SCOTUS Watch

[LordMortis]

But I do think it shows he is comfortable with the idea of accepting inappropriate *things*

This. And if he is comfortable with that, the door is open. It's the exact opposite of what you expect from a SC jurist. You are supposed to be synonymous with integrity. And if you aren't, then it's all open to your abuse. Thomas is by far the worst SC Justice of my lifetime. And he will go down with Mitch McConnell as being among the worst Americans. Of course, we're not done yet. There's still time to be eclipsed. Both the Federalists and Trump have their finger so far in the cookie jar, their arms stuck like they grasping for Pringles.

[Zarathud]

The issue is they’re treating these interactions as ordinary. The SCOTUS should hold itself to the standards imposed on other government bureaucrats, at least. Instead, the cozy casual relationship of the Federalist Society has infected the court. That preference is a problem and implies parties aren’t equal anymore.

[Pyperkub]

The other factor is that it was only discovered because the Venmo account was accidentally left as Public. How many others did it with Private Venmo accts...

[ImLawBoy]

So I want to be clear about what we're discussing. There are two issues under discussion at this time (in my mind anyway - maybe I'm the only one). I have no concerns with one topic, but I do have some concerns with the other.

The issue I don't have any concerns with is the one Holman raised:

Maybe more significant than the costs involved is the question of why lawyers/firms with business before the Court are socializing with members of the Court in the first place?

I'm reading that as "Should Justices be barred from socializing with lawyers/firms who may have cases coming in front of the court." I don't think they should be. I don't think it's reasonable or practical to prohibit such socialization. That's in broad terms, of course. If socialization is spending every other weekend at one of their cottages, that's a different scenario than being invited to a holiday party. In the former case, I think the friendly Justice should recuse himself or herself from cases argued by that lawyer. The latter may get into a tricky area depending on the holiday party, but more on that later.

The second question is about the Venmo payments to Thomas's aide. I'm not defending that, although I'm not as worried about it as I am about going on junkets with billionaires with cases in front of the Court. (I reserve the right to change my mind on that pending more damning information on the Venmo transfers.) I don't think Thomas would change his vote on a matter for a $20 party reimbursement - he's much more ambitious than that. It's still inappropriate, but as I think I said earlier, it's more "slap on the wrist" inappropriate than "impeachment" inappropriate. (What's a slap on the wrist to a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS? Dunno.)

Ask smoove how he feels about department heads hanging out with procurement officers in their spare time. Like, for example, at a private christmas party. Or perhaps pr0ner reviewing a patent application of a personal friend of his, without disclosing that relationship to his boss (who would likely reassign it to another patent...guy (sorry, I don't recall what they're called ).

Patent examiner. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what "department heads hanging out with procurement officers" means and I'll get to holiday parties later, so I'll leave that one alone for now. The second example is a clear ethical violation that I would have a problem with and does not fall under the umbrella of generic socializing.

There are rules in government that don't apply in private industry, and there's a reason for that. Public trust is not to be messed with. I feel like SCOTUS needs to be held to a higher ideal, not lesser, because of who they are.

I'm very familiar with this. I've done a tour of duty in our federal government contracting group. There are all sorts of rules that apply, such as no freebies to government employees who might have any say in a procurement decision. That doesn't mean fraternization outside of work is prohibited. Depending on the what's going on at the holiday party, it's possible that a government employee attending a private holiday party is problematic. I wouldn't say there's a blanket prohibition on that, but I never had to look too closely into that example. The stuff I was looking at was when we would hold an event with government entities, what could we give them? Well, if we provided lunch, we had to charge them Fair Market Value for the lunch, for example. We wouldn't have to do that with private business customers.

In fact, that's the one thing I keep thinking about with the Venmo situation. Do the law firms have better ethics policies than the SCOTUS? (Of course they do - they actually have ethics policies.) It's possible that these lawyers were following their firms' policies regarding reimbursement for the receipt of something of value. "Let's see. I ate about $25 worth of Swedish meatballs and crab Rangoon, drank about $50 worth of beer, and do I really have to display this tacky "Christmas with the Thomases 2019" ornament they gave everyone at the party that I'm valuing at $25? In any event, I'll Venmo the aide $100 to cover it."

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me because it should be the other way around - the ones theoretically seeking influence are the lawyers and not the Justice. Still, it's a vaguely plausible scenario for why this wouldn't be too bad.

Or it could turn out that the aide told these lawyers he'd help them with Thomas if they sent him some money. "Just put that it's for a Christmas party in the note - no one will ever be the wiser!"

So I assume my positions are now clear as mud.

[Smoove_B]

I know we're at dead-horse territory over this, but I did want to share this timely article from my own state about how a judge's behavior has been officially questioned.

The fraternization, the complaint says, casts reasonable doubt on Korngut’s ability to remain impartial.

I'm not going to comment either way on what is being alleged here, but I will state that what has been shared about Justice Thomas is (imho) much worse (in total).

[ImLawBoy]

I'd say that article shows a mix of acceptable and unacceptable behavior by the judge. Acting all chummy with the cops in front of defendants is problematic. I'm not sure there's a huge problem with going to a National Night Out event, on the other hand (although the devil is in the details, of course).

[Scraper]

I know we're at dead-horse territory over this, but I did want to share this timely article from my own state about how a judge's behavior has been officially questioned.

The fraternization, the complaint says, casts reasonable doubt on Korngut’s ability to remain impartial.

I'm not going to comment either way on what is being alleged here, but I will state that what has been shared about Justice Thomas is (imho) much worse (in total).

The standards of ethics for regular state court Judges is MUCH MUCH higher than both Federal Supreme Court Judges and State Supreme Court Judges. The biggest reason being that the Supreme Courts themselves are the ones who police the Judges. There is no one to police the Supreme Court other than the Supreme Court. You can argue that they could be impeached. But that is so rare that it takes something truly crazy for it to happen.

[Holman]

So I want to be clear about what we're discussing. There are two issues under discussion at this time (in my mind anyway - maybe I'm the only one). I have no concerns with one topic, but I do have some concerns with the other.

The issue I don't have any concerns with is the one Holman raised:

Maybe more significant than the costs involved is the question of why lawyers/firms with business before the Court are socializing with members of the Court in the first place?

I'm reading that as "Should Justices be barred from socializing with lawyers/firms who may have cases coming in front of the court." I don't think they should be. I don't think it's reasonable or practical to prohibit such socialization. That's in broad terms, of course. If socialization is spending every other weekend at one of their cottages, that's a different scenario than being invited to a holiday party. In the former case, I think the friendly Justice should recuse himself or herself from cases argued by that lawyer. The latter may get into a tricky area depending on the holiday party, but more on that later.

I just want to say that ImLawBoy has persuaded me here, as long as we're talking about moderate rather than lavish entertaining.

[Gulps $4,000 Cabernet from "anonymous donor"]

[waitingtoconnect]

In fact, that's the one thing I keep thinking about with the Venmo situation. Do the law firms have better ethics policies than the SCOTUS? (Of course they do - they actually have ethics policies.) It's possible that these lawyers were following their firms' policies regarding reimbursement for the receipt of something of value. "Let's see. I ate about $25 worth of Swedish meatballs and crab Rangoon, drank about $50 worth of beer, and do I really have to display this tacky "Christmas with the Thomases 2019" ornament they gave everyone at the party that I'm valuing at $25? In any event, I'll Venmo the aide $100 to cover it."

Its funny I've worked with state and federal government clients who couldn't accept so much as a coffee or a project go live completion cupcake yet this Supreme Court...

The other issue is the sort of candidates the position attracts if you can get away with this stuff. You won't get people who want to uphold the law.

[Smoove_B]

Does the Supreme Court realize how bad it smells?

I joined the federal bench in 1984, some years before any of the justices currently on the Supreme Court. Throughout my career, I have been bound and guided by a written code of conduct, backed by a committee of colleagues I can call on for advice. In fact, I checked with a member of that committee before writing this essay.

...

The Supreme Court has avoided imposing a formal ethical apparatus on itself like the one that applies to all other federal judges. I understand the general concern, in part. A complaint mechanism could become a political tool to paralyze the court or a playground for gadflies. However, a skillfully drafted code could overcome this problem. Even a nonenforceable code that the justices formally pledged to respect would be an improvement on the current void.

Reasonable people may disagree on this. The more important, uncontroversial point is that if there will not be formal ethical constraints on our Supreme Court — or even if there will be — its justices must have functioning noses. They must keep themselves far from any conduct with a dubious aroma, even if it may not breach a formal rule.

...

Although the exact numbers fluctuate because of vacancies, the core of our federal judiciary comprises roughly 540 magistrate judges, 670 district judges, 180 appeals court judges and nine Supreme Court justices — fewer than 1,500 men and women in a country of more than 330 million people and 3.8 million square miles. Much depends on this small cohort’s acute sense of smell, its instinctive, uncompromising integrity and its appearance of integrity. If reports are true, some of our justices are, sadly, letting us down.

To me, this feels personal. For the country, it feels ominous. What in the world has happened to the Supreme Court’s nose?

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

Charlie Sykes opens his mouth and proves himself a fool. He essentially blames "progressives", "liberals" and "leftists" for the lack of trust in the court. Oy vey. His comments section is surprisingly critical but also without vitriol. A lot of people see what I see - a majority of AMERICANS don't trust this court. And that's the court's own fault.

We also know this: Trump will never admit that he has lost the election, no matter the outcome. It’s worth remembering the role of the federal courts in 2020. Trump lost more than 60 legal challenges to the vote, and the Supreme Court drove a dagger through the heart of the coup by refusing to take up TrumpWolrd’s bizarre lawsuits. (More recently, the Court shot down the MAGA “independent legislature” theory that could have resulted in overturning popular votes.)

If Trump somehow returns to the Oval Office, he has promised to turn the presidency into a weapon of retribution. As the NYT reported this week, he has a very clear agenda for his second term: “planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.”

It is unforgivably naive to expect a GOP Congress to act as a check on Trump 2.0. And there is scant evidence that Republicans would break with him if he tried to steal another election.

The only thing that may stop him is the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been going through some things recently.

Like it or not, in our constitutional system, the Court may be the last bulwark of liberal constitutional democracy.

**

Which brings us to an uncomfortable truth.

After Watergate, the Court enjoyed a rise in public esteem, but the current court is suffering from a deficit of trust, including widespread attacks on its “legitimacy,” from progressives.

Critics need to be careful what they wish for.

[El Guapo]

FWIW I didn't understand his article to be blaming leftists for people not trusting the court, but more warning them to be careful about responses to the court that further encourage people to disregard the legitimacy or legal authority of the court. Because despite the significant issues with the current Court, a majority has not been willing to buy into overtly authoritarian steps by Trump to date, and we may need to rely on respect for the Supreme Court's legal authority in 2024 - 2025.

There's a lot I disagree with in his argument, particularly his equating of court packing with efforts to encourage people to disregard or ignore SCOTUS opinions. But as a reminder to tread carefully, it didn't seem crazy to me.

[malchior]

I agree he was making that point but he sprinkled it through and through with statements and quotes that blamed it squarely on progressives. I don't know how to read statements like this differently.

Which brings us to an uncomfortable truth.

After Watergate, the Court enjoyed a rise in public esteem, but the current court is suffering from a deficit of trust, including widespread attacks on its “legitimacy,” from progressives.

Which again isn't the entire picture A wide range of Americans distrust the court.

Or quoting authors (Beauchamp) like the below, who also in their writings blame liberal/leftist voices for these "attacks" on the court. Additionally Sykes litters quotes from liberals but doesn't quote conservatives who make similar arguments. Say Tim Miller. I'm not saying we shouldn't be worried about delegitizmation but he is pointing the flashlight at the wrong places.

“One reaction to a loss in Court legitimacy, increasingly popular among liberals and leftists, is to basically say good riddance,” Zack Beauchamp wrote last year.

[malchior]

I'm sure there will be consequences. Also quite fitting that this "champion" of free speech is being sued for getting a protester arrested. The charges were ultimately dropped...mostly because it probably was an illegal arrest. Boss hog pointing at someone and saying I feel harassed when the charges require the police to directly witness the conduct (per the statute) is...sketchy. The police are named in the suit as well.

[malchior]

It's the WSJ so it's...insane...but the stuff he says out loud? This man should not have power.

[Kurth]

Just going to leave this David French NYT piece here for malchior and hope his head doesn't explode when he reads it: I Don't See a 'Rogue' Supreme Court.

If you ask folks on the left to describe the contemporary Supreme Court, you may hear one or more common words used to describe it: “rogue” or “extremist” or “illegitimate” or “broken.” But when I look at the court, I see something quite different: the last federal bastion of the pre-Trump right.

The court is definitely not liberal. But it’s equally clear that it is not MAGA. Even as it has inevitably rendered decisions that outrage progressives, it has also blocked much of the Trumpian populist project, and it has done important work to preserve the fundamental institutions of American democracy . . .

In the recent Apple TV+ series “Ted Lasso,” the title character explains that goldfish have only a “10-second memory.” I fear that much of the analysis of the Supreme Court is goldfish analysis, dominated not by a holistic understanding of all the court’s jurisprudence, but rather by the joy or anger generated by its most recent important case. When Senator Josh Hawley roundly condemned the conservative legal movement from the right as a failure after Bostock, he was being a goldfish. Likewise, when progressive critics call the court “rogue” or “illegitimate” after the most recent round of disagreeable outcomes — even just days after the same court handed down Moore or Allen — they too are being goldfish.

That’s not to say that taking a longer view will yield universal agreement or respect. Well before the emergence of Trump and the MAGA movement, the right and left had their share of sharp disagreements. But the conservative court’s legal philosophies stand squarely within America’s legal tradition, especially when matched with appropriate judicial restraint. Collectively, these values provide a basis for both sides to make their case, and they represent the core of a judicial philosophy that has proved it can transcend partisanship. “Conservative” is not a synonym for “Trumpist,” and with each new term, the court demonstrates that pre-Trump ideas and pre-Trump values have life left in them yet.

[malchior]

David French doesn't see a rogue court? It is no surprise but then again I have absolutely no respect for David French's opinions.

I mean...this quote below is just dumbfoundingly stupid. I mean the breathtaking lack of context here! Roe sent some shock waves in its time but largely nothing happened. It's impact in the 2020s? It's been awful. Ask the majority of women which ruling was more "revolutionary". He is an absolute asshole.

If anything, Dobbs was a less revolutionary ruling than Roe.

[Kurth]

David French doesn't see a rogue court? It is no surprise but then again I have absolutely no respect for David French's opinions.

I mean...this quote below is just dumbfoundingly stupid. I mean the breathtaking lack of context here! Roe sent some shock waves in its time but largely nothing happened. It's impact in the 2020s? It's been awful. Ask the majority of women which ruling was more "revolutionary". He is an absolute asshole.

If anything, Dobbs was a less revolutionary ruling than Roe.

I thought “fucking institutionalist” might be a phrase you would use here, and this is once instance I would be right there with you.

That said, I do think his point about goldfish rings true. People aren’t great at the long term view.

[malchior]

That said, I do think his point about goldfish rings true. People aren’t great at the long term view.

Sure but it's hardly an original thought. People have been saying this since social media started spinning people up. It's a weird point because he talks about that while ignoring people making valid long-term arguments like Steve Vladeck who've documented how historically abnormal this court has been acting.

I wasn't going to engage much on French but I think there is a larger point here to be made. One of the biggest issues is French is making the same mistake that many of his vapid peers are making. He is focusing on the merits decisions - when much of the truly crazy/radical stuff is happening *outside* of the merit decisions. Especially the unexplained decisions on the shadow docket with major impacts, and most especially the precedents they are overturning without explanation being amongst the worst. I just don't know how anyone could have read "The Shadow Docket" and not see a rogue court outlined there. Maybe he didn't read it but that's a major mistake if he is making this sort of broad point. It is probably the most well-reasoned and articulated criticism of the court in decades.

Then there are the procedural delays they granted to Trump and the Trump administration, and how they've hastened review of Biden administration action. It's not even "institutionalist" thinking. He is just cherry picking straw men and knocking them down. Again he is an absolute asshole and frankly I think it might even be fair to question his integrity to some extent. I mean he goes out of his way to exclude the ethics issues as if they aren't a serious part why the court appears to be 'rogue' to its many critics. The whole thing is just so tone deaf.

[Kurth]

That said, I do think his point about goldfish rings true. People aren’t great at the long term view.

Sure but it's hardly an original thought. People have been saying this since social media started spinning people up. It's a weird point because he talks about that while ignoring people making valid long-term arguments like Steve Vladeck who've documented how historically abnormal this court has been acting.

I wasn't going to engage much on French but I think there is a larger point here to be made. One of the biggest issues is French is making the same mistake that many of his vapid peers are making. He is focusing on the merits decisions - when much of the truly crazy/radical stuff is happening *outside* of the merit decisions. Especially the unexplained decisions on the shadow docket with major impacts, and most especially the precedents they are overturning without explanation being amongst the worst. I just don't know how anyone could have read "The Shadow Docket" and not see a rogue court outlined there. Maybe he didn't read it but that's a major mistake if he is making this sort of broad point. It is probably the most well-reasoned and articulated criticism of the court in decades.

Then there are the procedural delays they granted to Trump and the Trump administration, and how they've hastened review of Biden administration action. It's not even "institutionalist" thinking. He is just cherry picking straw men and knocking them down. Again he is an absolute asshole and frankly I think it might even be fair to question his integrity to some extent. I mean he goes out of his way to exclude the ethics issues as if they aren't a serious part why the court appears to be 'rogue' to its many critics. The whole thing is just so tone deaf.

Just to be clear, I definitely wasn’t posting this because I thought it was awesome. More, I thought it was kindling for the “institutionalists suck” bonfire. As an institutionalist myself, I’m not always one to see the problems with some of those arguments, but French’s piece made them too apparent to miss. I may still be an institutionalist, but I’m not a French institutionalist, whatever the fuck that is.

[malchior]

Totally get it. I was more cranking about David French - who has been legitimately another terrible choice by the NY Times. Funny enough I'm something of an institutionalist as well - meaning I think we need strong institutions. I just think we don't have strong institutions anymore. They are mostly broken so they need to be reformed into strong institutions in some form which respects people's rights but also provides us protection from our true enemy - unrestrained capitalism. Almost every part of our federal and many state governments are just rotted out by oligarchic influence and I think it will inevitably change. I'm just hoping it doesn't go the way it looks it will which is more towards Russia than towards a "Star Trek" future.

[Carpet_pissr]

our true enemy - unrestrained capitalism.

This is our concern, Dude.

I would add some form of unfettered "Freedom" as well. It seems more and more like the "ultimate freedom" a-holes just want anarchy.

[malchior]

[Pyperkub]

I fully expect this Supreme Court to step in and say that Jim Crow legal disenfranchisement is fine...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... -rcna98290

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[malchior]

Even more Thomas corruption

They characterize his activities as potentially "unprecedented". Considering that we now have glimpses into other judges as well we deserve a real investigation. We now know that Leonard Leo and the Federalist society pair up conservative SCOTUS members with wealthy patrons we have to wonder if this problem is more widespread.

During his three decades on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has enjoyed steady access to a lifestyle most Americans can only imagine. A cadre of industry titans and ultrawealthy executives have treated him to far-flung vacations aboard their yachts, ushered him into the premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to fetch him — including, on more than one occasion, an entire 737. It’s a stream of luxury that is both more extensive and from a wider circle than has been previously understood.

Like clockwork, Thomas’ leisure activities have been underwritten by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence. Their gifts include:

At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.

This accounting of Thomas’ travel, revealed for the first time here from an array of previously unavailable information, is the fullest to date of the generosity that has regularly afforded Thomas a lifestyle far beyond what his income could provide. And it is almost certainly an undercount.

While some of the hospitality, such as stays in personal homes, may not have required disclosure, Thomas appears to have violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises and expensive sports tickets, according to ethics experts.

Perhaps even more significant, the pattern exposes consistent violations of judicial norms, experts, including seven current and former federal judges appointed by both parties, told ProPublica. “In my career I don’t remember ever seeing this degree of largesse given to anybody,” said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who served for years on the judicial committee that reviews judges’ financial disclosures. “I think it’s unprecedented.”

[El Guapo]

I'll be curious to see the media coverage of this. I think part of the ways that the GOP has largely broken public accountability is that by consistently refusing to punish misconduct on "their side", they also effectively drain a lot of these stories of media value. Once there have been like maybe three or four different stories about something (in this case, Justice Thomas having corrupt links to oligarchs) it becomes essentially something that's "known", and therefore further stories along these lines tend to get relegated to back pages, aren't added to chyrons, etc.

But if there's no prospect of impeachment hearings leading to a conviction (which there isn't), and if there's no prospect of Thomas resigning (which there isn't), then further stories, even if they're blockbusters (which it sounds like this is) become relegated to "old news". A SCOTUS ethics bill would help on this (and democrats should push this more) but even then that's never going to pass the House (and not sure if it passes the Senate) so...old news.

[malchior]

I agree. One read here is that the media is ultimately looking for clicks and apparently there aren't any here. The public maybe doesn't care. Who knows anymore. The media is so consolidated that who knows what people even see or pay attention to anymore. In a previous era this would have been a major, major scandal. Now it's just another day because this country has essentially experienced a moral and ethical collapse. Maybe it's existential. Maybe it not but that's ultimately a problem when you start to go down the road towards becoming Russia. You start to see why Russians accept it. It is because there is no other choice. Meanwhile at least we can "laugh" about it.

[Alefroth]

Am I missing the the connection between the tweet and the topic of the thread?

[Unagi]

Am I missing the the connection between the tweet and the topic of the thread?

I believe it was showing how there was no connection between their tweet and the news that had just happened. And that was how the media handle the news... they didn't.

[malchior]

I fixed it above - I suspect a Xitter malfunction because it earlier was showing the correct *relevant* article!

[Unagi]

I fixed it above - I suspect a Xitter malfunction because it earlier was showing the correct *relevant* article!

Oh. lol.

[Carpet_pissr]

Xitter

Ha! In Portuguese, that would be pronounced "shitter"

And yes, I *am* 12.

[malchior]

I get this impulse here but there seems to be little point. From what I understand it isn't explicitly criminal unless he was taking cash for a specific action. They seem to want to bring a civil suit but what's the theory on damages? In all this seems like a pretty clumsy way to complain.

[Smoove_B]

I guess because it's now an amended disclosure, it's fine:

The new financial disclosure reveals that Crow — who is described in the new filing as “a longtime friend of filer and his wife” —- paid for Thomas’ travel to speak at a conference in Dallas, which was hosted at a venue owned by Crow’s company in May 2022.

Thomas also reported that Crow paid for another return flight from a separate event in Dallas and a trip to the Adirondacks in New York, where Crow has a private resort that Thomas has reportedly visited every summer for several years.

Notes attached to the financial disclosure indicate that Thomas flew privately on the May 2022 trip due to increased security concerns after a draft Supreme Court opinion overturning landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade was leaked that month.

Crow reportedly treated Thomas and his wife, conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, to luxury travel for over two decades, most of which did not appear on Thomas’ financial disclosures, ProPublica first reported.

[Carpet_pissr]

Personally, I feel even THIS shouldn't be allowed: "his wife, conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas" given the power of the spouse.

Anathema here probably, the idea of restricting someone from making money in whatever way they deem fit, but in this particular case, maybe there should be a clause or something prohibiting family members from being political activists of any stripe. Hell we do this in a way with investing. How many times have you been asked if you are a member of a brokerage firm before you can sign up for certain accounts, or do certain things related with finance and investing?

We obviously rely on SC's thinking about norms and the "sanctity" of the position to keep people in line, so I guess we have to hard-code it in. Or SHOULD. We won't, we SHOULD. And a hell of a lot of other things apparently, based on the civic pot we find ourselves boiling in.

[GreenGoo]

I think Smoove will agree with me, this isn't acceptable. Public servants aren't allowed to enjoy free vacations and airplane rides just because they use the label "friend".

The entire thing is ridiculous.

[malchior]

You have to also keep in mind he hid these trips even though he participated in the narrowing of the definition of political corruption to the most narrow actions possible. This is "ok" because he and his ilk decided it was ok to accept these gifts. They decided for themselves that it only becomes "illegal" if they or other public officials take gifts or cash for specific outcomes. What's worse is that we now know that Conservative judges are paired with billionaires who shower them with gifts. Even the liberal judges sometimes stretch the limits here.

[Smoove_B]

Well it's not like these decisions have any consequences:

A month after the U.S. Supreme Court severely restricted the federal government’s power to oversee wetlands, the Republican-dominated North Carolina legislature handed state agencies an order: Don’t give the ecologically crucial waters any more protection than newly weakened federal rules provide.

...

The 5-4 ruling expanded the ability of farmers, homebuilders and other developers to dig up or fill wetlands, finding the federal government had long overreached in limiting such activities. It’s the latest decision by a conservative-dominated court to limit environment laws and agency powers. With little appetite in a divided Congress to pass environmental laws, the outcome is likely to endure.

...

“States will either enforce or adopt new protections. Others will roll back existing protections,” said Geoff Gisler, program director for the Southern Environmental Law Center. “The focus will shift from the federal to the state government.”

North Carolina offers an early example.

...

“We are going to see a lot of devastation,” said Gisler of the Southern Environmental Law Center. “People who bought new homes, moving to North Carolina to embrace the coastal lifestyle, at some point in the next few years are likely to see their homes flooded.”

There's a bit more and other states are mentioned, but yeah. Great stuff.

Our love is like water
Pinned down and abused

[Carpet_pissr]

Re: the Thomas situation, he's apparently claiming that his failure to disclose previously was just an oversight. I remember us discussing something similar before when Trump was trying to hire up his WH administration staff, and IIRC there were quite a few "oopsies" there as well, but I guess there's no penalty for not disclosing (in that case I think it was any financial ties with foreign entities) if you say you forgot, later?