The Thomases’ history of hobnobbing with a conservative billionaire might do him in, but it should be fairly obvious that Harlan Crow is not in Donald Trump’s hip pocket, or any pocket.
Clarence Thomas probably has enough money to do most of what is being criticized for without Mr. Crow. I see no reason for onerous rules. What if a friend drives (or provides with a limousine and chauffeur) him to a medical appointment that requires him to have a driver? Lavishness is just a matter of scale and lifestyle. Mr. Crow might have provided nicer transportation and friendship but if he is not a party to court proceedings, there is no conflict of interest. People with money usually have friends who have money - some have even more money. Not uncommon.
Mr. Crow and Justice Thomas share similar political beliefs. Justice Thomas might be more conservative. I see no conflict there.
Since you asked, I had two friends who paid my wife a salary and one job came with a good 401K. When we left Augusta 17 years ago, they said she was irreplaceable, so I guess she was worth every penny of it.
And would you have any issue disclosing for whom your wife was working?
I don't actually have any problem with Harlan Crow funding Ginny's day job - but given that the American taxpayer is setting that family up with a job for life, I would say that we (the taxpayers) are entitled to these kinds of disclosures, so we know if we're getting what we're paying for from the Justice, or whether there's someone else paying more (and we're wasting our taxpayer dollars for nothing).
I can't see why everything has to be secret if the Justice isn't doing anything wrong. And if he IS doing something wrong, transparency is one of the FEW levers we (the taxpayers) have available to us to do anything about that wrongdoing.
Well, the Justice's work product is on display for all to see. Dissensions, concurrences, legal basis. It's all there. I judge it by whether it's constitutional, within the norm and if I agree. Beyond that, I don't really care a lot.
Every Justice makes decisions based on his opinion of the role of the federal government in our lives. I suppose some can be bought but I don't see that as a sure thing investment at the Supreme Court level by those seeking to shape the government. It is a major factor in Presidential and Senate political endorsements and donations.
That is different than legislative politics where we cannot determine what we are getting for our money. Even if we think we can discern the meaning of several hundred pages of a bill largely written by lobbyists, we will not know how it affects us until the bureaucrats decide the rules. At every step of the way, there is room for graft and corruption.
The "garden of evil" stuff is a distraction from the very real concerns that need be addressed. The rules definitely need to change to avoid even the appearance of corruption: it should be noted that cases have been brought by AEI- should Thomas have recused himself in those due to receiving gifts from one of their board members?
The secret exchange of material value is what makes it corrupt.
I like the point about AEI cases before the court, but I am unable to find an example. Any links? I do not agree that secrets are necessarily corrupt - even those involving some value. Value is relative. Depends on lifestyle and wealth.
It may be best to correct that to "amicus briefs filed by AEI" which AEI promotes and takes credit regarding their impact on the court, as well as AEI's "Renewed Focus on the Supreme Court". The amicus briefs from AEI mean that Crow did have business before the court.
Secrets provide a perception of corruption at minimum. It's best to have clear-cut rules to combat both real and perceived corruption.
My question now is do the amicus briefs reflect Justice Thomas' long-held conservative beliefs or are they aimed at moderating his views to something closer akin to the AEI which appears to be slightly to the left of Thomas?
My wife says I am the most incurious individual she has ever known when it comes to the private behavior of others. She's probably right. I do not perceive corruption (or much of anything) until I see the end product. Justice Thomas' decisions appear to very consistent for many decades.
I'd say that's arguably irrelevant: the situation provides the appearance of corruption simply by providing the reason to question his (or anyone else that has the same occur) opinions as being personally financially motivated.
I think the liberals who go after every prominent black conservative are RACIST!! RACIST I say! How dare well-off blacks leave the democrat plantation and have conservative white spouses and well-off white friends?
Really curtis? What's happened to those of you on the right who find absolutely nothing wrong with any of the crap happening around us? Abbot seeks to pardon a murderer. The Texas judge who was bought and paid for shoving a medical ruling a down our throats from his tiny kingdom. The Tennessee legislature expelling two legislators for speaking out on gun violence. The goof in Wisconsin when he was humiliated at the ballot box acting like an infant. Trump threatening the country with civil war for his criminal actions. Thinking it's perfectly okay for a Supreme Court justice to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts to both him and his wife? Is there a single politician on the right with an ethical bone in their body?
The Grand Old Party is dead and gone, replaced by a bevy of beauties who simply want to see who can become the most embarrassing of fools. No shortage of candidates is there?
You are forgetting the democrat mantra that the judicial system works (especially when Trump is indicted on bogus charges) and there are no Obama or Biden or Bush or Trump judges. Governor Abbott is following Texas law in determining whether a conviction is valid.
The Tennessee legislators joined illegal demonstrations that interfered with conduct of official business. Just like the January 6 riots in DC.
There are activist judges of every stripe who issue political rulings. We still have the remnants of Obamacare. We still have illegals streaming across the border. Many of them working an amnesty scam because of court rulings. We have women's sports and bathroom privacy being destroyed by activist judges who, because of politics, rule that sexually confused mentally ill individuals are normal. Talk about shoving medical fantasies down our throats.
This could have been avoided with some basic disclosures Thomas stopped making the last time this came topic up:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them
Possibly, or at least mitigated. I think Thomas is an odd bird, and his long tenure seems to be permeated with "the rules aren't for me" thinking.
Clarence Thomas probably has enough money to do most of what is being criticized for without Mr. Crow. I see no reason for onerous rules. What if a friend drives (or provides with a limousine and chauffeur) him to a medical appointment that requires him to have a driver? Lavishness is just a matter of scale and lifestyle. Mr. Crow might have provided nicer transportation and friendship but if he is not a party to court proceedings, there is no conflict of interest. People with money usually have friends who have money - some have even more money. Not uncommon.
Mr. Crow and Justice Thomas share similar political beliefs. Justice Thomas might be more conservative. I see no conflict there.
How many friends did you have who paid your wife's salary?
Since you asked, I had two friends who paid my wife a salary and one job came with a good 401K. When we left Augusta 17 years ago, they said she was irreplaceable, so I guess she was worth every penny of it.
And would you have any issue disclosing for whom your wife was working?
I don't actually have any problem with Harlan Crow funding Ginny's day job - but given that the American taxpayer is setting that family up with a job for life, I would say that we (the taxpayers) are entitled to these kinds of disclosures, so we know if we're getting what we're paying for from the Justice, or whether there's someone else paying more (and we're wasting our taxpayer dollars for nothing).
I can't see why everything has to be secret if the Justice isn't doing anything wrong. And if he IS doing something wrong, transparency is one of the FEW levers we (the taxpayers) have available to us to do anything about that wrongdoing.
Well, the Justice's work product is on display for all to see. Dissensions, concurrences, legal basis. It's all there. I judge it by whether it's constitutional, within the norm and if I agree. Beyond that, I don't really care a lot.
Every Justice makes decisions based on his opinion of the role of the federal government in our lives. I suppose some can be bought but I don't see that as a sure thing investment at the Supreme Court level by those seeking to shape the government. It is a major factor in Presidential and Senate political endorsements and donations.
That is different than legislative politics where we cannot determine what we are getting for our money. Even if we think we can discern the meaning of several hundred pages of a bill largely written by lobbyists, we will not know how it affects us until the bureaucrats decide the rules. At every step of the way, there is room for graft and corruption.
The "garden of evil" stuff is a distraction from the very real concerns that need be addressed. The rules definitely need to change to avoid even the appearance of corruption: it should be noted that cases have been brought by AEI- should Thomas have recused himself in those due to receiving gifts from one of their board members?
The secret exchange of material value is what makes it corrupt.
I like the point about AEI cases before the court, but I am unable to find an example. Any links? I do not agree that secrets are necessarily corrupt - even those involving some value. Value is relative. Depends on lifestyle and wealth.
It may be best to correct that to "amicus briefs filed by AEI" which AEI promotes and takes credit regarding their impact on the court, as well as AEI's "Renewed Focus on the Supreme Court". The amicus briefs from AEI mean that Crow did have business before the court.
Secrets provide a perception of corruption at minimum. It's best to have clear-cut rules to combat both real and perceived corruption.
My question now is do the amicus briefs reflect Justice Thomas' long-held conservative beliefs or are they aimed at moderating his views to something closer akin to the AEI which appears to be slightly to the left of Thomas?
My wife says I am the most incurious individual she has ever known when it comes to the private behavior of others. She's probably right. I do not perceive corruption (or much of anything) until I see the end product. Justice Thomas' decisions appear to very consistent for many decades.
I'd say that's arguably irrelevant: the situation provides the appearance of corruption simply by providing the reason to question his (or anyone else that has the same occur) opinions as being personally financially motivated.
Well, this sure doesn't help Thomas's deniability of a financial relationship: https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus
A good thread on why this all matters, from someone that often agrees with Thomas's opinions/rulings: https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/1646874973674373121?s=20
I think the liberals who go after every prominent black conservative are RACIST!! RACIST I say! How dare well-off blacks leave the democrat plantation and have conservative white spouses and well-off white friends?
Really curtis? What's happened to those of you on the right who find absolutely nothing wrong with any of the crap happening around us? Abbot seeks to pardon a murderer. The Texas judge who was bought and paid for shoving a medical ruling a down our throats from his tiny kingdom. The Tennessee legislature expelling two legislators for speaking out on gun violence. The goof in Wisconsin when he was humiliated at the ballot box acting like an infant. Trump threatening the country with civil war for his criminal actions. Thinking it's perfectly okay for a Supreme Court justice to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts to both him and his wife? Is there a single politician on the right with an ethical bone in their body?
The Grand Old Party is dead and gone, replaced by a bevy of beauties who simply want to see who can become the most embarrassing of fools. No shortage of candidates is there?
You are forgetting the democrat mantra that the judicial system works (especially when Trump is indicted on bogus charges) and there are no Obama or Biden or Bush or Trump judges. Governor Abbott is following Texas law in determining whether a conviction is valid.
The Tennessee legislators joined illegal demonstrations that interfered with conduct of official business. Just like the January 6 riots in DC.
There are activist judges of every stripe who issue political rulings. We still have the remnants of Obamacare. We still have illegals streaming across the border. Many of them working an amnesty scam because of court rulings. We have women's sports and bathroom privacy being destroyed by activist judges who, because of politics, rule that sexually confused mentally ill individuals are normal. Talk about shoving medical fantasies down our throats.