6 ms·

Reading 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 b

Reading 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 ago
You 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 ago
    The Democrats did not do the same thing. The obstruction of Merrick Garland is novel and unique.
    - jerkstate 3y ago
      What would you say the key differences were between the nomination of Merrick Garland and the nomination of Robert Bork?
      - jandrese 3y ago
        Bork was rejected due to his role in the Saturday Night Massacre, not because it was "too close to an election". Also, he actually got a vote.
      - jcranmer 3y ago
        Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate in a vote after about 3 months (about typical time for a Supreme Court nomination hearing). Merrick Garland's nomination was never heard by the Senate, and lapsed at the end of the Senate session with no hearings nor votes taking place for almost 9 months. Seems like a critical difference to me, at least.
        lliamander 3y ago
        A more critical difference to me seems to be the abhorrent character assassination tactics employed against Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings. Merely refusing to consider Garland seems much milder than to attempt to destroy his reputation and career.
        kelnos 3y ago
        I'm not familiar with Bork's confirmation, but "character assassination" is a bit of a weird take on Thomas' and Kavanaugh's hearings. Neither of them seem to have much character in the first place; both seem unfit for the bench IMO.
        lliamander 3y ago
        If you've ever heard of something being "borked", the phrase comes precisely from what happened Bork. I don't think Kavanaugh is especially impressive as a legal mind, but in the debates I had at the time with staunch opponents of Kavanaugh, none of them could produce anything to substantiate the allegations. Their whole argument rested solely on the allegations themselves. What little evidence that was presented only served to undermine those allegations. I don't see how that is anything other than character assassination. I haven't actually looked deeply into the accusations against Thomas during his confirmation hearing, but I have read several of his legal opinions, all of which were quite impressive.
  - mikem170 3y ago
    > And the democrats would do the same thing The Democrats helped force a Democrat appointed supreme court justice out in 1969, over a similar but lesser situation, even though Nixon would get to appoint a replacement. > In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign after his financial relationship came to light with businessman Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas to consult for his foundation. Fortas was a Democratic appointee, but the scandal led to a bipartisan call for his resignation — even though his replacement would be named by Republican President Richard Nixon and shift the balance of the court [0] I definitely don't see today's Republicans doing that. Eleven months before an election they unconstitutionally refused to vote on Obama's nomination of Garland [1] to the Supreme Court, but afterwards they were ok breaking convention and approving Barret and other judges as lame ducks after an election where they lost their senate majority [2]. This is quite the change from several decades ago when Nixon resigned because he knew that some Republicans would vote with Democrats to impeach him. I guess that back then our constitution and institutions were more important than party and power [3]. [0] https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_fortas https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_f... [1] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unconstitutional-blockade-of-garland-poisoned-subsequent/ https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unco... [2] https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame-duck/ https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame... [3] refer to the book "How Democracies Die" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt
  - jutrewag 3y ago
    [dead]
- slg 3y ago
  The Garland/Barrett shenanigans were at least strategic. Kavanaugh was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing special about that man. They could have easily dumped him as soon as the credible accusation against him came out. There are plenty of other judges with similar ideology and opinions that could have replaced him and provided the exact same impact on the court. There was no strategic reason to stick by him. The only reason was to prove a point about not caring about these accusations. The only way that any more than a couple Republicans vote to remove Thomas or Gorsuch is if they see an opportunity to replace an older conservative justice with a younger conservative justice.
  - influx 3y ago
    I don't find Kavanaugh a particularly great legal mind, but your definition of credible accusation and mine are very different.
    - slg 3y ago
      Fine, I'll bite. What wasn't credible about the accusation?
      - jandrese 3y ago
        I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? They were even more credible and provided only a minor delay in his appointment. If you want that sort of behavior to matter you need to elect better representatives.
        adamc 3y ago
        We need a different process, and no, I don't know what. But the current system is electing people based on sound-bites and posturing. The results, which are terrible, speak for themselves.
        slg 3y ago
- JeremyNT 3y ago
  Of course, it's all Realpolitik. The US system of governance at this point is such a failure for real democratic rule. It's devolved into a two-party system, and for some reason we grant whichever party happens to be in power the ability to appoint party apparatchiks to vacancies on the Supreme Court. These people then rule until death, when they are replaced in the same manner. This being the framework, there is never any structural incentive to do anything but convince voters that your opponent is a monster, so you can retain power. Good governance is not rewarded, bad behavior is not punished - we may only rely on the questionable morality of the elected officials to "do the right thing," since they cannot be held accountable.
  - pas 3y ago
    good governance is rewarded by winning elections. economy is still the no1. issue for the median voter
afpx 3y ago
Knowing how much home renovations cost, why would a megadonor stop at “tens of thousands of dollars”? Can you really buy a vote for that little?
- jandrese 3y ago
  Apparently yes. It's always surprising how cheaply our politicians have been bought.
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    The governor of Illinois tried to sell Obama’s senate seat for bargain bin prices.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  He bought her house for almost $200k, spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements, bought the house next door with the loud annoying neighbors and tore it down, bought two more houses on the street, fixed them up and sold them and doesn’t charge her rent to live there… basically gentrified her street.
  - alienthrowaway 3y ago
    He genteified *his street. He owns her home - at least on paper.
- hibikir 3y ago
  Always remember that the vote buying process is more about guaranteeing further alignment, instead of straight out buying. I can't imagine, for instance, Kagan receiving similar gifts, from similar donors, to make her vote with Thomas. I also don't think that some left wing billionaire could throw a million or two at Thomas and suddenly turn him into a swing voter. High brow political corruption everywhere is more about those small, marginal adjustments, which also lead to less obvious quid pro quo. It's not that your buddy renovated your house, so you pick his company in a government bid worth a few hundred million: He becomes your buddy first, and gives you smaller gifts, and when you are adequately aligned, bigger gifts keep getting exchanged. This is what makes the actual corruption always seem very cheap: It was never that huge a push, and the long term social component is always far more important than just the money.
supernova87a 3y ago
You should read this before jumping to the conclusion that this is an outrage. 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...
onetimeusename 3y ago
> This is acceptable conduct? Sure. I think ProPublica is reporting an angle here that can't be proven that Harlan Crow is attempting influence peddling or trying to put cash in the pocket of Clarence Thomas illegally. This doesn't look like a corruption case. The situation is somewhat reasonable and Thomas might have profited by 1/3 of the ~$130,000 house that he inherited which is not really a big deal. It should have been reported, yes, absolutely. But I think this is fairly mundane. I also think it's worth pointing out that Justice Ginsburg received a $1M award from Russian oligarchs[1][2]. She also received a trip to Israel[3] from an Israeli billionaire. I suppose if I were a ProPublica journalist I would say she was lavished with a private arrangement in Israel by a foreign billionaire. These are probably also mundane, I don't think she was corrupted by foreign influences. It's a good question of whether all of this is appropriate, I don't know. But ProPublica is not exactly an unbiased reporter in my opinion. Being donor funded probably makes one even more susceptible to political bias than corporate media imo. [1]: https://www.genesisprize.org/honorees/lifetime-achievement-award-2018 https://www.genesisprize.org/honorees/lifetime-achievement-a... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Prize [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/opinion/editorials/clarence-thomas-trips-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/opinion/editorials/claren...
- baybal2 3y ago
  [dead]

jandrese 3y ago

You 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 ago
  The Democrats did not do the same thing. The obstruction of Merrick Garland is novel and unique.
  - jerkstate 3y ago
    What would you say the key differences were between the nomination of Merrick Garland and the nomination of Robert Bork?
    - jandrese 3y ago
      Bork was rejected due to his role in the Saturday Night Massacre, not because it was "too close to an election". Also, he actually got a vote.
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate in a vote after about 3 months (about typical time for a Supreme Court nomination hearing). Merrick Garland's nomination was never heard by the Senate, and lapsed at the end of the Senate session with no hearings nor votes taking place for almost 9 months. Seems like a critical difference to me, at least.
      - lliamander 3y ago
        A more critical difference to me seems to be the abhorrent character assassination tactics employed against Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings. Merely refusing to consider Garland seems much milder than to attempt to destroy his reputation and career.
        kelnos 3y ago
        I'm not familiar with Bork's confirmation, but "character assassination" is a bit of a weird take on Thomas' and Kavanaugh's hearings. Neither of them seem to have much character in the first place; both seem unfit for the bench IMO.
        lliamander 3y ago
        If you've ever heard of something being "borked", the phrase comes precisely from what happened Bork. I don't think Kavanaugh is especially impressive as a legal mind, but in the debates I had at the time with staunch opponents of Kavanaugh, none of them could produce anything to substantiate the allegations. Their whole argument rested solely on the allegations themselves. What little evidence that was presented only served to undermine those allegations. I don't see how that is anything other than character assassination. I haven't actually looked deeply into the accusations against Thomas during his confirmation hearing, but I have read several of his legal opinions, all of which were quite impressive.
- mikem170 3y ago
  > And the democrats would do the same thing The Democrats helped force a Democrat appointed supreme court justice out in 1969, over a similar but lesser situation, even though Nixon would get to appoint a replacement. > In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas was forced to resign after his financial relationship came to light with businessman Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas to consult for his foundation. Fortas was a Democratic appointee, but the scandal led to a bipartisan call for his resignation — even though his replacement would be named by Republican President Richard Nixon and shift the balance of the court [0] I definitely don't see today's Republicans doing that. Eleven months before an election they unconstitutionally refused to vote on Obama's nomination of Garland [1] to the Supreme Court, but afterwards they were ok breaking convention and approving Barret and other judges as lame ducks after an election where they lost their senate majority [2]. This is quite the change from several decades ago when Nixon resigned because he knew that some Republicans would vote with Democrats to impeach him. I guess that back then our constitution and institutions were more important than party and power [3]. [0] https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_fortas https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/19/clarence_thomas_abe_f... [1] https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unconstitutional-blockade-of-garland-poisoned-subsequent/ https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/594574-mcconnells-unco... [2] https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame-duck/ https://rollcall.com/2020/10/30/mcconnell-senate-judges-lame... [3] refer to the book "How Democracies Die" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt
- jutrewag 3y ago
  [dead]
slg 3y ago
The Garland/Barrett shenanigans were at least strategic. Kavanaugh was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing special about that man. They could have easily dumped him as soon as the credible accusation against him came out. There are plenty of other judges with similar ideology and opinions that could have replaced him and provided the exact same impact on the court. There was no strategic reason to stick by him. The only reason was to prove a point about not caring about these accusations. The only way that any more than a couple Republicans vote to remove Thomas or Gorsuch is if they see an opportunity to replace an older conservative justice with a younger conservative justice.
- influx 3y ago
  I don't find Kavanaugh a particularly great legal mind, but your definition of credible accusation and mine are very different.
  - slg 3y ago
    Fine, I'll bite. What wasn't credible about the accusation?
    - jandrese 3y ago
      I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? They were even more credible and provided only a minor delay in his appointment. If you want that sort of behavior to matter you need to elect better representatives.
      - adamc 3y ago
        We need a different process, and no, I don't know what. But the current system is electing people based on sound-bites and posturing. The results, which are terrible, speak for themselves.
      - slg 3y ago
JeremyNT 3y ago
Of course, it's all Realpolitik. The US system of governance at this point is such a failure for real democratic rule. It's devolved into a two-party system, and for some reason we grant whichever party happens to be in power the ability to appoint party apparatchiks to vacancies on the Supreme Court. These people then rule until death, when they are replaced in the same manner. This being the framework, there is never any structural incentive to do anything but convince voters that your opponent is a monster, so you can retain power. Good governance is not rewarded, bad behavior is not punished - we may only rely on the questionable morality of the elected officials to "do the right thing," since they cannot be held accountable.
- pas 3y ago
  good governance is rewarded by winning elections. economy is still the no1. issue for the median voter

afpx 3y ago

Knowing how much home renovations cost, why would a megadonor stop at “tens of thousands of dollars”? Can you really buy a vote for that little?

jandrese 3y ago
Apparently yes. It's always surprising how cheaply our politicians have been bought.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  The governor of Illinois tried to sell Obama’s senate seat for bargain bin prices.
mikeyouse 3y ago
He bought her house for almost $200k, spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements, bought the house next door with the loud annoying neighbors and tore it down, bought two more houses on the street, fixed them up and sold them and doesn’t charge her rent to live there… basically gentrified her street.
- alienthrowaway 3y ago
  He genteified *his street. He owns her home - at least on paper.
hibikir 3y ago
Always remember that the vote buying process is more about guaranteeing further alignment, instead of straight out buying. I can't imagine, for instance, Kagan receiving similar gifts, from similar donors, to make her vote with Thomas. I also don't think that some left wing billionaire could throw a million or two at Thomas and suddenly turn him into a swing voter. High brow political corruption everywhere is more about those small, marginal adjustments, which also lead to less obvious quid pro quo. It's not that your buddy renovated your house, so you pick his company in a government bid worth a few hundred million: He becomes your buddy first, and gives you smaller gifts, and when you are adequately aligned, bigger gifts keep getting exchanged. This is what makes the actual corruption always seem very cheap: It was never that huge a push, and the long term social component is always far more important than just the money.

supernova87a 3y ago

You should read this before jumping to the conclusion that this is an outrage. 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...

onetimeusename 3y ago

> This is acceptable conduct? Sure. I think ProPublica is reporting an angle here that can't be proven that Harlan Crow is attempting influence peddling or trying to put cash in the pocket of Clarence Thomas illegally. This doesn't look like a corruption case. The situation is somewhat reasonable and Thomas might have profited by 1/3 of the ~$130,000 house that he inherited which is not really a big deal. It should have been reported, yes, absolutely. But I think this is fairly mundane. I also think it's worth pointing out that Justice Ginsburg received a $1M award from Russian oligarchs[1][2]. She also received a trip to Israel[3] from an Israeli billionaire. I suppose if I were a ProPublica journalist I would say she was lavished with a private arrangement in Israel by a foreign billionaire. These are probably also mundane, I don't think she was corrupted by foreign influences. It's a good question of whether all of this is appropriate, I don't know. But ProPublica is not exactly an unbiased reporter in my opinion. Being donor funded probably makes one even more susceptible to political bias than corporate media imo. [1]: https://www.genesisprize.org/honorees/lifetime-achievement-award-2018 https://www.genesisprize.org/honorees/lifetime-achievement-a... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Prize [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/opinion/editorials/clarence-thomas-trips-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/opinion/editorials/claren...

baybal2 3y ago
[dead]