SCOTUS Watch

[Kurth]

Rich people just have different, elevated tastes. Who wouldn't want to ponder on the memorabilia of the near ruin of man after or with a glass of Balvenie 30 year in hand?

This seems off to me. It's not a "rich people" thing that Crow appears to fetishize Hitler and possibly other dictators and despots. I don't see the connection you seem to be making here.

[TheMix]

Rich people just have different, elevated tastes. Who wouldn't want to ponder on the memorabilia of the near ruin of man after or with a glass of Balvenie 30 year in hand?

This seems off to me. It's not a "rich people" thing that Crow appears to fetishize Hitler and possibly other dictators and despots. I don't see the connection you seem to be making here.

I read it as sarcasm. As that is often the "excuse" that is made.

[Kurth]

Rich people just have different, elevated tastes. Who wouldn't want to ponder on the memorabilia of the near ruin of man after or with a glass of Balvenie 30 year in hand?

This seems off to me. It's not a "rich people" thing that Crow appears to fetishize Hitler and possibly other dictators and despots. I don't see the connection you seem to be making here.

I read it as sarcasm. As that is often the "excuse" that is made.

Hmm. Still missing it. What's the "excuse"? That Crow is rich? I don't see how wealth can ever excuse a love of Hitler!

[TheMix]

Rich people just have different, elevated tastes. Who wouldn't want to ponder on the memorabilia of the near ruin of man after or with a glass of Balvenie 30 year in hand?

This seems off to me. It's not a "rich people" thing that Crow appears to fetishize Hitler and possibly other dictators and despots. I don't see the connection you seem to be making here.

I read it as sarcasm. As that is often the "excuse" that is made.

Hmm. Still missing it. What's the "excuse"? That Crow is rich? I don't see how wealth can ever excuse a love of Hitler!

Hence the sarcasm. Hopefully no rational person would accept wealth as an excuse. But are you honestly saying that you have never heard the trope used that mere mortals shouldn't judge the wealthy? Or that rich people are "eccentric" while poor people are "crazy"? Personally, I thought his post was pretty obvious. But if you don't see it, then I don't think that anything anyone says is going to help you. Apparently you simply don't have the same framing. /shrug

[Kurth]

Rich people just have different, elevated tastes. Who wouldn't want to ponder on the memorabilia of the near ruin of man after or with a glass of Balvenie 30 year in hand?

This seems off to me. It's not a "rich people" thing that Crow appears to fetishize Hitler and possibly other dictators and despots. I don't see the connection you seem to be making here.

I read it as sarcasm. As that is often the "excuse" that is made.

Hmm. Still missing it. What's the "excuse"? That Crow is rich? I don't see how wealth can ever excuse a love of Hitler!

Hence the sarcasm. Hopefully no rational person would accept wealth as an excuse. But are you honestly saying that you have never heard the trope used that mere mortals shouldn't judge the wealthy? Or that rich people are "eccentric" while poor people are "crazy"? Personally, I thought his post was pretty obvious. But if you don't see it, then I don't think that anything anyone says is going to help you. Apparently you simply don't have the same framing. /shrug

That’s not really one I’ve heard before, at least not in this context. Also, it’s beyond stupid. If anything, in a sane world, people with the benefit of wealth and privilege and education and worldly experience have even less of an excuse to be ignorant ass hats.

But thanks for clearing it up for me. I get it now.

[Holman]

The whole Nazi memorabilia thing muddies the waters to Thomas's benefit.

Media types can tout "reasonable disagreement" about whether collecting the stuff means endorsing it. And as long as we're talking about that, we're NOT talking about Thomas being lavishly feted by wealthy and influential right-wing operatives for more than 20 years.

[Smoove_B]

Ted Lieu slingin' it:

Crow sits on the board of AEI, which lobbies against tax hikes on billionaires and writes briefs to Justice Thomas. Crow lavished millions in gifts on Thomas. Is this corrupt? Probably.

Does it have the appearance of corruption? Absolutely.

Justice Thomas needs to resign.

[waitingtoconnect]

Rich people just have different, elevated tastes. Who wouldn't want to ponder on the memorabilia of the near ruin of man after or with a glass of Balvenie 30 year in hand?

This seems off to me. It's not a "rich people" thing that Crow appears to fetishize Hitler and possibly other dictators and despots. I don't see the connection you seem to be making here.

I read it as sarcasm. As that is often the "excuse" that is made.

Hmm. Still missing it. What's the "excuse"? That Crow is rich? I don't see how wealth can ever excuse a love of Hitler!

It’s a sideshow to the real issue. He also has Lenin and communist memorabilia.

He is using his wealth to get what he wants.

If you watch/read the Altered Carbon books Crow is acting a lot like the rich there. Using their money to get what they want while living a lavish lifestyle even the 1% can only dream of.

The billionaire class have done what is called state capture and now own both major parties and the judiciary.

The tech and health billionaires own the democrats and the real estate moguls and the resource billionaires own the republicans. They are fighting a quiet civil war over who gets to run the company… I mean country.

The illusion of choice they give is only on emotional subjects that in the end don’t matter as much as the gross poverty and inequality the tax policies their congress and their senate has passed often in bipartisan agreement.

[malchior]

Rich people just have different, elevated tastes. Who wouldn't want to ponder on the memorabilia of the near ruin of man after or with a glass of Balvenie 30 year in hand?

This seems off to me. It's not a "rich people" thing that Crow appears to fetishize Hitler and possibly other dictators and despots. I don't see the connection you seem to be making here.

I read it as sarcasm. As that is often the "excuse" that is made.

Hmm. Still missing it. What's the "excuse"? That Crow is rich? I don't see how wealth can ever excuse a love of Hitler!

It was an (attempted) joke about how other wealthy people would defend him. The below is not exactly the same pitch but still here's some very serious people swinging in to help him out...



What's fun is that then people point out...more financial ties...everything is very gross. What he should have said is...I know him because he used to pay me.

[Kraken]

Hah. If anybody is above the law, it's SCOTUS justices.

[Holman]

I own a small amount of Nazi memorabilia: a couple of Nazi armbands, an officer's shoulder board, some sort of uniform chest badge, a uniform cuff band, and a few other small bits. These were souvenirs brought home by my grandfather after his US Army service from 1943 to 1946. There are visible swastikas involved in almost each piece.

All this stuff is in a box in the back of my closet.

If I owned Hitler shit and put it on prominent display in my house, everyone I know would be right to think that it was fucked up.

[Daehawk]

[waitingtoconnect]

The super rich are very nice to the people they favour. But they are also capricious and vicious. And they fight amongst each other not with guns but in the media and in the c companies they own and the politicians they own.

The power literally goes to their heads. And they are highly protective of the system they have created. So they are patriotic but only to themselves and their own class.

The Nazi memorabilia is concerning but that doesn’t change the fact that this man takes a Supreme Court justice on trips with a worth of millions of dollars. There is the real issue.

We need to resist the reality tv showification of our politics that the maga republicans have been successful in implementing. This isn’t a vote off the island this is a very real and disturbing example of endemic corruption that in the recent past would have been utterly condemned by both parties.

[El Guapo]

The whole Nazi memorabilia thing muddies the waters to Thomas's benefit.

Media types can tout "reasonable disagreement" about whether collecting the stuff means endorsing it. And as long as we're talking about that, we're NOT talking about Thomas being lavishly feted by wealthy and influential right-wing operatives for more than 20 years.

I agree with this. The issue here is not with Crow's beliefs, it's with the corruption inherent in their relationship.

[LawBeefaroni]

The whole Nazi memorabilia thing muddies the waters to Thomas's benefit.

Media types can tout "reasonable disagreement" about whether collecting the stuff means endorsing it. And as long as we're talking about that, we're NOT talking about Thomas being lavishly feted by wealthy and influential right-wing operatives for more than 20 years.

I agree with this. The issue here is not with Crow's beliefs, it's with the corruption inherent in their relationship.

His (alleged) beliefs may shine a pretty bright light on the nature of the relationship, however. The whole BFF thing looks pretty one-sided if Crow is a big fan of racist autocracies.

[Holman]

The whole Nazi memorabilia thing muddies the waters to Thomas's benefit.

Media types can tout "reasonable disagreement" about whether collecting the stuff means endorsing it. And as long as we're talking about that, we're NOT talking about Thomas being lavishly feted by wealthy and influential right-wing operatives for more than 20 years.

I agree with this. The issue here is not with Crow's beliefs, it's with the corruption inherent in their relationship.

His (alleged) beliefs may shine a pretty bright light on the nature of the relationship, however. The whole BFF thing looks pretty one-sided if Crow is a big fan of racist autocracies.

Oh, I'm sure he considers Thomas to be One Of The Good Ones.

[Pyperkub]

The super rich are very nice to the people they favour. But they are also capricious and vicious. And they fight amongst each other not with guns but in the media and in the c companies they own and the politicians they own.

The power literally goes to their heads. And they are highly protective of the system they have created. So they are patriotic but only to themselves and their own class.

The Nazi memorabilia is concerning but that doesn’t change the fact that this man takes a Supreme Court justice on trips with a worth of millions of dollars. There is the real issue.

We need to resist the reality tv showification of our politics that the maga republicans have been successful in implementing. This isn’t a vote off the island this is a very real and disturbing example of endemic corruption that in the recent past would have been utterly condemned by both parties.

He probably keeps this in a more secure area

What’s in there? Oh, that’s my shrine to the Ancient One. Yes, good eye, that is the Necronomicon. Bound in flesh and everything. What, you think it’s suspicious that I have a book of spells used to summon the Old Gods placed on a dais in a room called the Ritual Shrine? Oh, come on. Your generation has no love of history. Do you know what I had to do to get this book? The people I had to pay? The things these hands have seen? No easy feat.

I think you’re misunderstanding my reasons for having the Necronomicon. You see, I’m a lover of history, even the dark parts. It’s important to commemorate the great evils that have come before so we don’t repeat our past mistakes.

Sure, I could donate it to a museum, but they wouldn’t let me perform the dark rites.

[LawBeefaroni]

The whole Nazi memorabilia thing muddies the waters to Thomas's benefit.

Media types can tout "reasonable disagreement" about whether collecting the stuff means endorsing it. And as long as we're talking about that, we're NOT talking about Thomas being lavishly feted by wealthy and influential right-wing operatives for more than 20 years.

I agree with this. The issue here is not with Crow's beliefs, it's with the corruption inherent in their relationship.

His (alleged) beliefs may shine a pretty bright light on the nature of the relationship, however. The whole BFF thing looks pretty one-sided if Crow is a big fan of racist autocracies.

Oh, I'm sure he considers Thomas to be One Of The Good Ones.

Useful, not good.

[GreenGoo]

I own a small amount of Nazi memorabilia: a couple of Nazi armbands, an officer's shoulder board, some sort of uniform chest badge, a uniform cuff band, and a few other small bits. These were souvenirs brought home by my grandfather after his US Army service from 1943 to 1946. There are visible swastikas involved in almost each piece.

All this stuff is in a box in the back of my closet.

If I owned Hitler shit and put it on prominent display in my house, everyone I know would be right to think that it was fucked up.

Maybe consider donating to a respectable organization/museum. I'd probably roll over in my grave if someone found a box of Nazi stuff in my attic after I died. My children would certainly be horrified, and if they already knew about it, they'd be tasked with defending me. Not something I want them to inherit.

[LawBeefaroni]

I own a small amount of Nazi memorabilia: a couple of Nazi armbands, an officer's shoulder board, some sort of uniform chest badge, a uniform cuff band, and a few other small bits. These were souvenirs brought home by my grandfather after his US Army service from 1943 to 1946. There are visible swastikas involved in almost each piece.

All this stuff is in a box in the back of my closet.

If I owned Hitler shit and put it on prominent display in my house, everyone I know would be right to think that it was fucked up.

Maybe consider donating to a respectable organization/museum. I'd probably roll over in my grave if someone found a box of Nazi stuff in my attic after I died. My children would certainly be horrified, and if they already knew about it, they'd be tasked with defending me. Not something I want them to inherit.

Stick a note in there explaining what it is and why you have it. And sit down with the kids explaining it before you die. Oral family history is important.

It's different than just buying the stuff up on the open market and displaying them like trophies.


Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't:

[GreenGoo]

It's different than just buying the stuff up on the open market and displaying them like trophies.

Of course it's different. And of course a serious conversation should be had with his kids, if any. No one is claiming ill intent, but it's not hard to imagine real fallout to your kids' lives depending on a number of factors. Even just being known as "that guy with the nazi stuff" can have negative ramifications.

In any case, it's just an unsolicited opinion. He's free to do whatever he wants without judgement from me.

[El Guapo]

It's different than just buying the stuff up on the open market and displaying them like trophies.

Of course it's different. And of course a serious conversation should be had with his kids, if any. No one is claiming ill intent, but it's not hard to imagine real fallout to your kids' lives depending on a number of factors. Even just being known as "that guy with the nazi stuff" can have negative ramifications.

In any case, it's just an unsolicited opinion. He's free to do whatever he wants without judgement from me.

This is part of why I think Democrats should minimize the Nazi memorabilia angle. Not that it's not potentially concerning, nor that everyone should stop looking at it entirely, but the clear cut problem that's relatively simple to understand is that a Supreme Court justice has accepted millions in gifts from someone with regular business before the court, and that there is at least a decent argument (not 100% clear on this) that Thomas was legally required to disclose them. Getting into whether that person is otherwise a good person or has troubling beliefs is mostly irrelevant to that problem, and the GOP would rather litigate that question than the corruption angle.

[malchior]

It's different than just buying the stuff up on the open market and displaying them like trophies.

Of course it's different. And of course a serious conversation should be had with his kids, if any. No one is claiming ill intent, but it's not hard to imagine real fallout to your kids' lives depending on a number of factors. Even just being known as "that guy with the nazi stuff" can have negative ramifications.

In any case, it's just an unsolicited opinion. He's free to do whatever he wants without judgement from me.

This is part of why I think Democrats should minimize the Nazi memorabilia angle. Not that it's not potentially concerning, nor that everyone should stop looking at it entirely, but the clear cut problem that's relatively simple to understand is that a Supreme Court justice has accepted millions in gifts from someone with regular business before the court, and that there is at least a decent argument (not 100% clear on this) that Thomas was legally required to disclose them. Getting into whether that person is otherwise a good person or has troubling beliefs is mostly irrelevant to that problem, and the GOP would rather litigate that question than the corruption angle.

I disagree with this to some extent. I agree it is two separate problems. There is the corruption issue which is possibly *more significant* but I'm not certain. That other problem gets to perceptions about Thomas's personal beliefs which are quite relevant considering how this court now operates.

They have both spoken to a close personal friendship. That gives the appearances of alignment on values at some level. And this is a guy who collects a lot of historical material (nazi memorabilia being but one) but has other weird characteristics such as his exhibit of fallen dictators. In my opinion considering the power Thomas wields, we have every right to know if he has disqualifying personal beliefs. Depending on the depth of those beliefs it could actually be a bigger problem.

[ImLawBoy]

That other problem gets to perceptions about Thomas's personal beliefs. They have both spoken to a close personal friendship. That gives the appearances of alignment on values at some level. And this is a guy who collects a lot of historical material (nazi memorabilia being but one) but has other weird characteristics such as his exhibit of fallen dictators. In my opinion considering the power he wields, we have every right to know if Thomas has disqualifying personal beliefs. Depending on the depth of those beliefs it could actually be a bigger problem.

This is stretching it a bit, I think. We used to hear all the time about the close personal friendship between Justices Ginsberg and Scalia, but I don't think anyone believes that they held similar fundamental beliefs.

[Unagi]

And would Thomas be compelled to reveal these disqualifying personal beliefs freely or would we need to trick him into somehow admitting it publicly in no uncertain terms?

[malchior]

That other problem gets to perceptions about Thomas's personal beliefs. They have both spoken to a close personal friendship. That gives the appearances of alignment on values at some level. And this is a guy who collects a lot of historical material (nazi memorabilia being but one) but has other weird characteristics such as his exhibit of fallen dictators. In my opinion considering the power he wields, we have every right to know if Thomas has disqualifying personal beliefs. Depending on the depth of those beliefs it could actually be a bigger problem.

This is stretching it a bit, I think. We used to hear all the time about the close personal friendship between Justices Ginsberg and Scalia, but I don't think anyone believes that they held similar fundamental beliefs.

I mean differing on constitutional interpretation - even dramatically - is a big difference IMO from considering the public might not appreciate him overlooking some potentially extreme views.

[ImLawBoy]

I think it's pretty relatable to have close friendships with people who disagree with you dramatically on some issues, especially in this day and age of political hyper-polarization. That's not to say that it's not worth considering, but it's nowhere near as important an issue as the potential conflict of interest from accepting such lavish gifts.

[Pyperkub]

I think it's pretty relatable to have close friendships with people who disagree with you dramatically on some issues, especially in this day and age of political hyper-polarization. That's not to say that it's not worth considering, but it's nowhere near as important an issue as the potential conflict of interest from accepting such lavish gifts.

Yeah, but they weren't friends until AFTER he became a Supreme Court Justice and started accepting all these gifts. Thomas should have acted Ethically and refused them as a Supreme Court Justice.

He did not, nor did he recuse himself from his "friend"'s cases.

[malchior]

I think it's pretty relatable to have close friendships with people who disagree with you dramatically on some issues, especially in this day and age of political hyper-polarization. That's not to say that it's not worth considering, but it's nowhere near as important an issue as the potential conflict of interest from accepting such lavish gifts.

I'm more saying the public might buy differences over the death penalty or gun rights. It's another matter when it comes down to, "We're pretty good friends and just agree to disagree about whether 'Hitler was right' or about how he sometimes meditates on how he might improve on failed dictators follies". It's potentially in another league.

Edit: Anyway, I don't think we're ever going to get a satisfying answer considering how Thomas already signaled contempt for basic ethical norms. Even if he was ignoring/covering up/sharing his friend's predilections for various crimes against humanity I doubt we'll find out. I agree the conflict is probably worse but if something crazy does come out it'll be pretty bad.

[El Guapo]

I think it's pretty relatable to have close friendships with people who disagree with you dramatically on some issues, especially in this day and age of political hyper-polarization. That's not to say that it's not worth considering, but it's nowhere near as important an issue as the potential conflict of interest from accepting such lavish gifts.

I'm more saying the public might buy differences over the death penalty or gun rights. It's another matter when it comes down to, "We're pretty good friends and just agree to disagree about whether 'Hitler was right' or about how he sometimes meditates on how he might improve on failed dictators follies". It's potentially in another league.

Edit: Anyway, I don't think we're ever going to get a satisfying answer considering how Thomas already signaled contempt for basic ethical norms. Even if he was ignoring/covering up/sharing his friend's predilections for various crimes against humanity I doubt we'll find out. I agree the conflict is probably worse but if something crazy does come out it'll be pretty bad.

It potentially is, but the argument as I understand it is that Crow collected the memorabilia as historical artifacts alongside other authoritarian relics. Unless something comes out that's clear-cut "I love Hitler, signed Mr. Crow" then it's probably more of a distraction.

[ImLawBoy]

I think it's pretty relatable to have close friendships with people who disagree with you dramatically on some issues, especially in this day and age of political hyper-polarization. That's not to say that it's not worth considering, but it's nowhere near as important an issue as the potential conflict of interest from accepting such lavish gifts.

Yeah, but they weren't friends until AFTER he became a Supreme Court Justice and started accepting all these gifts. Thomas should have acted Ethically and refused them as a Supreme Court Justice.

He did not, nor did he recuse himself from his "friend"'s cases.

I'm not sure if you think you're disagreeing with me or not (by starting out with "Yeah, but . . . ."), but you're not.

I think it's pretty relatable to have close friendships with people who disagree with you dramatically on some issues, especially in this day and age of political hyper-polarization. That's not to say that it's not worth considering, but it's nowhere near as important an issue as the potential conflict of interest from accepting such lavish gifts.

I'm more saying the public might buy differences over the death penalty or gun rights. It's another matter when it comes down to, "We're pretty good friends and just agree to disagree about whether 'Hitler was right' or about how he sometimes meditates on how he might improve on failed dictators follies". It's potentially in another league.

You're simultaneously minimizing the potential disagreements that some people might have while assuming the worst about the Crow/Thomas dynamic. As Guapo notes it'll be different if there's some smoking gun that comes out with respect to the Garden of Evil, but until then it doesn't make a lot of sense to focus the Thomas concerns on anything other than the massive conflict of interest. We can also separately consider WTF is Crow's problem, but that's a sideshow to the clear and obvious breach of ethics in front of us.

[Holman]

I own a small amount of Nazi memorabilia: a couple of Nazi armbands, an officer's shoulder board, some sort of uniform chest badge, a uniform cuff band, and a few other small bits. These were souvenirs brought home by my grandfather after his US Army service from 1943 to 1946. There are visible swastikas involved in almost each piece.

All this stuff is in a box in the back of my closet.

If I owned Hitler shit and put it on prominent display in my house, everyone I know would be right to think that it was fucked up.

Maybe consider donating to a respectable organization/museum. I'd probably roll over in my grave if someone found a box of Nazi stuff in my attic after I died. My children would certainly be horrified, and if they already knew about it, they'd be tasked with defending me. Not something I want them to inherit.

None of it is worth museum care: it's all pretty ratty. Plus it's boxed alongside mementos and pictures from his own army service, so the context is pretty clear.

I should check, because I believe there might be a faded program from the Nuremberg trials there. My grandfather's unit was stationed in Nuremberg during the trials, and regular soldiers could get tickets to watch from the gallery.

[Smoove_B]

I was just allowed to see some Nazi paraphernalia my dad had stashed in a safe for ~60+ years. It was pieces of a few guns and a knife, all with flair on them. My grandfather brought them home from his fight in the Ardennes, presumably after mortaring the shit out of the soldiers that were carrying them.

I would never sell or display them, but I would volunteer to lob mortar shells at Nazis - in my family's tradition.

[malchior]

I think it's pretty relatable to have close friendships with people who disagree with you dramatically on some issues, especially in this day and age of political hyper-polarization. That's not to say that it's not worth considering, but it's nowhere near as important an issue as the potential conflict of interest from accepting such lavish gifts.

I'm more saying the public might buy differences over the death penalty or gun rights. It's another matter when it comes down to, "We're pretty good friends and just agree to disagree about whether 'Hitler was right' or about how he sometimes meditates on how he might improve on failed dictators follies". It's potentially in another league.

You're simultaneously minimizing the potential disagreements that some people might have while assuming the worst about the Crow/Thomas dynamic. As Guapo notes it'll be different if there's some smoking gun that comes out with respect to the Garden of Evil, but until then it doesn't make a lot of sense to focus the Thomas concerns on anything other than the massive conflict of interest.

I don't think I'm minimizing anything. I'm just saying that the comparisons (e.g., Breyer's dynamic w/ Scalia) doesn't capture how it is playing out in the court of public opinion right now. That's all I'm saying. You don't have to make up anything about it like the GOP would. The story comes across as very unsavory. It isn't unfair at all to ask - what does that friendship look like - and bank some political coinage.

We can also separately consider WTF is Crow's problem, but that's a sideshow to the clear and obvious breach of ethics in front of us.

I just think they could push on...both stories. Choosing to decide what someone thinks is more important and missing the moment on another is just a strange decision to me. I think people get it with both but the Nazi memorabilia is sticking better/having more impact. Whether that is fair or not is another story altogether. At the end of the day, nothing will happen anyway so the goal should be to inflict political damage and folks can do that here without sinking into the mud. I don't get why you wouldn't push every angle you can on this affair.

It potentially is, but the argument as I understand it is that Crow collected the memorabilia as historical artifacts alongside other authoritarian relics. Unless something comes out that's clear-cut "I love Hitler, signed Mr. Crow" then it's probably more of a distraction.

FWIW I don't disagree but to me this is a bit of the fundamental problem with "Democratic" messaging. The strategy is always focus on the thing "we" care about instead of listening to the "audience". There isn't a real need to worry about the distraction. At least I can't figure out why you can't lean into both. Is leaning hard on the ethics issue and avoiding a distraction on the other going to yield more returns in reality? Maybe but really hard to quantify.

[ImLawBoy]

We can also separately consider WTF is Crow's problem, but that's a sideshow to the clear and obvious breach of ethics in front of us.

I just think they could push on...both stories. Choosing to decide what someone thinks is more important and missing the moment on another is just a strange decision to me. I think people get it with both but the Nazi memorabilia is sticking better/having more impact. Whether that is fair or not is another story altogether. At the end of the day, nothing will happen anyway so the goal should be to inflict political damage and folks can do that here without sinking into the mud. I don't get why you wouldn't push every angle you can on this affair.

In my opinion the Nazi stuff is both weak and not impeachable and distracts from a strong and impeachable offense (not that he'll be impeached for either). The Nazi stuff is weak because it's not Thomas doing the collecting, so you've got a guilt by association thing going on instead of something Thomas actually did, plus there's at least a plausible cover story in that (i) he's just a collector, and (ii) insanely rich people are really weird and don't grasp how what they're doing resonates with the hoi polloi. Why tie a really strong case for ethical infractions with a weaker case that Thomas hangs out with Nazi fetishists?

It's not that I'm not interested in why Crow fetishizes Nazis and other dictators and what it means that Thomas chooses to hang out with this dude, but that's small potatoes compared to the major ethical infractions that Thomas committed and around which there are no real questions/excuses (barring the weak tea that Thomas said his colleagues thought it was OK).

[Unagi]

In my opinion the Nazi stuff is both weak and not impeachable and distracts from a strong and impeachable offense

I agree, and in our current political context - providing anything but just one single 'node' on a problem like this eventually just weakens the argument on the main thing that needs to be addressed: Thomas is obviously corrupt and needs to be held accountable for what's just blatant disregard for 'conflict of interests' at it's very least.

[malchior]

In my opinion the Nazi stuff is both weak and not impeachable and distracts from a strong and impeachable offense

I agree, and in our current political context - providing anything but just one single 'node' on a problem like this eventually just weakens the argument on the main thing that needs to be addressed: Thomas is obviously corrupt and needs to be held accountable for what's just blatant disregard for 'conflict of interests' at it's very least.

The thing of it though is that he won't be held accountable. I'd give solid odds on that. This is about political messaging strategy. In the end, having looked at a couple of platforms for a few minutes it appears most people are pushing both stories. It doesn't make that the right answer but I happen to think it's smart.

In my opinion the Nazi stuff is both weak and not impeachable and distracts from a strong and impeachable offense (not that he'll be impeached for either). The Nazi stuff is weak because it's not Thomas doing the collecting, so you've got a guilt by association thing going on instead of something Thomas actually did, plus there's at least a plausible cover story in that (i) he's just a collector, and (ii) insanely rich people are really weird and don't grasp how what they're doing resonates with the hoi polloi. Why tie a really strong case for ethical infractions with a weaker case that Thomas hangs out with Nazi fetishists?

Mostly because Americans are idiots at scale. They give a moderate rats ass about the ethics stuff. Most people intuitively know that getting lots of free trips is wrong. Also a lot of them will absolutely wonder why Thomas is hanging around with a "Nazi". I'm bemused by this discussion because it is relatively provable that America does not have a top notch polity but the strongest case argument heavily relies on it. I also don't think worrying about impeachable versus not impeachable is relevant. There is no universe where that is even a possibility. There is the logic of it and there is the politics of it. I am arguing to the politics and agreeing the whole way with which one SHOULD be what we focus on. I just don't think that's the most effective in the current state.

[waitingtoconnect]

I own a small amount of Nazi memorabilia: a couple of Nazi armbands, an officer's shoulder board, some sort of uniform chest badge, a uniform cuff band, and a few other small bits. These were souvenirs brought home by my grandfather after his US Army service from 1943 to 1946. There are visible swastikas involved in almost each piece.

All this stuff is in a box in the back of my closet.

If I owned Hitler shit and put it on prominent display in my house, everyone I know would be right to think that it was fucked up.

This whole thing reminds me of this scene.The mentality of proudly displaying this stuff has to be the same.

[ImLawBoy]

Mostly because Americans are idiots at scale. They give a moderate rats ass about the ethics stuff. Most people intuitively know that getting lots of free trips is wrong. Also a lot of them will absolutely wonder why Thomas is hanging around with a "Nazi". I'm bemused by this discussion because it is relatively provable that America does not have a top notch polity but the strongest case argument heavily relies on it. I also don't think worrying about impeachable versus not impeachable is relevant. There is no universe where that is even a possibility. There is the logic of it and there is the politics of it. I am arguing to the politics and agreeing the whole way with which one SHOULD be what we focus on. I just don't think that's the most effective in the current state.

I think this is where our difference lies. I think the ethics play is better politics because it's real and irrefutable. I think you may be seeing more discussion of the Nazi issue because it's easier to swat away (for the reasons I argued it was weak). The Thomas defenders would rather we focus on the less concrete and more easy to dismiss Nazi issue, so that's what they're engaging on and that's why it might look like people care more about it.

Or maybe I'm just some weirdo who has had ethics so drilled into him that I find that to be the bigger issue and I'm imputing my bias onto the population at large. I won't rule out that possibility.

Of course, it's all moot at this point. He's not going to face any reprimand for either issue (although we might at least see the Senate poking at the ethics issue while they still have a majority) and I don't think it's going to move the needle in 2024 one way or the other.

[Zarathud]

There are multiple reasons to question Justice Thomas’ judgment.
1. Accepting trips from someone with interests before your job is questionable.
2. Not reporting those trips is questionable.
3. Continuing to accept those gifts as they became extravagant is questionable (as their size suggests they were made to influence).
4. Continuing not to report those very large gifts shows very bad judgment or even concealment (these would have been reportable taxable gifts with legal costs).
5. Hanging out with someone who is fascinated with Nazis and dictators looks bad, particularly when your job involves limiting those social influences.
6. Doing these things when there are stories questioning whether elites are “buying” access to the Supreme Court looks very bad.
7. The optics are worse when Justice Thomas’ relationships are specifically under question due to his wife’s political actions.
8. Add to that dumpster fire Justice Thomas’ long-standing willingness to legislate from the bench.
9. And for the cherry on top, consider the makeup of the court allows those influences to overturn long-standing precedent.

Don’t focus on any part. It’s the whole that more than smells bad. It reeks.