12 ms·
US Supreme Court Justices get lavish gifts; Raise bar for bribery prosecutions
- overthrow 3y agoWe investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoThe other body with the power to investigate, and to punish if they find wrongdoing, is Congress. Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court. Corruption might just be the price (whether or not it is too high) that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court Codes of conduct don’t constrain the Court, they constrain individual judges and justices. That’s the advantage of putting the enforcement within the judiciary, versus the executive (prosecution) or legislature (impeachment).
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court. I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Especially in light that it takes a supermajority of the Senate to remove someone from the court, not just control of the Senate. > that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack. Direct election of members of congress is the better speedbump.
- vajrabum 3y agoLet's not lump together making it illegal for federal judges to accept gifts from people with business before the federal courts and limiting the power of the courts. Those are very different things. In Article III Section 1 of the constitution says this about federal judges: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Interpreting the constitution so that my bad behavior is not bad behavior any more looks to me like it oversteps the bounds, and since laws are only proposed and enacted by congress I'd say it's pretty clear that congress has the right and duty to define bad behavior.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoAnd the mechanism is clear, if you think a judge committed some crime (or even an ethics violation that doesn't quite meet the proper definition of crime). Impeach them. The trouble with this is that some people want immediate results for their political whims without putting any work into it, without spending any political capital over it. The tactics that have been used so far really do smack of limiting the power of the courts. This is understandable, in that the people wanting to do that see a Supreme Court filled with justices they do not agree with politically. If those people were to succeed, they will discover in 10 or 15 years that they did not have the eternal control of Congress that they thought they did, but they will have hamstrung the other branch of government that might have put a stop to the worst of the nonsense. And that holds true no matter which party you think I'm talking about. It's "filibusters are inconvenient to me right now, let's get rid of them forever!" all over again.
- vajrabum 3y agoBribery of a public official as discussed in the linked article is a criminal statute. Judges like anyone else are not above the criminal law and in fact federal judges have been charged and in one case (Otto Kerner 1974) convicted of bribery while in office. Impeachment is a different matter. In any case, charging judges who engage in criminal behavior with crimes is normal business of the Republic, as is writing laws defining bribery, and the penalties. Redefining a criminal statute so that one can engage in previously illegal behavior stinks and probably does warrant impeachment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigat...
- matthewdgreen 3y agoCorruption means there won’t be speed bumps, at least for certain legislation that appeals to those doing the corrupting. That’s a bit part of the problem here.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing Did they? I thought the issue is the Chief Justice hasn’t bothered to investigate. Instead, it’s the Clarence Thomas show.
- carlmr 3y agoThat is the point of this saying.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> that is the point of this saying Not quite. It’s used when someone is unchecked. For example, a dictator saying they looked into their alleged wrongdoing and found nothing wrong. This isn’t that. It’s the people who have the power to check Thomas, i.e. the Court, the Congress and the DoJ, choosing to do nothing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- treeman79 3y ago[flagged]
- benmw333 3y agoIt is everyone in politics. Right left center up and down.
- treeman79 3y agohttps://www.revolver.news/2023/04/supreme-court-unanimous-letter-slamming-democrat-senators-over-fake-clarence-thomas-scandal/ https://www.revolver.news/2023/04/supreme-court-unanimous-le... 9-0 Supreme Court letter supporting just Clarence. Thomas.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI can't comment on the parent anymore because it has been flagged. Sure, it's not great the perks that Hunter Biden (or Chelsea Clinton) have received. But they are adults and their parents are no longer in control of them, or accountable for their actions. And, in at least Hunter Biden's case, the Republican majority in the House is investigating him. Whereas here, it's Clarence Thomas himself and his wife who are getting perks (along with his mother, who he doesn't control, and is thus more equivalent to Hunter Biden). This is all crap, as you say, right, left, center, up, and down. That doesn't mean that some crap stinks worse than others. For giving to Thomas' mother, Harlan Crow is in the wrong. For accepting gifts himself, Clarence Thomas is in the wrong.
- vkou 3y agoLifetime appointments, dysfunctional congress means that any novel, meaningful political developments are going to come from a corrupt, partisan court that won't be held accountable. Exciting stuff.
- adoxyz 3y agoThe fact that all 9 justices pretty much agreed that this is a non-issue speaks volumes. Justices are above the law and play by different rules. A regular govt worker receiving a $25 gift card has to report it or could be fired, but once you get to Supreme Court, you can do whatever you want.
- leoh 3y agoGotta get a case like this to the Supreme Court I guess
- falcolas 3y agoDefinitely feels like we're in a "who watches the watchers" situation here. I know that theoretically Congress can make laws to set limits on the SC, but the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification. And with 100+ years of precedence (much of which is contradictory or doesn't mesh well with modern morals or the current condition of the US (high technology, fewer physical workers, globalization, etc)), they have a lot of potential justifications at their fingertips.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoAdditionally federal judges, including supreme court justices, are theoretically subject to the check of impeachment and conviction by the Senate. However, in practice, only one supreme court justice[1] has ever been impeached, and even then was acquitted. Historically, federal judges have a 50% conviction rate following impeachment. The proximal causes of such a low impeachment rate, and whether they sufficiently address the current behavior of our supreme court justices is obviously up for debate. 1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoThere is, in theory, a much greater check in the form of constitutional amendments. It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional. Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
- bjornsing 3y agoThis is what I get from Sweden: “This site not available in your country”.
- boomboomsubban 3y agohttps://archive.is/KIzBh https://archive.is/KIzBh
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mydogcanpurr 3y agoIf there are no consequences, they have no reason to stop.
- jeffbee 3y ago[flagged]
- hammock 3y ago>at least one of them was all but literally bred in a vat How do I flag an HN comment?
- rjbwork 3y agoBy building reputation. Nothing flag-worthy here though, from my perspective.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mayormcmatt 3y agoPerhaps it was a rhetorical question, but I think the answer is you can't; that only parent posts can be flagged. User replies can only be downvoted.
- throwaway5752 3y agoThe salary for justices is under $300,000 a year. There is no promotion path, and it's intended to be a lifetime appointment. Corporate law firm partners routinely make well into 7 figures.That is an invitation to corruption, they are some of the most powerful people in the United States. This isn't meant to excuse unethical behavior or corruption, but it should be addressed at the same time as enforcement.
- alistairSH 3y agoWhile I understand what you're saying, I disagree with the premise. A Justice doesn't have to be a Justice. They could stay on a lower court, or in corporate law, or wherever they were prior to being elevated to the bench. They could also retire and take a corporate job, just as many members of Congress and the Executive do (which is likely a different flavor of corruption, but another discussion). Point being, there is no need for a Justice to be corrupt for financial reason - $300k is objectively a lot of money in 2023 and they can always quit and go elsewhere. We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress. We expect them to happily take their reasonable but not lavish salary (and then go do a book tour or whatever afterwards).
- cronix 3y ago> We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress We allow them (congress) to trade stocks with knowledge from their privileged positions that no one else has. A lot of them walk out millionaires, before any book deals or speaking fees.
- alistairSH 3y agoYes, but they do report those transactions. It's unsavory, no question, but mostly above-board. Thomas willingly hiding payments from a billionaire who had business before the court is a whole different level.
- cronix 3y ago
- 1024core 3y agoYou mean, lower the bar?
- yujian 3y agoWhat can we do about this kind of stuff happening from a legal perspective? Supreme court justices are appointed for life and basically have no real "checks"
- SllX 3y agoCongress, if any of this were actual bribery and if they had the numbers for an impeachment and removal proceeding. At most the Justices need to fill out their paperwork better.
- dylan604 3y agoAs if any congress critter would be willing to stand up and make this accusation knowing the kind of things they've accepted in order to get to their position.
- SllX 3y agoWell impeachment is a political choice more than a legal one, and to be blunt, I haven’t seen a damn thing in any of these pieces that looks particularly damning; just that as a matter of course the Justices should also take better care to follow whatever procedures they’re subject to since they’re not expected to show leniency to anyone who doesn’t follow the procedures of the court when they have business before the court.
- zerocrates 3y agoThe chance of either party going along with impeaching a justice "on their side" when the opposing party controls the White House and Senate is approximately zero. This is sort of like proposals for various things that involve constitutional amendments: unthinkable in the current climate. Maybe there's a level of wrongdoing where their own voters would demand it, but I think it's generally more likely for voters to demand hard-nosed partisanship. Not that these particular allegations really get anywhere near the level where this would be a question.
- 3y ago
- cronix 3y agoHmm...just like congress doesn't have a problem with trading stocks of companies in industries they oversee and have insider knowledge on, such as which businesses can be open and which ones have to close during the pandemic, or which company is going to get a big government contract, etc. Why do we leave these questions to the institutions themselves to answer? The answer will always be "we don't see a problem."
- ModernMech 3y agoThe check on Congress is the voting booth. Can’t vote out corrupt justices.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoThey can be impeached by Congress which itself is installed by the people. It's a good level of indirection to keep the court from pandering to the passions of the public while retaining the ability to remove a justice that goes rouge. At least in theory.
- negidius 3y agoThat's an even less effective check than impeachment. Has anyone with a constituency as large as a member of congress ever lost an election because of corruption? If one has, was their constituency subject to political gerrymandering? Most members of congress could as well have life terms, as long as they don't go against those who put them in power.
- ModernMech 3y agoImpeachment is toothless as a tool to reign in corruption, at least on the Republican side, as was shown very recently. Impeachment was just tried to remove former President Trump twice for serious crimes (we are not talking about lying about a blowjob here), and it failed. Twice. In the first instance, the House prosecutors proved that Trump used extortion to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign ally that would help him politically. In his defense, Trump's lawyers literally argued that he was right to do so, because he believed it would help his campaign, and him winning his campaign was the best thing for America. Ipso facto, he can't be impeached for trying to help America. Notably, the conduct was not denied. The senate sided with Trump in that argument, so he was acquitted. Impeachment cannot be used to reign in executives who extort and/or solicit bribes, that has been shown. Then there was the second impeachment. If ever there was a case to impeach a president, it would be one who incited an insurrection. And yet, Senate Republicans slow walked the impeachment trial, then claimed as it was held they couldn't impeach Trump because they had taken to long to start the trial. I mean, when else are you supposed to impeach a president who stages a coup and incites violence at the end of his term? Impeachment cannot be used to reign in insurrectionist executives, that has been shown. So what good is impeachment? If it is toothless in the face of blatant proven corruption (they didn't even try to deny it) and abject lawlessness, then it might as well not even be in the Constitution in the first place. It's moot.
- yieldcrv 3y ago> Across the ideological spectrum daily reminder that we’re all aware of the ways each side is different, and that its valid to be more bothered by the ways in which they’re the same
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoFunny how often news that "Congress passed a bipartisan bill" is scarier than one that squeaked by along party lines.
- adamc 3y agoThe court is corrupt. They may not realize it, but that's what this is.
- dukeofdoom 3y ago[flagged]
- epakai 3y agoThat sounds like part of the problem. Why should we even know the position of a justice on a topic like that? At best making opinions public just leads to recusing in some cases. At worst it leads to the kind of distrust in the judiciary we're experiencing now.
- foogazi 3y agoOne can still be objective about it and consider at the facts Regardless of the subject’s “sanity” or what team they currently belong to
- aschearer 3y agoReading through these comments, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. From the Daily Beast: >Clarence Thomas’ mom is definitely still living in a house bought by a Texas billionaire who bankrolled luxury trips for her Supreme Court justice son, according to a report. On Thursday, ProPublica reported that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow bought two vacant lots and a single-story home in Savannah, Georgia, from Thomas in 2014 and that experts believe Thomas violated a federal law by failing to disclose the sale. Crow also then reportedly spent tens of thousands of dollars on renovations at the home occupied by Leola Williams, Thomas’ mother, but ProPublica couldn’t definitively confirm that Williams was still living in the property after 2020. Later Thursday, Slate reported unequivocally that Williams remains in the house to this day. The outlet said one of its reporters interviewed Williams at the property “two weeks ago” for an upcoming podcast. This is acceptable conduct? We should just accept this level of venality? Boggles my mind. Where are all the patriots? [1]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-mom-definitely-still-lives-in-house-bought-by-harlan-crow https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-mom-definitely...
- jandrese 3y agoYou are taking crazy pills if you think you can find a majority in the House to impeach a conservative supreme court justice when there is a democrat in the White House. Holding onto power is all that matters, optics be dammed. These are the same people who refused to give Merrick Garland a vote because it was "too close to the election" 8 months away, then a mere 4 years later rammed through Amy Coney Barrett a week before the election.
- spacephysics 3y ago[flagged]
- jandrese 3y agoThe Democrats did not do the same thing. The obstruction of Merrick Garland is novel and unique.
- rayiner 3y ago[flagged]
- foogazi 3y agoWhat’s wrong with reporting on it ? It happened, it gets reported Don’t like it being reported ? Don’t do it
- naikrovek 3y agobecause the extreme abuse of power by Justice Thomas has just been revealed. now, people want to know more, so it is being reported on more.
- rayiner 3y agoWhat was the abuse of power?
- mrguyorama 3y agoDude's wife is a party to an actual coup attempt.
- rayiner 3y agoEven if that were true, how is that an abuse of his power?
- naikrovek 3y agoa) it is true b) she isn't in jail, or even under investigation, likely because of who he is and who his friends are. c) there are many other things revealed in the article linked above. Judge Thomas has at worst accepted bribes for judgements, and at best actively worked to give that impression, which invites further bribes. as a judge, a gift from anyone who has a political stance on anything at all is a breach of trust and an abuse of power, either in reality or in the mind of the gift-giver. in every case it is a conflict of interest and an abuse of power. none of these judges should be accepting gifts from anyone at any time.
- segasaturn 3y agoThe US judiciary system is an absurd institution. Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability and virtually limitless power to give/take away rights on a whim. Where are the checks and balances that every other branch of government adheres to?
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability “In good behavior”, with accountability to Congress. De facto for life with no accountability is, like many problems in the US system of government, largely a side effect of the combination of defective electoral system and the resulting norm of near-balanced partisan duopoly, which in the case of the judiciary combines with the supermajority requirement for conviction on impeachment charges to achieve lack of accountability; the same is also true of the executive, though finite terms, electoral accountability, and in principal (and currently being tested in practice) post-term legal accountability are arguably mitigations there.
- naikrovek 3y agothey can be impeached by Congress and lose their position. it would take a lot of collective effort to make it happen, though.
- karaterobot 3y agoThe Supreme Court is a critical piece of the checks and balances system. They need to hold their positions for life because they should not be afraid of losing them due to the whims of the President, Congress, or even the voters. We want them to be outside of the political process once they've been appointed; that is a feature. If a justice is corrupt or incompetent, there are processes to remove them from the bench. The ironic part is that if that doesn't happen, it'll be because the people charged with doing it are so mired in politics that they can't, or won't.
- JohnFen 3y ago> We want them to be outside of the political process once they've been appointed Yes, we do. However, regardless of what the system intended, that's not what we have anyway.
- supernova87a 3y agoI have to give an unpopular opinion here. I strongly respect the SCOTUS justices and the methods of their qualification to the bench as well as their lack of term limits and seniority as a long-term component of stability within the federal government. There are few other institutions that provide the same level of rigor and thoughtfulness to our government, and have the credibility and respect because they do not swing with the wind every year. Part of that capability includes that they not be swayed by whatever hot topic of the moment, including this. In general, I agree with the line, "if a Supreme Court justice can be bought for so little, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined". Not to say that no justice has ever done anything unquestionable. But I find that the muckraking (like the Daily Beast article quoted by another comment) only seemed to garner interest in being investigated because of the number of controversial opinions lately.[0] And people on the left were happy with the way things were as long as the Court ruled in their favor. Which is a weak position to find yourself having taken. Any time an argument about the structure of the Court comes up, I ask, did you feel that way when it was ruling in favor of you? If not, then what kind of institution are you asking to be created? Beware. If you thought the Court needed to be packed, would you adopt the same position if it were to be packed with conservatives? If you call for the removal of Clarence Thomas, would you be happy to have seen RBG removed for some similar questionable travel she engaged in? You want term limits on the current justices -- would you have been in favor of that for the justice that was giving you "yes" votes on cases? Or is it just because the Court's rulings aren't going your way lately? We have far too much in society today where people want to change the rules just because the last decision didn't go their way. Democracy, I think, is actually about losing gracefully and without having a revolution, not that you always get your way. The Court is deciding topics that are intrinsically hard to make "objectively fair" decisions about. This Court chooses to return us to previous positions that were also defensible (or saying that interpretations were incorrect) and according to certain legal principles, re-adhering to what the Constitution says to do. The Court rules on things that are intrinsically open for interpretation. And it is a reflection of our other parts of government being dysfunctional that we for example, cannot amend the Constitution if we think that standards need to change. No court will save us on an issue where 50% of people disagree on it, no matter how strongly you may feel that your side is right. The Court is the last place that you should try to make change happen. I am not in favor of suddenly finding / proposing all sorts of new rules just because a ruling didn't go your way. [0] See this story for why you should read more of the detail if you wish to have a position that's more informed than "this is so corrupt": https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billionaire-who-bought-justice-thomas-mothers-house/9efa40a6-8a56-4836-ae31-717e824c9833 https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...
- bobleeswagger 3y ago[flagged]
- pcl 3y agoI would say that an uptick in articles about judicial corruption is evidence that journalism is, in fact, still alive!
- bobleeswagger 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow them in the future. They're here, as you know: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- ripe 3y agoHuh? Quite a stretch to blame journalists for this. Thomas hid these gifts and lied about them. ProPublica investigated and exposed him. This is how journalism is supposed to work.
- bobleeswagger 3y ago[flagged]
- Bloating 3y ago[flagged]
- dangsuckshard 3y ago
- imwillofficial 3y ago[flagged]
- fabian2k 3y agoThe US supreme court is absurdly political, I don't see how that can work long-term. There are very strong incentives to put judges on it that strongly represent your political views. This also means that holding them accountable is strongly disincentivized if it means that you might lose one slot. A supreme court that is blatantly partisan is not really a proper check nor balance. The system must be set up in a way that encourages less partisan judges, though I don't know how you could achieve that in the US the way the situation is now.
- rayiner 3y agoIt’s been that way ever since it because a vehicle for undemocratically pushing through laws that you can’t achieve democratically. It won’t stop being political unless it stops being an alternative to getting a majority of the vote for your preferred policies.
- ZunarJ5 3y agoThe billionaire that bought out Thomas has close ties to the Bush family and has a long history of contributing to GOP led smear campaigns. While going after Thomas is important, we must also have our eyes on the man bankrolling this.
- simonh 3y agoI think the problems with politicisation of the judiciary and general venality in the US are due to the same dynamic that erases democracy in communist countries like the USSR and China. Hear me out. In the USSR and China you do have democracy, but it’s voting for party lists of approved candidates. These people sit on committees that vote for the next rung up, and so in until you get to the top. The problem is too much democracy. But because it’s all run by committees in practice it’s all stitched up in back room deals with the leaders at the top directing the lower levels. In the US it’s a different structure but the effect is similar. You don’t just have elected politicians, but ejected judges, elected sheriffs, prosecutors, electoral officials, even elected librarians. Plus direct voting on initiatives. Ordinary voters can’t possibly keep up with who is who, what their individual records are or what platforms all these people are standing on. so they just go with the party approved candidate. Parties also run campaigns for candidates, so in practice candidates owe their actual chance of getting elected not to the voters, but to the patronage of party machines. This goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Liberal justices are the darlings of Democrats and are feted and celebrated. Conservative justices are the darlings of Republicans. The problem is severe disconnection between voters and the people they are voting for.