4 ms·
I've never read anything more out-to-lunch than this in my life. Clarence Thomas is a signatory of this code of conduct; in what way has he avoided impropriety
by john-radio 3y ago
I've never read anything more out-to-lunch than this in my life. Clarence Thomas is a signatory of this code of conduct; in what way has he avoided impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety while accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free vacations, housing for his family members, a six-figure recreational vehicle, free private schooling for his child, from straight up lobbyists such as Harlan Crow, on whose affairs Thomas would later rule without recusing himself or even disclosing the existence of these frank bribes that had to be dug up later by journalists? Every decision with Thomas's assent on it should be considered corrupt and legally invalid until proven otherwise.
- chimeracoder 3y ago> Every decision with Thomas's assent on it should be considered corrupt and legally invalid until proven otherwise. It's not just Thomas. Alito was found to have done the same stuff.
- ars 3y agoSotomayor and Kagan have been accused as well. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-documents-conflicts-9fa2847e60e11601c872c3ba3eea12a3 https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-documents-co...
- john-radio 3y agoThat link doesn't seem to support your claim at all? It only says that Sotomayor and Kagan were the subject of inquiries to universities as part of this investigation into the entire Supreme Court, not that they are accused of any wrongdoing.
- ars 3y agoHow about this link then: https://thehill.com/homenews/4091544-liberal-justices-caught-up-in-supreme-court-ethics-scrutiny/ https://thehill.com/homenews/4091544-liberal-justices-caught...
- john-radio 3y agoThat helps, thanks! Not a good look for Sotomayor there either.
- whatshisface 3y agoHis signature is to be taken as indication that he will abide by it lest the Court be forced to, unprecedentedly, invent punishments - or worse, have them prescribed by the Congress. It would also make the situation even worse for the two members who got this written if they were seen to not sign the code that was signed by all of the other justices.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yowzadave 3y agoI feel like his signature is taken to be an indication that he believes he has already always followed this code -- that is, he endorses the statement in the preamble that it "largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct." This is what really gets to me--it is explicitly framed as a PR exercise: "The absence of a code...has led to the misunderstanding that the Justices regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules." Missing is any acknowledgment that the Code may not have been followed in the past.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- whatshisface 3y ago>"the Justices regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules" That's a confession, not a diversion. How could they have abided by the code while regarding themselves as "unrestricted by any ethics rules?"
- pseudalopex 3y agoThey didn't say they regarded themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. They said people thought wrongly they regarded themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.