4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

I think he's asking you to leave

Now, go on! GIT!

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

thats what labbyist do.. just not to judges, you still trying to create a link where there is not one.

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

What Crow, Leo, and Thomas's are doing is unethical, plain and simple. They shouldn't be allowed to do anything a federal judge is not allowed.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Tx scientist is certainly being unethical in his treatment of Ginni and Clarence Thomas. Perhaps it is some subconscious quirk he has about mixed race marriages. TxSci was after all born in a time and place he insists makes him a racist.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

---

Ethics is Ethics. Don't you believe that SCOTUS at the very least should be held to the standards for a federal judge? Or, do you believe the highest court in the land should be allowed a free pass to corruption and unethical behavior?

i just keep checking - the Klanocrats still losing their mind about a blek man getting off the plantation and disobeying masser.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

---

Ethics is Ethics. Don't you believe that SCOTUS at the very least should be held to the standards for a federal judge? Or, do you believe the highest court in the land should be allowed a free pass to corruption and unethical behavior?

---

how would you do this? Those rules dont Apply so the punishment of those rules being broken dont apply.

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

---

Ethics is Ethics. Don't you believe that SCOTUS at the very least should be held to the standards for a federal judge? Or, do you believe the highest court in the land should be allowed a free pass to corruption and unethical behavior?

---

how would you do this? Those rules dont Apply so the punishment of those rules being broken dont apply.

---

My point is those rules should apply. We can't have justices on the highest court in the land without accountability.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

---

Ethics is Ethics. Don't you believe that SCOTUS at the very least should be held to the standards for a federal judge? Or, do you believe the highest court in the land should be allowed a free pass to corruption and unethical behavior?

---

how would you do this? Those rules dont Apply so the punishment of those rules being broken dont apply.

---

My point is those rules should apply. We can't have justices on the highest court in the land without accountability.

---

whether the rules should apply or not is a completely different conversation, one that I could even agree with you..

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

---

Ethics is Ethics. Don't you believe that SCOTUS at the very least should be held to the standards for a federal judge? Or, do you believe the highest court in the land should be allowed a free pass to corruption and unethical behavior?

---

how would you do this? Those rules dont Apply so the punishment of those rules being broken dont apply.

---

My point is those rules should apply. We can't have justices on the highest court in the land without accountability.

---

We can't have them tossed about on the whims of party politics, either. There's a necessary balance between accountability and independence.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. But you have not done that.

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

---

Ethics is Ethics. Don't you believe that SCOTUS at the very least should be held to the standards for a federal judge? Or, do you believe the highest court in the land should be allowed a free pass to corruption and unethical behavior?

---

how would you do this? Those rules dont Apply so the punishment of those rules being broken dont apply.

---

My point is those rules should apply. We can't have justices on the highest court in the land without accountability.

---

We can't have them tossed about on the whims of party politics, either. There's a necessary balance between accountability and independence.

---

I agree, but apparently there is no effective process of accountability in place now.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. Is that fraud? Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. Is that fraud? Of course not. So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. It's what good business people do. And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. %A0 But you have not done that. %A0

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. %A0But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. %A0 Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. %A0A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. %A0 And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. %A0 I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. %A0While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. %A0 %A0He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. %A0 Is that fraud? %A0Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? %A0 If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). %A0 %A0That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. %A0The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. %A0 Is that fraud? %A0 %A0 %A0Of course not. %A0So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. %A0It's what good business people do. %A0And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

---

Ethics is Ethics. Don't you believe that SCOTUS at the very least should be held to the standards for a federal judge? Or, do you believe the highest court in the land should be allowed a free pass to corruption and unethical behavior?

---

how would you do this? Those rules dont Apply so the punishment of those rules being broken dont apply.

---

My point is those rules should apply. We can't have justices on the highest court in the land without accountability. %A0

---

We can't have them tossed about on the whims of party politics, either. There's a necessary balance between accountability and independence.

---

I agree, but apparently there is no effective process of accountability in place now.

---

Impeachment is the process. It's a high bar and intentionally so. Having a wife with opinions isn't the most serious of offenses, otherwise I imagine we'd all be in trouble.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not necessary and irrelevant. It is inherently unethical, in and of itself.

---

Technically, we all have an interest in the outcome of a SCOTUS case, but you could do a bit more research and see if the interest group she represented ever had a case before the court. %A0 But you have not done that. %A0

You could do a bit more research and see if GT has ever taken from any other interest group a payment contemporaneous to a case said group(s) had before the court. %A0But you have not done that.

All you have is conduct a smear campaign, with the latent premise being that any political views/activities of a spouse are ipso facto a potential conflict of interest for a judge, ergo any employment that spouse might have that bound on those views/activities would require recusal. %A0 Under that line of reasoning, any judge married to a teacher would have to recuse on cases involving education. %A0A judge married to a banker would have recuse from any cases involving finance. %A0 And, of course, a judge married to a lobbyist would have to recuse from any cases involving anything a lobbyist might lobby, which of course is everything.

You are making a very silly argument.

---

Once is enough, and more than sufficient to question their eithics. The mere appearance of impropriety is enough. Why do you think the "gift' came, with the admonition to keep it quiet, from someone who has an interest in many issues that come before the court?

Success of democracy demands impeccable character and integrity on the court. There is no place for grifters.

---

Well, you are ranting here like a madman, so that is more than sufficient to question your sanity. %A0 I'll call the nuthouse to send you a car.

I have a friend who is a former congressman. %A0While in office, he had a personal email (and cell phone) account, and a government email (and cell phone) account. %A0 %A0He often gave instructions to people to send/not send certain things to certain accounts, occasionally even correcting them and asking them to resend to the other account. %A0 Is that fraud? %A0Or an effort to keep things in proper channels? %A0 If you've ever engaged in small business, you'd know that often checks get made out to the owner instead of the company (because the owner really IS the business). %A0 %A0That owner will not irritate the customers by asking for them to write a new check. %A0The owner will just sign the back of the check given and deposit it in the company account. %A0 Is that fraud? %A0 %A0 %A0Of course not. %A0So telling an employee to "send Ginni a check, but make sure it's made out to her company" is hardly something alarming, or even out of the ordinary. %A0It's what good business people do. %A0And it's what a prudent politician would do, given that he/she knows that, in politics, even the slightest out-of-place comma can attract the attention of muck-raking scumbags who will attempt to personally destroy things they cannot defeat at the ballot box.

---

It's all about integrity, character, and the appearance of impropriety in the judiciary. By making excuses for unethical behavior, you're essentially advocating for 'third world corruption' in our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/05/clarence-thomas-kellyanne-conway-leonard-leo-payments
Leonard Leo paid Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, via the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway. Citing documents it had obtained, the Post said that Leo told Conway to bill one of his non-profits and send the funds to Thomas, at one point mentioning that paperwork associated with the transaction should have "no mention of Ginni, of course".

---

so if you were the DA and your wife owned a bakery, does me buying a large cupcake order equal a bribe not to prosecute my brother in law?

---

If you wrote her a check for thousands of dollars it would be questionable. Ginni wasn't selling cup cakes. She's selling influence.

---

influence to the legislative executive and legislative, all perfectly legal under rights of speech and assembly, which of course you are trying to imply do not exist for anyone married to someone in the judiciary.

---

It's unethical.

---

what specifically is unethical and according to what standard?

---

Appearance of impropriety at the very least, and acceptance of gifts by himself and family. Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

what whiterock said and also not applicable to SCOTUS.. so close.

---

Ethics is Ethics. Don't you believe that SCOTUS at the very least should be held to the standards for a federal judge? Or, do you believe the highest court in the land should be allowed a free pass to corruption and unethical behavior?

---

how would you do this? Those rules dont Apply so the punishment of those rules being broken dont apply.

---

My point is those rules should apply. We can't have justices on the highest court in the land without accountability. %A0

---

We can't have them tossed about on the whims of party politics, either. There's a necessary balance between accountability and independence.

---

I agree, but apparently there is no effective process of accountability in place now.

---

Impeachment is the process. It's a high bar and intentionally so. Having a wife with opinions isn't the most serious of offenses, otherwise I imagine we'd all be in trouble.

---

You have to have a basis for impeachment. Accepting gifts, especially substantial ones, is tantamount to buying influence. Otherwise, you get the appearance of the best decisions money can buy. And, most wives expect adherence to their opinions, or there are repercussions.

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

whiterock said:

---

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

---

Thomas accpeted over $500,000 in vacation and travel gifts from Harlan Crow. Crow purchased Thomas' mother's home and let her remain there. Don't have a double standard. You and I both would be complaining if Sotomayor had accepted just one of the gifts toThomas, or her family. If we surrender the moral high ground to Democrats, we'll never get it back.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

---

Thomas accpeted over $500,000 in vacation and travel gifts from Harlan Crow. Crow purchased Thomas' mother's home and let her remain there. Don't have a double standard. You and I both would be complaining if Sotomayor had accepted just one of the gifts toThomas, or her family. If we surrender the moral high ground to Democrats, we'll never get it back.

---

What case did Harlan have before the court?

Is it so hard for you to believe that the Crows and the Thomases might be friends? For that matter, who WOULD you allow Thomas to be friends with? News flash: there are not a lot of billionaires. Air is pretty thin up there. They usually do socialize with people who have a lot less money, and often pick up a preponderant share of the tab. And when they give away gifts, sometimes it's more than cheesecake.

A man buys the home of a friend and allows that friend's elderly mother to remain in it with a life estate? I know two examples of that right here in McLennan County. The investor gets a good deal; the old lady gets some money to live on. Win/win.

Do you have a life? (or just an axe to grind against a black judge married to a successful white woman)

This is the most racist and most pearl clutching fake news of A LOT of fake news.

If Thomas was not black non of this would be covered.

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

was he acting as a lawyer?

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

trying to figue out why you think him being a lawyer is important to his role as a SCOTUS justice..