onfocus

The two men’s silence serves to obscure whether Justice Thomas had an obligation to report the arrangement under a federal ethics law that requires justices to disclose certain gifts, liabilities and other financial dealings that could pose conflicts of interest.

Yes, "friend" did some "financing" though I can think of other more accurate words. Corrupt court.

…this completely foreseeable, undeniable risk — one that every single one of us contends with every time we gather with our old friends — is completely unremarked-upon.

The age of the federal political class is painful to think about, but so true. Another reason we need a wide variety of representation in Congress. Thanks for the added anxiety, Cory Doctorow.

The court, Kagan concluded, “exercises authority it does not have. It violates the Constitution.”

It’s a remarkable statement. To say that the Supreme Court can violate the Constitution is to reject the idea that the court is somehow outside the constitutional system. It is to remind the public that the court is as bound by the Constitution as the other branches, which is to say that it is subject to the same “checks and balances” as the legislature and the executive.

Another Supreme Court case based on no real injury with the sole purpose of overturning policy Republicans don’t like with zero accountability. Corrupt court continues and will for the foreseeable future.

The decision reverses decades of precedent upheld over the years by narrow court majorities that included Republican-appointed justices. It could end the ability of colleges and universities — public and private — to do what most say they still need to do: consider race as one of many factors in deciding which of the qualified applicants is to be admitted.

It shouldn't be surprising that a court with no ethical standards makes unethical rulings but it's still disgusting to see billionaires get what they paid for: hurting the vulnerable and shoring up the wealthy's already abundant advantages.

"There need not be a specific case involving the drilling rights associated with a specific plot of land for Alito to understand what outcomes in environmental cases would buttress his family's net wealth," he told the outlet. "Alito does not have to come across like a drunken Paul Thomas Anderson character gleefully confessing to drinking our collective milkshakes in order to be a real life, run-of-the-mill political villain."

These aren’t the greatest cloistered legal minds sorting out America’s thorniest questions for the greater good. They’re striving asshole politicians getting what they can for themselves.

Despite the district court raising doubts about it representing a genuine inquiry from two men getting married—and the court didn’t even raise the real doubt that the couple does not exist—it is now part of the case history, a bit of fan fiction joining the other phantom gays the case invokes.

Incredible that a Supreme Court case hinges on fabricated information. No one was ever injured so why does the highest court need to provide a remedy?

Update: Of course.

Justices are almost entirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself.

The corrupt court hits just keep on coming. This one has all the bells and whistles you've come to expect: billionaire, luxury vacation, business before the court, no recusal, and no ethics disclosure! See Also: Chamber of Secrets describing how the court has changed operations to be even less accountable for its decisions. It's not a good combined look if you're worried about court legitimacy.

There is no historical basis rooted in the founding era for it either: The Constitution by its own text explicitly rejects the existence of such a norm, as do several of the Federalist Papers, and the debate at the Constitutional Convention itself. The United States has a storied and continuous history prosecuting federal officials of both parties and across all branches starting in the founding era and which is unbroken through to 2022.

This article by Matt Tait thoroughly cuts through the BS about former Presidents being immune to prosecution for crimes. The media bosses want Trump back so badly that they’re spinning yarns about norms.

“The most reasonable interpretation of the statute is that this was a gift to Thomas and thus had to be reported. It’s common sense,” said Kathleen Clark, an ethics law expert at Washington University in St. Louis. “It’s all to the financial benefit of Clarence Thomas.”

Corrupt court. This level of corruption is unacceptable. They’re not royalty, this is a democracy. We need accountability.

New documents reveal Jane Roberts made $10.3 million from elite firms, raising questions about the Supreme Court justices' conflicts of interest.

Corrupt court. No wonder Chief Justice Roberts hasn’t done a damn thing to reign in ethics violations.

Crow has never personally come before the supreme court, and denies ever trying to influence Thomas on any legal or political issue. But he has served on the boards of at least three conservative groups that have lobbied the supreme court through amicus briefs.

Corrupt court. As more connections are revealed it becomes more ridiculous that there’s no accountability. Is it really a scandal if no one changes their behavior and there aren’t any consequences?

This story is a perfect example, in miniature, of how Thomas’ network of benefactors ensure the justice’s billionaire lifestyle stays off the books. Paoletta testifies before Congress that ethics reforms are evil; Crow funds the Republican lawmakers who ensure ethics reforms don’t pass; and nobody knows the extent of Thomas’ unceasing stream of gifts until ProPublica reporters wrangle the details from yacht crews and flight records.

Also a perfect example of elite impunity. Isn’t our country founded on doing away with elite impunity? This whole thing feels anti-American.