America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

They sound pretty uppity…..if the shackles fit.

regardless of the skin color of the judge in question.

Then ...he has a lot more trips to go on...

To reach $5 million

HA

HA

HA!!

Naw...Thomas is too tainted by right-wing extremism. Thomas would have to renounce all his evil ways and his friends and join the Democratic Socialists of America before AOC would accept him. You know...Workers of the World Unite!, Raise Your Fist!, Public Ownership of the Means of Production!, Green New Deal!, stuff like that.

To some just being a black conservative gives the appearance of impropriety.

Yes - but we still like HD....

I'm guessing that every con is claiming skin color cuz there really is no defense for all this chit?

I see...guilty as charged by "the mere appearance of impropriety." Appearance is all the evidence necessary for a LEFTY show trial when the only goal is to purge the SCOTUS of a constitutionalist judge.

This is not about skin color. This is not about conservative vs. liberal.
It is about SOP in the judicial/legal professions that is known by all.
The mere appearance of impropriety, in and itself, is enough to recuse or resign, or be removed.

"erosion of confidence in the receiver of gifts"
Now if Thomas was hanging out like buds with a member of the Biden Crime Family and partying, that chit might fly.
I would be suspicious of them mobsters trying to buy him off, to sway him into rubberstamping their unconstitutional activities.

But no, he's not that kind.

Thomas's longtime friends in question have no reason to shower him with gifts to sway his judgment.

You see Frankie, I'm looking at the modi operandi of the real criminals, the ones that are smearing da judge (the one that stuck it to them in the past) with the appearance of impropriety.

Yer not a very good detective Frankie.

I wonder if he was ever gifted a **** in his office...

I don't see the problem here, even if all this is true. All of the Biden's have done worse and made more money doing it.

It has been made very clear repeatedly that black people, brown people, and women are not allowed to be conservative. If they chose to do so, they will be hunted and persecuted forever.

But THIS TIME there are legitimate concerns about Clarence Thomas?

his history goes back at least two decades.
but your and ray's preoccupation with and accusations of racism without cause in noted.

I heard it was more like Stymie or Buckwheat from Our Gang. 👌

Darla's!!!!

Liberals have it down!

Having failed to destroy Clarence Thomas 32 years ago with preposterous sexual harassment charges (disbelieved at the time by 60% of Americans), now the left is resorting to attacking the ethics of a man vastly more honorable than the collection of degenerates reviling him.

The sole purpose of the media’s sudden fixation on the Supreme Court’s “ethics” is to morally intimidate conservative justices by reminding them that the left controls the culture. Since they lost abortion, liberals have been in a panic that the court will junk other liberal sacraments, like gay marriage and affirmative action, too. That’s the reason for the stream of calumnies directed at the justices.

As usual, the main target of the left’s rage is Thomas. We’re supposed to be appalled that Thomas’ billionaire friend Harlan Crow took the justice and his wife on a vacation that (the media claim) would have cost Thomas more than $500,000!!!

Well, yeah, but Thomas and his wife, Ginny, weren’t going alone. They hadn’t just won a cruise sweepstakes. They were joining Crow on a vacation he was taking anyway. Cost to donor: a few extra chicken cutlets and string beans.

Crow sounds like a great guy, but when you’re going on vacation with a benefactor, it isn’t like he’s handing you an expensive bauble. You are the expensive bauble.

We went on a cruise on my private yacht in Indonesia and served Jeroboam of Chateau Mouton Rothschild 1945.[Meh.]

We went on a cruise on my private yacht in Indonesia and Justice Clarence Thomas was our guest. WINNER!!!!

Cui bono? Everybody!

The media want us to believe that generosity from personal friends is an ethical issue, but that’s because that’s not how liberals bribe government officials. They bombard their targets with the sort of public adoration that money can’t buy -- or the sort of public hate that money can’t block. Your choice: Be beloved from every corner of society or be subjected to nonstop ridicule.

Adored: Anthony Fauci, BLM, Michelle Obama, Trevor Noah, transgenders, Ukraine, black people, pot, Elon Musk (pre-Twitter), Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Hated: Ron DeSantis, the Proud Boys, Melania Trump, Dave Chappelle, Christians, Russia, white people, cigarettes, Elon Musk (post-Twitter), Clarence Thomas.

Thus, during her quarter-century on the court, Ginsburg was showered with alms from the media, Hollywood, universities, television, publishing, the music industry, museums, clothing manufacturers, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Post Office and an array of nonprofits.

It’s a miracle she ever had time to write opinions with the constant procession of awards, retrospectives, portraits and honors -- the Berggruen Prize for Philosophy and Culture; the LBJ Foundation's Liberty & Justice for All Award; the World Peace & Liberty Award; a lifetime achievement award from Diane von Furstenberg's foundation; the 2020 Liberty Medal by the National Constitution Center; and the World Peace & Liberty Award from the World Jurist Association and the World Law Foundation.

I would wager that most people would prefer ceaseless public praise to a cruise, no matter how nice the yacht.

The U.S. Postal Service produced an RBG “Forever” stamp; the U.S. Navy named an oiler the “Ruth Bader Ginsburg”; Los Angeles’ Skirball Cultural Center put on a large-scale exhibition on her life; the Cleveland Museum of Natural History named a species of praying mantis after her; she was slobberingly interviewed by Stephen Colbert; a Sam Adams beer was named in her honor; and she received honorary degrees from literally dozens upon dozens of universities.

Say, did any of these outfits have an interest in cases that might come before the court? Perhaps MSNBC could look into that.

It’s curious that the very cultural institutions bestowing all these goodies on liberals don’t see them as “gifts” at all. There are no somber invocations of “ethics” when the Sundance Film Festival features a North Korean-style documentary about Ginsburg. Nor when The New York Times gushes that Ginsburg was “a trailblazing feminist ... [continuing] to point the way toward greater equality ... she never wavered in her commitment to the court as a vehicle for a more just and more equal America. She was a dogged, tireless fighter ... [gag, gag, gag]."

Try to imagine that string of accolades being given to Thomas, much less the Tiger Beat worship -- the coloring books, documentaries, bobbleheads, and so on.

It’s inconceivable. In fact, the “honors and recognition” section on Thomas’ Wikipedia page contains a single item: “In 2012, Thomas received an honorary degree from the College of the Holy Cross, his alma mater.”

The only reward a conservative titan like Thomas will receive in this lifetime will be his friends spending their own money to enjoy his company. So the media have decided that’s a conflict of interest. Fawning media coverage worth millions of dollars: not a conflict of interest.

Let’s compare!

Value of private supporters' gifts to Justice Thomas over the years: Maybe a few million dollars -- and that’s according to liberals, although the donor was going on these vacations with or without Thomas, so the cost to him was minimal.

Value of liberal institutions’ gifts to Justice Ginsburg over the years: approximately $3 trillion.

It’s been a long time coming, but we finally have a Supreme Court that isn’t dying to impose faddish liberal ideas on the country by claiming to discover never-before-seen constitutional rights. If anything, the Dobbs opinion should have calmed lefties. Abortion is no longer a “constitutional right,” so now it’s up to the states. And guess what, liberals? Americans are voting to allow abortion!

But Democrats are mostly neurotic women, so “calm” is not their middle name.

Contrary to the left’s self-advertisements as huge fans of democracy -- Democracy Dies in Darkness! -- the last thing they want is people voting on their crazy ideas. That’s why they’ve got to discredit the current court.

If all goes according to plan, Trump will lose another election for the GOP next year, handing Democrats super-majorities in Congress, whereupon they will pack the court. Finally, liberals will have their magical Supreme Court back! How much is that penumbra worth to you, New York Times?

https://anncoulter.substack.com/p/how-to-bribe-the-supreme-court?publication_id=871518&post_id=119105069&isFreemail=true


Oooof

How is anyone who didn't think he did anything wrong going to explain away the tuition others paid for his kids or grandkids?

This is not a liberal v. conservative matter. It has to do with the "appearance of impropriety" or worse.

Like I said before, Clarence needs to go now- and I would even let the R's pick his replacement.

In the legal/judicial world- he's irreparably tainted by his own actions.

I have no problem with them writing books or teaching law for extra income when the court is not in session. She should have recused herself if there were past economic ties between her and a publisher. Shamefull.

Justice Thomas’s Friend Defends Failure to Disclose Tuition Payments by Harlan Crow

The revelation by ProPublica on Thursday added to the lavish gifts and travel from the Texas billionaire that Justice Clarence Thomas has not disclosed.


NYT
WASHINGTON — A Republican donor from Texas paid for two years of private-school tuition for Justice Clarence Thomas’s great-nephew, a gift that the justice did not disclose, a friend of the justice acknowledged in a statement on Thursday.

The acknowledgment added detail to a report on Thursday by ProPublica, which last month documented how Justice Thomas had received gifts of luxury travel from the billionaire donor, Harlan Crow. The revelations, which also include the sale of the home of Justice Thomas’s mother to Mr. Crow, have raised questions over the justice’s ethical practices.

In his statement, Mark Paoletta, Justice Thomas’s friend and a former official for the Trump administration, argued that the justice was not required to report the tuition. He pointed to part of a 1978 law that says judges must disclose gifts to dependent children, who are defined as “a son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter.” Mr. Paoletta stressed that by that measure, a great-nephew does not qualify.

“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,” Mr. Paoletta wrote.

But ethics law experts rejected that argument and said Mr. Crow’s gift was to Justice Thomas himself, not the great-nephew, so it was clearly reportable. As the legal guardian of the child, Justice Thomas had assumed responsibility for his education, enrolled him in private school and otherwise would have had to pay tuition.

“There is no ambiguity here,” said Kathleen Clark, an ethics law expert at Washington University in St. Louis.

“He paid the tuition, which was a gift to Thomas because it helped Thomas financially fulfill his responsibility as guardian,” she added.

Richard W. Painter, a University of Minnesota professor who was the top ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, concurred.

“I believe Justice Thomas had legal custody, and they have not disputed that,” Mr. Painter said. “It was his prerogative to send the child to private school, but he had to pay for it. That was his debt, like a utility bill or food.”

Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University, agreed, saying, “It should have been reported.” He also said the revelation underscored the need for Congress to tighten the rules.

Mr. Paoletta’s “legalistic parsing of language to avoid disclosure of a substantial gift” demonstrated that ethics rules “are seriously in need of revision to eliminate their porousness,” he said. “They are not achieving the transparency the public deserves.”

The Supreme Court press office did not respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman at Mr. Crow’s holding company did not respond to an email request for comment. But his office told ProPublica that neither Justice Thomas nor his wife, Virginia Thomas, had asked Mr. Crow to cover tuition payments for their great-nephew, Mark Martin.

The disclosure is one in a rapidly lengthening series raising questions about Justice Thomas’s ethics practices.

Late Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Leonard A. Leo, an activist who has pushed to appoint conservative judges, had arranged for Ms. Thomas’s name to be kept off billing paperwork as she was paid tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees in 2011 and 2012. The nonprofit group that was listed on the paperwork instead, the Judicial Education Project, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a major case before the justices around the same time.

The recent disclosures have prompted lawmakers to propose a law that would impose a tighter ethics code on the Supreme Court, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the matter this week.

Justice Thomas became the legal guardian for Mark Martin in the late 1990s. Notably, the justice had earlier accepted a gift of $5,000 from the owner of a pest control company to help defray the cost of his great-nephew’s schooling. In 2002, he reported it on a financial disclosure form as “education gift to Mark Martin.”

Last month, ethics experts, including Mr. Painter, signed a complaint to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and to the Justice Department over Justice Thomas’s failure to disclose lavish travel and vacations with Mr. Crow.

The complaint, which was organized by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noted that the Ethics in Government Act authorized the Justice Department to bring a civil action against anyone who “knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report.” Each violation could result in a fine of up to $50,000 per offense.

There is some ambiguity over whether trips and stays at resorts with friends needed to be disclosed before March, when the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body for the federal courts, explicitly required disclosure of personal hospitality like travel by private jet and stays at hotels, resorts or hunting lodges.

In a statement after last month’s revelations, Justice Thomas said that “colleagues and others in the judiciary” had advised that he was not required to report trips with Mr. Crow, whom he characterized as a close friend who did not have business before the court. He also indicated that he would make such disclosures going forward, in line with the recent revision or clarification.

Enforcement actions for any failure to comply with the disclosure law have another constraint: There is generally a four-year statute of limitations for civil actions under federal law.

The tuition payments fall outside that window. In his statement, Mr. Paoletta indicated that Mr. Crow had paid for Mark Martin’s tuition at the Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia in the 2006-7 academic year and at Hidden Lake Academy, a private school in Georgia, for the following year.

ProPublica has nodded to Justice Thomas’s friendship with Mr. Paoletta in describing his relationship with Mr. Crow. In one article, ProPublica featured a painting that hangs at Mr. Crow’s private lakeside resort in the Adirondack Mountains depicting Justice Thomas and Mr. Crow smoking cigars alongside Mr. Paoletta and two other conservative lawyers.

Been in front of or spent a lot of time talking to and watching judges (50-75?) in state and federal courts for 35 years.

Attended seminars where there are multiple judges teaching and on ethics discussion panels.

Two friends are currently serving on the bench; my former boss at the state attorney's office and an aquaintance were both chief judges.

Another lawyer I know is one of two final candidates for a federal judicial appointment.

Not a single one would take/would have taken the tuition money. It is a total legal no-brainer

Clarence is irreparably tainted, IMNSHO.

Pepperidge Farms remembers the 'Loon Wing' playbook...

John Kennedy Explodes At Schumer, Dems' 'Loon Wing' For 'Threats' Against Supreme Court

May 2, 2023

https://youtu.be/4-WxWdKn-aM

Modern day public lynching.

Ya, 11 Democrats on the lynching committee, totally unbiased I'm sure. Get the hangin' tree ready.