This should concern you regardless of party

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I applaud you for not outright disguising your disdain with some feigned concern about ethics and the law "regardless of party."

That is a lie.

[Tigermike 3,744]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:12 AM, TexasTiger said:

Government officials receiving things, including event tickets, trips, etc., over a minimal amount is unethical and a violation of law.

Would this fall into that?

 

 

[TexasTiger 14,364]

1 minute ago, Tigermike said:

Would this fall into that?

 

 

Have no idea what this allegedly alleges.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

31 minutes ago, Tigermike said:

Would this fall into that?

 

 

IF TRUE,,, certainly.  If the whistleblower allegations are not classified and credible (as detailed in the letter), why would you not publish the information?

IF,,, "transparency brings accountablity".

[Tigermike 3,744]

The ‘Ethics’ Assault on the Supreme Court

Democrats want to gain more political control over the Justices.


Senate Democrats are holding another hearing on “Supreme Court Ethics Reform” on Tuesday, and it’s important to understand that this isn’t about ethics at all. This is another front in the political campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court, with a goal of tarnishing its rulings and subjecting it to more political control.

The campaign is on full display in the press, with reporters at multiple publications suddenly searching for supposed ethics violations or conflicts of interest. Our writers have examined and debunked these reports highlighting Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in recent weeks.

It’s useful to expose for the record how thin these accusations are. But it’s also a mistake to assume that the facts matter to Democrats and their media researchers. This is a political project, and hyped accusations will continue to be asserted as if they are serious.

***

“Ethics” is a time-honored political weapon in Washington, and it’s being used now against the Court because conservatives have a majority that is cleaning up some of the legal mistakes of recent decades. It has sent abortion policy back to the states (to the political benefit of Democrats in most places), expanded protections for the Bill of Rights, and is slowly restoring constitutional guardrails on the administrative state. Most of all, the Court is no longer a backstop legislature for progressives to impose policies they can’t get through Congress.
Judges also hear cases and issue opinions in public for all to see. Members of Congress have no such record-keeping obligation and they specialize in the smoke-filled room. This difference explains why corruption cases involving Congress are frequent while those involving judges are relatively rare.

Speaking of judicial conflicts, in 2009 Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse recommended his pal and Democratic donor John McConnell for a federal judgeship. Judge McConnell later was a member of the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference that sought to ban federal judges from belonging to the Federalist Society until these columns exposedthe scheme. Mr. Whitehouse detests the Federalist Society.

***

Senators are floating proposals to impose a new ethical code on the Justices, with an outside monitor to enforce it. This is a bad idea and in our view unconstitutional. It would make the Court—an independent branch of government—answerable to an agent of Congress. The monitor would inevitably become a political weapon to attack unpopular Justices and intimidate the Court.

This is the real and dangerous political game that Democrats are playing when they talk about Supreme Court ethics reform.



LINK

[TexasTiger 14,364]

3 hours ago, Tigermike said:

The ‘Ethics’ Assault on the Supreme Court

Democrats want to gain more political control over the Justices.


Senate Democrats are holding another hearing on “Supreme Court Ethics Reform” on Tuesday, and it’s important to understand that this isn’t about ethics at all. This is another front in the political campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court, with a goal of tarnishing its rulings and subjecting it to more political control.

The campaign is on full display in the press, with reporters at multiple publications suddenly searching for supposed ethics violations or conflicts of interest. Our writers have examined and debunked these reports highlighting Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in recent weeks.

It’s useful to expose for the record how thin these accusations are. But it’s also a mistake to assume that the facts matter to Democrats and their media researchers. This is a political project, and hyped accusations will continue to be asserted as if they are serious.

***

“Ethics” is a time-honored political weapon in Washington, and it’s being used now against the Court because conservatives have a majority that is cleaning up some of the legal mistakes of recent decades. It has sent abortion policy back to the states (to the political benefit of Democrats in most places), expanded protections for the Bill of Rights, and is slowly restoring constitutional guardrails on the administrative state. Most of all, the Court is no longer a backstop legislature for progressives to impose policies they can’t get through Congress.
Judges also hear cases and issue opinions in public for all to see. Members of Congress have no such record-keeping obligation and they specialize in the smoke-filled room. This difference explains why corruption cases involving Congress are frequent while those involving judges are relatively rare.

Speaking of judicial conflicts, in 2009 Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse recommended his pal and Democratic donor John McConnell for a federal judgeship. Judge McConnell later was a member of the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference that sought to ban federal judges from belonging to the Federalist Society until these columns exposedthe scheme. Mr. Whitehouse detests the Federalist Society.

***

Senators are floating proposals to impose a new ethical code on the Justices, with an outside monitor to enforce it. This is a bad idea and in our view unconstitutional. It would make the Court—an independent branch of government—answerable to an agent of Congress. The monitor would inevitably become a political weapon to attack unpopular Justices and intimidate the Court.

This is the real and dangerous political game that Democrats are playing when they talk about Supreme Court ethics reform.



LINK

“Ethics assault.” Now the right redefined violence.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

I know @NolaAuTiger is absolutely unethical and hopeless, but does this one bother you @SaltyTiger?

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

[SaltyTiger 8,600]

20 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I know @NolaAuTiger is absolutely unethical and hopeless, but does this one bother you @SaltyTiger?

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

Sounds like Mr. Crow has a “history” of this sort of thing. We have all heard cases of wealth picking up tuition for some students. My older brother was a beneficiary of it in college.

“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education and giving back to those less fortunate, especially at-risk youth,” the statement said. 

[I_M4_AU 8,980]

41 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I know @NolaAuTiger is absolutely unethical and hopeless, but does this one bother you @SaltyTiger?

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

I wonder if Clarence Thomas claimed this boy as a dependent on his taxes?  If he did, well now Biden can *Finish the Job* the he started in 1991’s confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas.

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

27 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I wonder if Clarence Thomas claimed this boy as a dependent on his taxes?  If he did, well now Biden can *Finish the Job* the he started in 1991’s confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas.

I'm starting to think Crow could have claimed Clarence Thomas as a legal Dependent on his taxes with how many gifts and favors he was showering on one of the nations most powerful judges. 

But i'm sure it was nothing. Just a totally normal relationship between two totally normal people. The giver just happens to be ultra wealthy and the receiver just happens to be a super powerful and influential government official. Aside from that....

[TexasTiger 14,364]

45 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sounds like Mr. Crow has a “history” of this sort of thing. We have all heard cases of wealth picking up tuition for some students. My older brother was a beneficiary of it in college.

“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education and giving back to those less fortunate, especially at-risk youth,” the statement said. 

Salty clocks in decidedly in Nola territory. Good to know.

[I_M4_AU 8,980]

29 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'm starting to think Crow could have claimed Clarence Thomas as a legal Dependent on his taxes with how many gifts and favors he was showering on one of the nations most powerful judges. 

But i'm sure it was nothing. Just a totally normal relationship between two totally normal people. The giver just happens to be ultra wealthy and the receiver just happens to be a super powerful and influential government official. Aside from that....

Well, if there is a concern then update the ethics of the SCOTUS.  One thing they could do is update the maximum of $30,000 dollars they can earn, BUT doesn’t include any book deals.  Odd, but true.  Of course it wouldn’t be retroactive.

[AUApostle 7,791]

One of my favorite Twitter accounts (hint, they’re all corrupt…R/D/Independent)

they also have a program that helps you time your investments in what your favorite representative invests in.

Edited May 4, 2023 by AUDevil

[I_M4_AU 8,980]

In defense of Clarence Thomas:

 

You’ll have to select *Show More* to read the rest of the story.

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, if there is a concern then update the ethics of the SCOTUS.  

Would love to. 

The Supreme Court governs themselves and says they don't need any more ethical rules or oversight. 

Any proposed congressional oversight or rule changes will be 100% opposed by Republicans. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,980]

1 minute ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Would love to. 

The Supreme Court governs themselves and says they don't need any more ethical rules or oversight. 

Any proposed congressional oversight or rule changes will be 100% opposed by Republicans. 

 

 

So you think Democratic appointed justices are free from this type of behavior?

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So you think Democratic appointed justices are free from this type of behavior?

Probably not. 

If they are, they're not making it as obvious or as easily discoverable though. 

 

Either way, I'm wanting oversight over all justices...not just Thomas or the Conservative ones 

Edited May 4, 2023 by CoffeeTiger

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I suppose ethics no longer matter.  It appears we are a win at any cost society.

[I_M4_AU 8,980]

15 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Probably not. 

If they are, they're not making it as obvious or as easily discoverable though. 

 

Either way, I'm wanting oversight over all justices...not just Thomas or the Conservative ones 

It’s not that they are not making it obvious, it’s the fact the Republicans, until recently, have not highlighted their trips.  Recently Ted Cruz went through the trips the liberal justices had and it is similar and in some cases more the Thomas has had.

Don’t poke the bear and yes, we should have better oversight.

[wdefromtx 3,636]

Never mind the fact that most if not all of the justices are millionaires and make more money on the side than they do in court salary. 

[TexasTiger 14,364]

24 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Probably not. 

If they are, they're not making it as obvious or as easily discoverable though. 

 

Either way, I'm wanting oversight over all justices...not just Thomas or the Conservative ones 

Much stricter code for all federal judges. Period.

[SaltyTiger 8,600]

24 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Much stricter code for all federal judges. Period.

I have no problem with stricter codes.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3987959-thomas-biographer-paoletta-tuition-payment/

Paoletta argues that the payments were not reportable gifts, because federal law does not include a great-nephew as a dependent child, only a “son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter.” 

“This malicious story shows nothing except for the fact that the Thomases and the Crows are kind, generous, and loving people who tried to help this young man,” he said. 

Crow’s office said in a statement that he and his wife have funded scholarships for many students in the past. The office said tuition assistance and other financial aid is given directly to an institution instead of an individual. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by SaltyTiger

[TexasTiger 14,364]

13 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have no problem with stricter codes.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3987959-thomas-biographer-paoletta-tuition-payment/

Paoletta argues that the payments were not reportable gifts, because federal law does not include a great-nephew as a dependent child, only a “son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter.” 

“This malicious story shows nothing except for the fact that the Thomases and the Crows are kind, generous, and loving people who tried to help this young man,” he said. 

Crow’s office said in a statement that he and his wife have funded scholarships for many students in the past. The office said tuition assistance and other financial aid is given directly to an institution instead of an individual. 

I pay tuition to an institution, too. No free lunches for students!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

We are being trained to no longer respect the ideas and ideals of,,, fairness, equality, democracy, ethics.

Our religion is unrestrained capitalism, our god is money/power.  We have rejected Jesus and humanity.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

Disapprove of her actions on this one, too:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-scotus-justice-took-3m-from-book-publisher-didnt-recuse-from-its-cases