re: They’re Going After Justice Clarence Thomas Now (Again)

quote:

---

So Thomas was disclosing some paid trips but kept some secret and unreported.

---

NONE of the justices are required to report ANY of their paid for trips. They don't have an ethics code.

quote:

---

Starting to make the rounds, people calling for impeachmints

---

Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate.

The house is controlled by republicans, there isn’t going to be an impeachment in the foreseeable future.

they need SCOTUS completely to complete their tyranny. but it is meatball is great day how dare you post this!

quote:

---

People actually believe they can vote their way out of this mess… lol

---

Only squishy weak pseudo conservatives believe this^^^^^.

quote:

---

NONE of the justices are required to report ANY of their paid for trips. They don't have an ethics code.

---

If the Supreme Court justices are somehow exept from the Ethics and Government Act, that would be news to me. Perhaps you are mistaken or confused. And the new rules over Supreme Court justices disclosures absolultey include paid vacations, not just gifts, under certain circumstances.

It is murky where to draw the line between a "gift" and having a generous friend, by design, but in plain view it's clear what is going on here and just more details on how the swamp operates.

Ask the Tennessee legislature.

quote:

---

If the Supreme Court justices are somehow exept from the Ethics and Government Act, that would be news to me. Perhaps you are mistaken or confused. And the new rules over Supreme Court justices disclosures absolultey include paid vacations, not just gifts, under certain circumstances.

It is murky where to draw the line between a "gift" and having a generous friend, by design, but in plain view it's clear what is going on here and just more details on how the swamp operates.

---

Perhaps you are mistaken or confused.

It was linked in the original article, and I linked it earlier in this thread, but here is another source stating that "personal hospitality" is exempt from the financial disclosure

quote:

---

pursuant to the federal Ethics in Government Act, “judicial officers” were required to report the receipt of gifts worth over $415, with a broad exception for “personal hospitality.” The term “personal” had apparently been interpreted to mean something like “extended by an individual” rather than by a business or corporation, thus allowing the undisclosed acceptance of resort vacations and private jet travel, so long as the invitations were made by acquaintances, even if some other entity was underwriting the expense.

---

And here's more info on how John Roberts has repeatedly stated that the SC Justices are only voluntarily reporting anyway because they are not required to do so:

quote:

---

Major media outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, have echoed Whitehouse’s claim that it will also apply to Supreme Court justices, but that is far from certain. Chief Justice John Roberts has made it clear that the justices are jealous of their individual prerogatives and do not feel bound by outside constraints.

In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Roberts denied the authority of the Judicial Conference, stating that its “committees have no mandate to prescribe rules or standards” for the Supreme Court.
I raised this issue with Whitehouse’s office, citing the chief justice’s disclaimer. The response was that the “Ethics in Government Act is the ultimate source of these reporting requirements,” and it applies to “all judicial officers” including “the Chief Justice of the United States” [and] the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.”

Roberts, however, dismissed that argument in his 2011 Report, pointedly stating that, under the separation of powers, “the Court has never addressed whether Congress may impose [disclosure] requirements on the Supreme Court.” Roberts explained that the justices have “nevertheless” complied with “reporting requirements and limitations on the receipt of gifts,” reminding readers that the Court’s adherence to the Judicial Conference’s regulations would be voluntary rather than mandatory.

Whitehouse believes that the “new rules will make it much harder for justices to travel, dine, hunt, or vacation for free at the private resort of a wealthy corporate executive – especially one with business before their court – and avoid disclosing that information to the public,” which is true only for those who decide to respect the Judicial Conference regulations.

Although the revision went into effect on March 14, there has not been any acknowledgement from the Supreme Court. We will not know whether the justices follow the rule until May 15, 2024, when this year’s reports are due. Even then, there is no enforcement mechanism for justices who balk at full disclosure.

---

Chief Justice John Roberts has already told Congress to go f itself because separation of powers means that Congress can't make rules over the Supreme Court.

All these media and congress people screeching for Thomas' impeachment are a joke because the SC is not bound by these rules, they are voluntary at best.

The Hill

quote:

---

Perhaps you are mistaken or confused.

It was linked in the original article, and I linked it earlier in this thread, but here is another source stating that "personal hospitality" is exempt from the financial disclosure

---

It seems the section you quoted essentially summerizes the point I made. I see no contradiction.

As for the other points, I dont know why anyone, especially conservatives, would be against more transparency in government. that's how the swamp is drained.

quote:

---

It seems the section you quoted essentially summerizes the point I made. I see no contradiction.

---

What? You said the exact opposite. You:

quote:

---

If the Supreme Court justices are somehow exept from the Ethics and Government Act, that would be news to me. Perhaps you are mistaken or confused. And the new rules over Supreme Court justices disclosures absolultey include paid vacations, not just gifts, under certain circumstances.

---

And then I posted:

quote:

---

Roberts denied the authority of the Judicial Conference, stating that its “committees have no mandate to prescribe rules or standards” for the Supreme Court.

---

You said it would be news to you if the Supreme Court justices were exempt from the Ethics in Government Act, then I posted Chief Justice John Roberts saying more than a decade ago that the Supreme Court is not bound by that act, or really anything else Congress comes up with.

We are saying opposite things and you don’t see the contradiction?


I do agree that the SC should be more transparent, but the way our system is set up with separation of powers, the SC themselves will have to agree to abide by a code of ethics, the legislative and/or executive branches can’t impose it on the judicial branch.