4 ms·

The parent could be referring to Justice Clarence Thomas and his well-documented past of accepting expensive things from Republican billionaires. [1] [2] [1] h

• burningChrome 2y ago
  While willfully ignoring Sotomayor's own checkered past? "Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor reportedly accepted nearly $2 million from Penguin Random House in a book deal, and then went on to sit in judgment of a copyright case involving that same company the following year." https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/4/sonia-sotomayor-got-millions-publishing-company-wh/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/4/sonia-sotoma... Or the way she prodded institutions where she spoke to buy her books? "Sotomayor's staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children's books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009." https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1187005372/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-staff-book-sales-signings-memoir https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1187005372/sonia-sotomayor-su... Pot meet Kettle. Kettle meet Pot.
  • pyth0 2y ago
    Those dealings with Sotomayor are obviously sketchy and should not be legal, not sure where in the thread you got the impression that it was being ignored. But unless you are being intentionally dishonest signing a book deal is substantially different from receiving all expenses paid vacations. And given Thomas' willingness to throw away precedent in recent rulings, him receiving gifts in exchange for "nothing" puts him under even more scrutiny.
    • burningChrome 2y ago
      >> signing a book deal is substantially different from receiving all expenses paid vacations. You do know the rules for disclosure were changed recently right? The ProPublica article used Thomas past dealings and then applied the recent changes to those dealings. That would seem, I don't know, a bit underhanded in their reporting no? "The Smearing of Clarence Thomas" Wall St Journal April 2023 https://archive.ph/pXVuq https://archive.ph/pXVuq But it seems clear that the Court’s rules at the time all of this happened did not require that gifts of personal hospitality be disclosed. This includes the private plane trips. ProPublica fails to make clear to readers that the U.S. Judicial Conference recently changed its rules to require more disclosure. The new rules took effect last month. Justice Thomas would have been obliged to disclose gifts that posed a conflict of interest involving cases that would be heard by the High Court. But there is no evidence that Mr. Crow has had any such business before the Court, and Mr. Crow says he has “never asked about a pending or lower court case.” So then to review: - Thomas had no obligation to disclose his trips - The person he went on the trips with had no business before the court, nor did he ever inquire about any of the court's business. - Thomas has said he will adhere to the new disclosure rules. Yet: - Sotomayor took $2M from a publisher who DID have business with the court - Sotomayor was one of their clients and had an obvious conflict of interest - She refused to recuse herself and ruled (shockingly) in favor of her beneficiary And your take here is Thomas' was worst than Sotomayor's?
      • pests 2y ago
        Sotomayor is just as bad as Thomas. Why are you defending one person by bringing up the actions of another? That doesn't make any sense.
        • robertlagrant 2y ago
          It makes sense when you realise that Thomas uniquely is very often smeared for this sort of stuff.
          • pests 2y ago
  • aredox 2y ago
    So, are you ok with both, or ok with none?