those would be good times to bring up reasons that would convince everybody that she was doing what she thought was for the best, for the country. But those possible reasons are never mentioned. Probably because there are no reasons that seem plausible.

[George K]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fix-the-court-should-fix-itself-788170d8?mod=e2two

‘Fix the Court’ Should Fix Itself

It would be nice if the progressives attacking Supreme Court Justices for alleged ethical lapses practiced what that they preach. Consider the outfit Fix the Court, which is working with Democrats to pass ethics and disclosure rules for Justices while ignoring a requirement to disclose its own lobbying.

Fix the Court is leading the campaign targeting Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for the supposed offense of associating with billionaires. The nonprofit is an offshoot of the New Venture Fund, which is among a web of progressive groups backed by the left-wing for-profit Arabella Advisors.

“We’re the only group in the nation working to open up the most powerful, least accountable part of government—the Supreme Court—by advocating for a few simple ‘fixes,’” Fix the Court’s website says. By “fix,” it means diminish conservative influence on the Court.

One such fix is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. Last month Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth appeared on Mr. Whitehouse’s podcast to “discuss ways to strengthen ethical guardrails at the Court” via legislation.

Yet Fix the Court hasn’t followed the disclosure rules it is supposed to adhere to, as the Washington Examiner recently reported. As a 501(c)(3) public charity, the outfit can shield the names of its donors. Donations are also tax deductible. But charities must abide by limits on political activities.

The Internal Revenue Service website states that “no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying),” which includes urging “the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body” and advocating “the adoption or rejection of legislation.” The IRS defines a “substantial part” as more than 20% of spending.

Charities are required to disclose whether they engage in political lobbying on their tax return Form 990. Fix the Court claimed it didn’t lobby on its 2022 public disclosure. Yet its website includes a long list of judicial bills that it has supported or opposed.

It also says it’s working with Members “in the 118th Congress to urge the judiciary to adopt the same exacting travel, gift and personal hospitality rules that members of Congress and top executive branch officials must follow” and that it supports Congress using its statutory authority “to compel acceptance of the [ethics] code.” This sure looks like political lobbying under the IRS definition.

[Jolly]

At one point in time, the U.S. knew what the menace of socialism and communism meant. Somehow, with the passage of the Great Society programs, we've let the camel inch his way into the tent. The camel keeps promising security, if only we give up just a bit more freedom.

I think we need to take a very hard look at political donations. I understand money is speech, but megaphones must have some semblance of equality.

[taiwan_girl]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23932836-clarence-thomas-2022-financial-disclosure

[Jolly]

And in other news, over 100 of his old clerks wrote a testimonial letter for him.

Don't eat the Democrat cheese...

[George K]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/justice-thomas-2022-financial-disclosure-form-clears-up-past-errors-undermines-corruption-allegations/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=header&utm_content=popular&utm_term=first

Also, after the Dobbs leak, he was advised to not take public transportation...

[George K]

LOL. Ain't irony ironical?

A Supreme Court "transparency" watchdog taking aim at justices over alleged ethics violations scrubbed its website of blog posts tied to its lobbying that went undisclosed on tax forms, records show.

Executive Director Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a charity that spun off from the liberal Arabella Advisors-managed New Venture Fund nonprofit group, admitted last week his organization failed to report lobbying on tax forms in 2021 and 2022. Now, Fix the Court has removed website posts that multiple tax attorneys previously said appear to demonstrate how it lobbied during those years.

"No man so dishonest in his legal disclosures has standing to judge anyone's disclosures," Scott Walter, president of the conservative Capital Research Center think tank, told the Washington Examiner.

The revelation concerning Fix the Court's updated website comes after the group, which is helping to lead a seemingly coordinated campaign calling on justices such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to disclose more about their finances, came under fire from charity experts for likely skirting federal law for checking the box "no" on tax forms to the question of whether it lobbied in 2021 and 2022. The scrutiny was because Fix the Court has endorsed certain pieces of legislation and, in separate blog posts, urged members of the public to demand lawmakers support them.

Fix the Court filed amended 2022 tax forms affirming "yes" to the lobbying question, documents reveal. The group also filed a Schedule C showing it spent $6,400 trying "to influence foreign, national, state, or local legislation" through "publications, or published or broadcast statements" and $6,300 on "direct contact with legislators, their staffs, government officials, or a legislative body."

[Jolly]

Now, I wonder if this coordinated silliness will die down?

[taiwan_girl]

QUOTE
Asked about the ethical issues that have plagued the Supreme Court recently, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Thursday that the court was “continuing to work on those issues” and he’s “hopeful that there will be some concrete steps taken soon,” according to multiple news organizations present, the first indication of any kind that the Supreme Court is willing to address the ethical scandals.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/09/07/supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-said-the-court-is-working-on-concrete-steps-to-address-ethics-issues/?sh=2f31d6430f23

[Jolly]

Still beating this dead horse?

[George K]

Here’s a thought. Let’s ask former Speaker Pelosi how she got rich

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:

Still beating this dead horse?

If you’re directing your post at Kavanaugh, he obviously doesn’t think it’s dead.

[Jolly]

Look, the Dem controlled media has decided to create a story, mostly from nothing, because a reliable ally of the Left, now has a conservative (actually more of a center) make-up. The media will continue to hunt for every tidbit they can, to further the message.

Funny, when SCOTUS was more liberal, this was no story at all.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:

Look, the Dem controlled media has decided to create a story, mostly from nothing, because a reliable ally of the Left, now has a conservative (actually more of a center) make-up. The media will continue to hunt for every tidbit they can, to further the message.

Funny, when SCOTUS was more liberal, this was no story at all.

It certainly pales into insignificance beside those truly shocking stories about Obama riding a bike and wearing a tan suit that outraged the more conservative section of the MSM.

[Jolly]

You had to find a mighty tall ladder to pick those cherries.

[jon-nyc]

The press didn’t make this up, they’ve chosen to be selective about reporting on it. But let’s be honest, the answer to the question posed in the thread title is “of course he fucking did”.

This would be obvious to all had the issue originally been framed in a non-partisan way.

The thing is, while it is clearly wrong, it didn’t violate any existing rules.

It seems apparent that at least some of the justices realize this and would like to fix it. Probably most of them do, though I suspect many are hesitant to be seen slavishly reacting to the media, especially partisan media. I imagine what will happen is that over time, as the buzz dies down, we’ll see them institute their own reforms.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:

I imagine what will happen is that over time, as the buzz dies down, we’ll see them institute their own reforms.

Which is what will happen.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in Did Clarence Thomas Do anything Wrong?:

You had to find a mighty tall ladder to pick those cherries.

The only ladder I had to climb was to find a bone of contention so ridiculously stupid that it was clearly incomparable to a Justice accepting large gifts. There are plenty examples of the conservative bit of the MSM finding rather silly things to get worked up about. In this particular case, the level of outrage inspired by such a stupid issue was pretty high IIRC. Obviously when Fox do this kind of thing it's more out of patriotic fervour than because they're a bunch of cunts like the rest of the media.

The great media moralist Bill O'Really said of Obama riding a bicycle, 'America deserves better'. Obviously this was before he was fired for alleged sexual misconduct which apparently is even worse than riding a bike in a built up area.