SCOTUS

[tek]

They picked an excellent picture for that article..

d-1.jpg (121.68 KiB) Viewed 1646 times

[humblescribe]

I mean, they are supposed to be among the greatest legal minds in the country. These folks can dive into argument, see the flaws, see the strengths, and make decisions. Or so I am told.

Yet they are so gullible so as to think that attending this function at the White House was going to be a festive non-political gathering. Do these allegedly learned individuals not pay attention to current events? Are they that naive?

These sorts of personal decisions that these justices make give me pause. If they can make such poor personal decisions, this leads me to believe that they make poor judicial decisions too. It is not a stretch.

See also, Thomas, Clarence and Virginia.

[Chilidog]

They picked an excellent picture for that article..

d-1.jpg

"Who farted....oh!"

[Phoenix520]

Noel Castler who used to work on The Apprentice, says Trump was incontinent and would really stink after he had a tantrum because…well, he wears Depends for va a good reason

[Dr. Ken]

Thomas is corrupt to his core

[Dr. Ken]

Thomas is corrupt to his core

So trips were more than his salary. He didn't report them. They started when he was appointed to SCOTUS.

[Kendra]

A detail from our story today: Ted Cruz tweeted this photo of Clarence Thomas swearing in 5th Circuit Judge James Ho. Turns out this is in billionaire Harlan Crow's private library, and flight records show Crow's jet dispatched to DC and back to Dallas before + after this event

[Dr. Ken]

[raison de arizona]

Justice Thomas responds to report he accepted luxury travel from GOP donor for years

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his first public statement since a ProPublica report revealed that he had accepted luxury trips around the globe for more than two decades, including travel on a superyacht and private jet, from a prominent Republican donor without disclosing them.

The trips were funded by Harlan Crow, a Dallas businessman and influential donor to Republican candidates and causes related to the law and judiciary. Thomas said Friday that Crow was among his “dearest friends” for over 25 years.

“As friends do, we have joined [Crow and his wife] on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas said in a statement. “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

Thomas said he has “endeavored to follow that counsel” throughout his time on the high court. Federal law mandates that top officials from the three branches of government, including the Supreme Court, file annual forms detailing their finances, outside income and spouses’ sources of income, with each branch determining its own reporting standards.

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered “personal hospitality.”

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts’ policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or other private retreats owned by a company, rather than an individual. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ropublica/

[Ben-Prime]

“Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ropublica/

It would not be hard to keep asking colleagues until 2 or 3 of them gave this answer and then ignoring everyone else who said "Oh, for God's sake, *of course* you have to report this! You'd have to be an imbecile not to, hypothetically speaking!"

I've avoided commenting on this story for the most precisely because I could see this coming, and it infuriates me. In the particular government organization for which I work, we are bluntly told, from Day One, that we are personally responsible for our own career decisions no matter whom we ask -- either you have have a black and white citation of our internal rulebook(s) which is irrefutably on point with no extenuation, or you run the risk of making the wrong decision. The Office of Inspector General's letterhead with a nice note saying 'We told Ben-Prime this was valid after he got an advisory opinion from us' might be enough to shield me from consequences were this to happen to me. Maybe.

So people of a much higher paygrade of federal service asking 'colleagues' whom they don't name and whose advice they don't document just makes me angry.

[bob]

So people of a much higher paygrade of federal service asking 'colleagues' whom they don't name and whose advice they don't document just makes me angry.

This is among the failings of the Framers.

The Framers believed the courts were the least important branch, as it had neither the purse nor the sword. So when creating the checks and balances, they believed judges' relative weakness and the specter of impeachment/conviction/removal would guide them to act modestly.

So, absent a constitutional amendment, there is no method for another branch to enforce any ethical limitations on the U.S. Supreme Court. And, unsurprisingly, when left to govern themselves, some justices have shown they cannot.

There has been talk about trying to impeach Thomas. Such a resolution would never see the floor of this session's House. It would be theater at most.

[pipistrelle]

“Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ropublica/

It would not be hard to keep asking colleagues until 2 or 3 of them gave this answer and then ignoring everyone else who said "Oh, for God's sake, *of course* you have to report this! You'd have to be an imbecile not to, hypothetically speaking!"

I've avoided commenting on this story for the most precisely because I could see this coming, and it infuriates me. In the particular government organization for which I work, we are bluntly told, from Day One, that we are personally responsible for our own career decisions no matter whom we ask -- either you have have a black and white citation of our internal rulebook(s) which is irrefutably on point with no extenuation, or you run the risk of making the wrong decision. The Office of Inspector General's letterhead with a nice note saying 'We told Ben-Prime this was valid after he got an advisory opinion from us' might be enough to shield me from consequences were this to happen to me. Maybe.

So people of a much higher paygrade of federal service asking 'colleagues' whom they don't name and whose advice they don't document just makes me angry.

In real world, you'd reevaluate this peridoically as attitudes may change (if he even did this, which I doubt).

I don't work for the gov't but we're held to high ethical standards. If something has even a whiff of conflict of interest, I would avoid it or report it. Of course I don't have a bff who has mega yachts and multiple estates and such, but there's a reason for that. I can provide no one like that any value. Yeah, they love CT for his warmth and charming personality that shines through every photo of him.

[Phoenix520]

I’ve mentioned my dad before. He was a journalist but also press secretary to a governor. This was a BIG DEAL in his life and a point of pride as well.

He was always and forever being “offered” things he was legally and morally obligated to refuse. Cruises, like Thomas. Impossible-to-get tickets to any and every hot thing. Jewelry for my mom, a week at Disneyland for the fam.

The thing is they were relentless. Even when he was at the LATimes he was being dangled things to write a favorable editorial or lobby his boss for something.

Thomas is lacking bigly in character. Seems like the first person who asked got what they wanted.

I still think he’s vengeful, in keeping with the current lot of legislators.

[poplove]

I have to chime in on this. When I was a DoD federal employee we got yearly ethics briefings along with active duty personnel. We were not allowed to accept any gifts over $25 value, period. Over the years I picked up marketing items from all kinds of vendors plus a few donuts and candies but that was it. I still have a handy little pocket screwdriver from Cabletron Systems.

ETA: If someone did offer something of value over $25, we were required to report it.

[pipistrelle]

I have to chime in on this. When I was a DoD federal employee we got yearly ethics briefings along with active duty personnel. We were not allowed to accept any gifts over $25 value, period. Over the years I picked up marketing items from all kinds of vendors plus a few donuts and candies but that was it. I still have a handy little pocket screwdriver from Cabletron Systems.

ETA: If someone did offer something of value over $25, we were required to report it.

Exactly. But it's okay if it's a "dear friend." Apparently.

I got the impression he's not reporting the value of these gifts/excursions on taxes either but should be.

[sugar magnolia]

My dad spent most of his life in a State Trooper uniform, and would not accept so much as a free cup of coffee. Even now, emergency workers are usually given free drinks or a discount on their meal or some other small perk just so people will see the cops hanging around the business. My dad was crazy strict about the 'no favors' rule and had someone pay his full tab at lunch one day, so he left the cost of the meal plus the tip on the table.

Not only did I pick that up from him when I was in uniform, but the only jewelry I ever wore while in uniform was my wedding ring. Odd how some of the smallest things can make such a lasting impact.

[p0rtia]

Bottom line, the idea that this creep didn't know that he wasn't suppose to accept gifts above a certain (low) value is non-serious. Like saying he wasn't aware that he was supposed to stop at a red light. Gaslighting in the extreme.

And the attempt to say that multiple other people told him it was okay? JHK.

About what you'd expect from a lackey of the oligarchs.

[jemcanada2]

My dad spent most of his life in a State Trooper uniform, and would not accept so much as a free cup of coffee. Even now, emergency workers are usually given free drinks or a discount on their meal or some other small perk just so people will see the cops hanging around the business. My dad was crazy strict about the 'no favors' rule and had someone pay his full tab at lunch one day, so he left the cost of the meal plus the tip on the table.

Not only did I pick that up from him when I was in uniform, but the only jewelry I ever wore while in uniform was my wedding ring. Odd how some of the smallest things can make such a lasting impact.

My dad was with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and was the same way about excepting any gifts, including coffee and doughnuts.

ETA he didn’t even like me reading true crime articles in the newspaper because he didn’t think anyone should profit from a crime.

[Danraft]

Should he have reported it for tax purposes?

[pipistrelle]

Neatly distracts from the Thomas funding of and support for the insurrection though.

[humblescribe]

Should he have reported it for tax purposes?

That is tricky, Dan.

Gifts are not taxable income. Colvin can help me here but I understand that a gift is a transfer of property without full and adequate consideration. Donors must complete a gift tax return for gifts to others if the value of the gift exceeds $15,000 (it was $10,000 in the '90s). So, on the one hand, Thomas could argue that these were gifts. But then that sets up his friend to prove that he filed gift tax returns for all his generosity.

I suspect that he could also argue that these are merely tokens of friendship cultivated over the years with no additional costs incurred (other than de minimis ones like a cigar or a glass of brandy) and therefore are outside the bounds of reportable income. " My jet was flying to Monaco anyway, Clarence, would you like to catch a ride to Monaco and then spend a week on my yacht? But bring your own linens and buy your food during your stay."

If I were his accountant, I would likely tell him to hire a tax lawyer to determine the income taxation of these lavish trips and other emoluments. I would then abide by the lawyer's advice. What he tells his lawyer is confidential. What he tells me is not since I would sign the return. And I am pretty certain that I can escape preparer penalties by relying upon his legal counsel's advice. Let the legal profession duke it out on audit.

[p0rtia]

Neatly distracts from the Thomas funding of and support for the insurrection though.

I think it strengthens it. The man is wholly corrupt.

[jcolvin2]

Should he have reported it for tax purposes?

That is tricky, Dan.

Gifts are not taxable income. Colvin can help me here but I understand that a gift is a transfer of property without full and adequate consideration. Donors must complete a gift tax return for gifts to others if the value of the gift exceeds $15,000 (it was $10,000 in the '90s). So, on the one hand, Thomas could argue that these were gifts. But then that sets up his friend to prove that he filed gift tax returns for all his generosity.

I suspect that he could also argue that these are merely tokens of friendship cultivated over the years with no additional costs incurred (other than de minimis ones like a cigar or a glass of brandy) and therefore are outside the bounds of reportable income. " My jet was flying to Monaco anyway, Clarence, would you like to catch a ride to Monaco and then spend a week on my yacht? But bring your own linens and buy your food during your stay."

If I were his accountant, I would likely tell him to hire a tax lawyer to determine the income taxation of these lavish trips and other emoluments. I would then abide by the lawyer's advice. What he tells his lawyer is confidential. What he tells me is not since I would sign the return. And I am pretty certain that I can escape preparer penalties by relying upon his legal counsel's advice. Let the legal profession duke it out on audit.

It is correct to say that gifts are not taxable income. However, to be a gift for tax purposes, according to the Supreme Court in Duberstein v Comm'r, 363 U.S. 278 (1960), the transfer had to have been given out of "detached and disinterested generosity," that is to say "out of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses."

In Duberstein, the purchaser of a company spoke to seller after the sale, and the latter provided helpful information about the customer base. As a token of appreciation, the company bought a Cadillac for Duberstein, despite the taxpayer's protestations that he had not provided the information with the goal of profit and did not want the car. Duberstein ultimately (reluctantly I'm sure) accepted the auto. The IRS said it was income and the Tax Court agreed. On appeal, the Circuit reversed, reasoning that it was a gift. The Supreme Court overruled the Circuit and said that the Tax Court's holding was not clearly erroneous.

While some may take issue with whether what Harlan Crow provided to Thomas was motivated by "detached and disinterested generosity" (arguing that their friendship appears to have come into existence after Thomas' elevation to the Court), Thomas probably has the better part of the argument as there was no obvious business/economic connection with the payments as there was in Duberstein. That is to say, Crow almost certainly did not attempt to deduct the cost of the travel as a business expense in connection with any profit seeking activity.

As for whether Mr. Crow should have included the value of the vacation travel benefits provided to Thomas on federal gift tax returns, the gift and estate tax regime taxes transfers of property interest from donors to recipients. Allowing Thomas to fly on a private jet or stay in a private club do not seem like transfers of "property interests" that are ordinarily subject to the tax.

[Dave from down under]

It is always nice to have a friend in a position of power
As it is nice to have a generous wealthy friend.

Mutual friendship based on common goals

Move along..
Nothing to see here…

[Frater I*I]

Democracy...

The best government money can buy...