This is pathetic but it is in keeping with the character of the man under discussion here, Clarence Thomas. Thomas claims that he didn’t have to report the gifts from Harlan Crow, because they weren’t gifts, they were “hospitality” which is something entirely different, he says. And he says that he got this opinion from members of the federal judiciary and other SCOTUS justices — most of whom have moved on to the big court in the sky and are unavailable for comment. Associated Press:
Describing Crow and his wife, Kathy, as “among our dearest friends,” Thomas said in a statement that he was advised by colleagues on the nation’s highest court and others in the federal judiciary that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.” Thomas did not name the other justices or those in the judiciary with whom he had consulted.
And most people are not buying his fine tuned distinction between “gifts” and “hospitality.”
Ethics experts have offered conflicting views about whether Thomas was required to disclose the trips. Last month, the federal judiciary bolstered disclosure requirements for all judges, including the high court justices, although overnight stays at personal vacation homes owned by friends remain exempt from disclosure.
New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an authority on legal ethics, said Thomas’ statement “is an abdication of his responsibility” under ethics guidelines.
“Thomas is shamelessly seeking to shift the blame for his failure to report Crow’s princely hospitality to advice he allegedly received from other Justices when he joined the court more than 30 years ago. Most of them are now dead and, conveniently, cannot contradict him,” Gillers wrote in an email.
Charles Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University who studies judicial ethics, wrote in an email that he doubts any justice would have advised Thomas against disclosure if he had laid out the details in ProPublica’s report, “hundreds of thousands of dollars in luxurious travel and accommodations at exotic locales spanning decades, from a benefactor who has a deeply rooted partisan and ideological interest in the future of the Court on which the justice sits.”
What a load of manure. It would be unbelievable if it was coming from anybody other than Clarence Thomas.
He’s a Supreme Court justice for heaven’s sake. He should know how to read regulations himself. Shifting blame to dead justices puts into doubt not only his ethics, but also his competence.
True. What I’m wondering is if this advice was given pre or post death. I’m betting on the latter because he is just that stupid.
No fucking s.c. justice ever told him this was ok. It did not happen and he is, as he always has been, a fucking liar.
I’ll say it since Ursula didn’t: please no foul language. Use * sign and we all know what you mean. I only post randomly but I read daily and I want this site to stay available to me and all the others who come here. She asked politely and we all respect her. And I’m not trying to step on toes or be rude. I just am being selfish wanting the site to stay around. Thank you for letting me speak.
I can’t imagine anyone voting down on your comment. There must be a few MAGAts lurking around here. I thought your comment was 100% spot on!!
It seems Clarence (and Ginny) don’t want to accept there’s a difference between “It’s legal and okay” and “Well, technically it’s legal in sense there’s enough loopholes in the law to drive a truck through AND the fact that unlike every other federal judge SCOTUS Justices don’t have have and Code of Ethics. So if you get caught it will create a stink but it’s not like anyone can actually DO anything about it!”
Boiled down it’s basically Thomas started getting offered the lavish treatment, ran it by a couple of colleagues and was told yeah, he can get away with it if he doesn’t mind some scandal & criticism. So naturally Thomas has indulged himself in all manner of grifting and unethical behavior. As I wrote very recently Thomas is a modern version of legendary golfer Walter Hagan who said he didn’t necessarily want to be a millionaire (a hundred years later it would be billion, not million) – he just wanted to live like one. And by golly that’s what he’s done. With Presidents we’ve gotten into the whole “no one is above the law” thing (Trump sure as hell isn’t the first on this one!) but in reality Justices of the Supreme Court are! They truly are the judges of their own power. Impeachment of federal judges has been exceedingly rare in our history. Literally less than a handful of times. And unless I’m mistaken only one of the two or three was convicted in the Senate and removed from office.
The notion of impeaching a Justice has been unthinkable. So it was probably entirely predictable that the time would come when Justices would start abusing their power like and crass, hack politician in a safe seat.
I don’t believe any other federal judge or SCOTUS justice told Thomas that accepting this “hospitality” was OK, with maybe the exception of Scalia who engaged in some of this himself.
Scalia died grifting. I would bet SS check that all the Republicans do this.
Think is Denis, something CAN be done. His ass can be impeached right off the s.c. bench.
Don’t hold your breath. It’s the same procedure as for presidents.
Yes they could, or if the House was held by Democrats Articles of Impeachment could be passed. But as happened (twice!) with Trump there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell enough Senate Republicans would vote to convict. Few, if any. I don’t think it’s a given all Democrats and the Independents that caucus with us would vote for conviction. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” – there are likely tax crimes that a non-rich/powerful person would get convicted for if there was an aggressive prosecutor out there that wanted to nail some LOCAL bigwig to make a splash and gain name recognition for a run for political office. However, tax crimes are complex and white collar crime in general is less likely to end in a conviction. So there’s that. “Misdemeanors” means whatever the House (and later the Senate) decides it means. On that score an actual crime for which Thomas or anyone for that matter to be convicted in a Senate Trial remains possible. But highly unlikely.
Even many black people who think “Uncle Tom” when they think of Thomas would be uncomfortable and while the GOP has lost some of its best messaging talent since Trump it wouldn’t be that hard for them to play up the racial angle. At a time where things are already as bad as I can recall (and getting worse) & give the GOP a bit of badly needed oxygen with minorities. And as I said the end result would be Thomas being acquitted in a Senate trial, well short of the sixty-seven votes needed to convict and remove him from the bench. After that, if you thought the Kavanaugh process was bad, GOPers would make it look like Kumbayah in comparison to what the nominee to replace him would face.
If Thomas murdered or raped someone with real evidence, credible witnesses and video that would be one thing. But taking grift and (probably) cheating on his taxes? Since when the whole thing was completed he’d still be on the court what’s the point when it will damage us at least some with our most reliable constituency? No, the only reason to go down the impeachment road with Thomas on this is to shame him into retirement. Think about it – do you REALLY think he gives a f**k about the scandal? The man doesn’t have even a tiny bit of shame! I’m sure Roberts has, more than once pleaded with him to step aside, especially since hard-core Federalist Society conservatives would still have the upper hand on the Court. And Thomas has in quite colorful language told Roberts where he can stick his suggestion!
He probably talked to Scalia – may his soul continue to rot in hell – who did the same thing on a slightly smaller scale.
Legal or not, I would think all these trips and benefits would need to be reported for tax purposes. Great that he talked to now dead justices. What tax authority did he seek out?
He has to report them, yes, but not for his taxes – the donor is responsible for those.
Impeach this slimeball’s ass. Impeach it off of the bench and into a jail cell. This is one of the most shameful examples of quid pro quo I’ve ever seen. It rivals, nay exceeds, trump’s graft. This person has no business on the s.c. and he sullies the bench every time he puts his fat ass on it.
When I think of the noble, erudite, giant of jurisprudence this fool replaced I just want to go all clock tower. I’d say nothing surpasses this idiot’s unfitness for the s.c. but then there’s beer bong and the vagina so…
I’ve enjoyed this site for many years. Lately I have been uneasy with some of the language. I would hope that we could be better than the other side.
Ursula has asked that the language be toned down as well as violence. Use * sign, etc. It takes a while to become habit. I just don’t want to lose this site. I agree that some posts are a bit over the top but I appreciate what is being said. Just wish that people would respect Ursula’s request. Just stating my opinion and appreciate that I am able.
I’m sure he ran it by Scalia. I don’t think that RBG would have told him any such thing.
Old Clarence gives the standard Trumpian response—“somebody told me…”.
So reminiscent of Trump’s “people say….I’ve heard….they tell me….etc.
I agree. I don’t think the use of the F word adds anything, but it takes away. To me, it’s a low classed word.