Does anyone really think that Thomas would have voted any differently if he hadn't received lavish gifts and sweetheart deals? It looks horrible, but conservatives don't seem to really care how...
Does anyone really think that Thomas would have voted any differently if he hadn't received lavish gifts and sweetheart deals?
It looks horrible, but conservatives don't seem to really care how they look. They've done what they've done to achieve power, and are doing what they've can to expand that power and exercise it according to their own agenda (which, for most contemporary conservatives, appears to be achieving yet more power and wealth, and for some, eradication of anything that is not socially normative according to nineteenth century calvanists).
You mean if he hadn’t spent literal decades awash in the opinions of republican megadonors being in the same room as him, in intimate settings? I know very little about the specifics but I mean,...
You mean if he hadn’t spent literal decades awash in the opinions of republican megadonors being in the same room as him, in intimate settings?
I know very little about the specifics but I mean, yeah, I do think he might have voted differently.
All politicians spend time with thr wealthy and powerful. And the further up the scale, the the wealthier and more powerful. And these tend to be who they listen the most to. My point is that by...
All politicians spend time with thr wealthy and powerful. And the further up the scale, the the wealthier and more powerful. And these tend to be who they listen the most to.
My point is that by the time Thomas was appointed, probably to the feral bench, not just supreme court, his opinions and direction were already set. It’s not like if they suddenly started paying him less he’d change the way he decided cases.
I don't know, it seems like you're arguing that either Justice Thomas is so corrupt that bribery has no effect, or he's so upright that bribery has no effect. Either way, you're asking to prove a...
I don't know, it seems like you're arguing that either Justice Thomas is so corrupt that bribery has no effect, or he's so upright that bribery has no effect. Either way, you're asking to prove a negative.
I’m not debating, I’m venting. But i do believe what i say (it’s the former of your assessments, btw). I guess there is an underlying rant against all those who are bloviating about this...
I’m not debating, I’m venting. But i do believe what i say (it’s the former of your assessments, btw).
I guess there is an underlying rant against all those who are bloviating about this discovery. Anyone who doesn’t strongly suspect or outright believe that this sort of thing happens all the time among mainstream party members (yes, both “sides”) is not paying attention. It’s awful, and it causes real harm to real people, but it’s widespread.
The problem is more fundamental than missing ethics rules (or enforcement of existing rules). It’s not like anything would have changed, or Thomas would not have received is appointment and confirmation had he disclosed this information. Or, having disclosed, would have performed differently.
This system will persist until collapse so long as we value property and status over principle, and superficial propriety over unity.
Even assuming he's an ideologue and has gone all in on whatever brand of crazy we're seeing here, I'd say there's a decent chance there have been at least some cases he just wouldn't have known or...
Even assuming he's an ideologue and has gone all in on whatever brand of crazy we're seeing here, I'd say there's a decent chance there have been at least some cases he just wouldn't have known or cared to vote a certain way on if he hadn't been prompted by someone who had cultivated the access and trust that Crow did. I imagine he would have voted the same way on the majority of things regardless, yes, but a "helpful briefing from a friend" could easily have been the swing in, what, five percent? Ten? Enough to matter, at least.
Beyond that, the way I'd look at it is that tighter and more robust rules and enforcement would discourage corrupt officials like this from seeking the positions in the first place. If the inherent power of a seat on the Supreme Court were tempered by appropriately onerous transparency requirements that left little to no opportunity for self enrichment, perhaps he would have gone off to be your run of the mill corporate lawyer or CEO instead, and left the space in the judiciary for someone who wasn't corrupt.
I like that thinking, but it’s pie in the sky. I’m unaware of any western system that has, or ever has had, rules sufficiently robust to be so discouraging. Regarding what scant rules we do have,...
I like that thinking, but it’s pie in the sky. I’m unaware of any western system that has, or ever has had, rules sufficiently robust to be so discouraging.
Regarding what scant rules we do have, As I’ve said above, even if all this information were reported on the nightly news in 1990, he would probably still have received his seat, and changed nary a decision.
I know where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree - it's always going to be shades of grey, and while nowhere is perfect, there's a reason that Denmark is a comfortable 20 points clear of...
I know where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree - it's always going to be shades of grey, and while nowhere is perfect, there's a reason that Denmark is a comfortable 20 points clear of the US on the corruption perception index, for example.
It's one of those "you don't have to outrun the bear, just the slowest other runner" situations. I'm not necessarily saying revealing the information in the 90s would have been sufficiently damaging to torpedo his appointment (although there's no way to know for sure - the Republican party was at least still cosplaying as a respectable political movement at that time), just that if a Supreme Court position involved airing all your dirty laundry and then submitting to reasonably stringent rules and restrictions for the rest of your life, there's a good chance that the worst potential offenders would look at the tradeoffs and decide to go into the corporate world instead. It doesn't make it impossible for a justice to be corrupt, but it's a self-selecting process to swing the shortlist in the right direction.
I really hope you’re right. Apparently, he has misreported income for both he and his wife (pawalled washington post article). What’s reported there would certainly prompt a state bar...
I really hope you’re right.
Apparently, he has misreported income for both he and his wife (pawalled washington post article). What’s reported there would certainly prompt a state bar investigation of most lawyers, probably discipline. Will it prompt discipline of any kind for the justice?
IMO, Judges have too much power these days, all the way down to state district court. But the only bodies to check them, legislatures, are mostly checked out.
I don't think the question is really all that relevant because it's unprovable and even if it was, Thomas still accepted what is hard to describe as anything other than a bribe. That's illegal...
I don't think the question is really all that relevant because it's unprovable and even if it was, Thomas still accepted what is hard to describe as anything other than a bribe. That's illegal (that is illegal in the US, right?) even if he didn't act on it directly.
To answer the question though, at least one person does think what you're asking. Harlan Crow is the person. He wouldn't have spent all that money if he didn't think it was worth it.
It would be exceedingly difficult to prove what happened is a legal violation. By any ordinary common sense definition, it’s clear that, at a minimum, harlan (and probably others) are making it...
It would be exceedingly difficult to prove what happened is a legal violation.
By any ordinary common sense definition, it’s clear that, at a minimum, harlan (and probably others) are making it very comfortable to decide cases a particular way.
The only existing legal rule that maybe was violated though, was disclosure. And I’d bet real money that even if he had disclosed this, he would still have been appointed and confirmed.
In order for disclosure to be effective, there has to be sensitivity to common decency among those making decisions, and I don’t see that anywhere.
It almost seems like Clarence and Gini Thomas are going to need their own mega-thread. Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’s wife, urged ‘no mention of Ginni’...
It almost seems like Clarence and Gini Thomas are going to need their own mega-thread.
This keeps on getting... worse? More exciting? More complex?
I hope this leads to lasting change for the Supreme Court in a positive direction.
It, in fact, does get worse: Clarence Thomas’ Mom Definitely Still Lives in the House the Billionaire Bought
Does anyone really think that Thomas would have voted any differently if he hadn't received lavish gifts and sweetheart deals?
It looks horrible, but conservatives don't seem to really care how they look. They've done what they've done to achieve power, and are doing what they've can to expand that power and exercise it according to their own agenda (which, for most contemporary conservatives, appears to be achieving yet more power and wealth, and for some, eradication of anything that is not socially normative according to nineteenth century calvanists).
You mean if he hadn’t spent literal decades awash in the opinions of republican megadonors being in the same room as him, in intimate settings?
I know very little about the specifics but I mean, yeah, I do think he might have voted differently.
All politicians spend time with thr wealthy and powerful. And the further up the scale, the the wealthier and more powerful. And these tend to be who they listen the most to.
My point is that by the time Thomas was appointed, probably to the feral bench, not just supreme court, his opinions and direction were already set. It’s not like if they suddenly started paying him less he’d change the way he decided cases.
I don't know, it seems like you're arguing that either Justice Thomas is so corrupt that bribery has no effect, or he's so upright that bribery has no effect. Either way, you're asking to prove a negative.
I’m not debating, I’m venting. But i do believe what i say (it’s the former of your assessments, btw).
I guess there is an underlying rant against all those who are bloviating about this discovery. Anyone who doesn’t strongly suspect or outright believe that this sort of thing happens all the time among mainstream party members (yes, both “sides”) is not paying attention. It’s awful, and it causes real harm to real people, but it’s widespread.
The problem is more fundamental than missing ethics rules (or enforcement of existing rules). It’s not like anything would have changed, or Thomas would not have received is appointment and confirmation had he disclosed this information. Or, having disclosed, would have performed differently.
This system will persist until collapse so long as we value property and status over principle, and superficial propriety over unity.
Even assuming he's an ideologue and has gone all in on whatever brand of crazy we're seeing here, I'd say there's a decent chance there have been at least some cases he just wouldn't have known or cared to vote a certain way on if he hadn't been prompted by someone who had cultivated the access and trust that Crow did. I imagine he would have voted the same way on the majority of things regardless, yes, but a "helpful briefing from a friend" could easily have been the swing in, what, five percent? Ten? Enough to matter, at least.
Beyond that, the way I'd look at it is that tighter and more robust rules and enforcement would discourage corrupt officials like this from seeking the positions in the first place. If the inherent power of a seat on the Supreme Court were tempered by appropriately onerous transparency requirements that left little to no opportunity for self enrichment, perhaps he would have gone off to be your run of the mill corporate lawyer or CEO instead, and left the space in the judiciary for someone who wasn't corrupt.
I like that thinking, but it’s pie in the sky. I’m unaware of any western system that has, or ever has had, rules sufficiently robust to be so discouraging.
Regarding what scant rules we do have, As I’ve said above, even if all this information were reported on the nightly news in 1990, he would probably still have received his seat, and changed nary a decision.
I know where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree - it's always going to be shades of grey, and while nowhere is perfect, there's a reason that Denmark is a comfortable 20 points clear of the US on the corruption perception index, for example.
It's one of those "you don't have to outrun the bear, just the slowest other runner" situations. I'm not necessarily saying revealing the information in the 90s would have been sufficiently damaging to torpedo his appointment (although there's no way to know for sure - the Republican party was at least still cosplaying as a respectable political movement at that time), just that if a Supreme Court position involved airing all your dirty laundry and then submitting to reasonably stringent rules and restrictions for the rest of your life, there's a good chance that the worst potential offenders would look at the tradeoffs and decide to go into the corporate world instead. It doesn't make it impossible for a justice to be corrupt, but it's a self-selecting process to swing the shortlist in the right direction.
I really hope you’re right.
Apparently, he has misreported income for both he and his wife (pawalled washington post article). What’s reported there would certainly prompt a state bar investigation of most lawyers, probably discipline. Will it prompt discipline of any kind for the justice?
IMO, Judges have too much power these days, all the way down to state district court. But the only bodies to check them, legislatures, are mostly checked out.
I don't think the question is really all that relevant because it's unprovable and even if it was, Thomas still accepted what is hard to describe as anything other than a bribe. That's illegal (that is illegal in the US, right?) even if he didn't act on it directly.
To answer the question though, at least one person does think what you're asking. Harlan Crow is the person. He wouldn't have spent all that money if he didn't think it was worth it.
It would be exceedingly difficult to prove what happened is a legal violation.
By any ordinary common sense definition, it’s clear that, at a minimum, harlan (and probably others) are making it very comfortable to decide cases a particular way.
The only existing legal rule that maybe was violated though, was disclosure. And I’d bet real money that even if he had disclosed this, he would still have been appointed and confirmed.
In order for disclosure to be effective, there has to be sensitivity to common decency among those making decisions, and I don’t see that anywhere.
It almost seems like Clarence and Gini Thomas are going to need their own mega-thread.
Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’s wife, urged ‘no mention of Ginni’
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judicial-activist-directed-fees-to-clarence-thomas-s-wife-urged-no-mention-of-ginni/ar-AA1aL642