4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

---

I never said they were limited in their occupation.

Judges have to certain report gifts, and recuse themselves under certain circumstances where they have accepted them.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf#page3

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_3/rule3_13acceptanceandreportingofgift/

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

---

I never said they were limited in their occupation.

Judges have to certain report gifts, and recuse themselves under certain circumstances where they have accepted them.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf#page3

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_3/rule3_13acceptanceandreportingofgift/

---

judge didnt accept a gift, his wife was paid for work..

Why is his wife getting paid for work a problem if there is no limitations on his spouses type of employment?

An investigation by @AP has found that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff prodded public institutions to buy her books, revealing repeated examples of taxpayer-funded staff performing tasks that ended up enriching the justice personally. https://t.co/FdveQMKdVk

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 12, 2023

Cobretti said:

---

An investigation by @AP has found that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff prodded public institutions to buy her books, revealing repeated examples of taxpayer-funded staff performing tasks that ended up enriching the justice personally. https://t.co/FdveQMKdVk

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 12, 2023

---

but did anyone buy her parents house or pay her spouse to work?!!

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

---

I never said they were limited in their occupation.

Judges have to certain report gifts, and recuse themselves under certain circumstances where they have accepted them.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf#page3

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_3/rule3_13acceptanceandreportingofgift/

---

judge didnt accept a gift, his wife was paid for work..

Why is his wife getting paid for work a problem if there is no limitations on his spouses type of employment?

---

He accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts. Gifts were given to his family. Payments to his wife under cover. All from people who have a political interest in how the court rules in cases.

Becuase he is a SC justice. It's been a long standing ethics concept that judges, and anyone else who hold a public office of trust, especially judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Do you think its ok for George Soros to lavish Sotomayor with trips, and real estate deals for her family members?

4th and Inches said:

---

You continue to push things that don't make any sense to a rational person. Justice Thomas did not benefit from the kid having a school tuition paid for by another person. The kid benefited. Just as Thomas would not have had to pay that tuition if Crowe didn't, the kid could've gone to another school including a free public one.

The only thing that you have ever said that could actually be construed as a benefit was things that actually affected Thomas like the vacation. I'm not saying that they are or are not permissible benefits but the school tuition, his mom selling her house, and the money paid to his wife for work did she did is nonsensical when looked at rationally.

---

He would have had to pay for the tuition with his own money, for a kid he took in to essentially raise as his own, if his 'friend' and benefactor Crow didn't step in and pay it for him.

Do you really think it is ok for his 'friend' and benefactor, to buy his mother's house from her, and then let her live there gratis? Do you think it would be ok for George Soros to do the same for Sotomayor?

Congressmen have gone to jail for accepting golf trips.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

You continue to push things that don't make any sense to a rational person. Justice Thomas did not benefit from the kid having a school tuition paid for by another person. The kid benefited. Just as Thomas would not have had to pay that tuition if Crowe didn't, the kid could've gone to another school including a free public one.

The only thing that you have ever said that could actually be construed as a benefit was things that actually affected Thomas like the vacation. I'm not saying that they are or are not permissible benefits but the school tuition, his mom selling her house, and the money paid to his wife for work did she did is nonsensical when looked at rationally.

---

He would have had to pay for the tuition with his own money, for a kid he took in to essentially raise as his own, if his 'friend' and benefactor Crow didn't step in and pay it for him.

Do you really think it is ok for his 'friend' and benefactor, to buy his mother's house from her, and then let her live there gratis? Do you think it would be ok for George Soros to do the same for Sotomayor?

Congressmen have gone to jail for accepting golf trips.

---

dude, he didnt have to pay for a kid to go to private school. There are perfectly good tax payer funded schools that kids go to for free. The kid benefited, not Thomas.. He didnt have to pay a dang dime for education. Next!

Yes, it is PERFECTLY ok to sell a house to anybody you want and as part of the arrangement, let the person live there until they pass(its called a life estate) You know nothing about real estate so you need to let the grown ups talk and you should pay attention.

I already said we could discuss the vacations as a possible ethics issue but you keep circling back to the stupidity of the other parts of your arguement. If you want to be taken seriously, stop tilting at windmills

"He didnt have to pay a dang dime for [a very expensive] education."

You're so close to getting it, but alas you can't really make someone understand something if they just simply don't want to...

Also, Thomas had an ownership interest in his mother's house. Crowe didn't buy it from the mother, he bought it off of Clarence Thomas. It's not completely unheard of to let a tenant stay in a home they don't own, but it's far less common than you portray, and it usually it involves inheritance structures. An unrelated 3rd party granting a life estate is extremely rare, granting a life estate and subsequently funding improvements to the home is basically a unicorn arrangement not available to anyone else.

The entire premise of the Joe Biden corruption allegations is that his family/friends got paid on his behalf, and the exact same people advocating that narrative are simultaneously saying there is nothing to see here with Thomas and Alito...

HuMcK said:

---

"He didnt have to pay a dang dime for [a very expensive] education."

You're so close to getting it, but alas you can't really make someone understand something if they just simply don't want to...

Also, Thomas had an ownership interest in his mother's house. Crowe didn't buy it from the mother, he bought it off of Clarence Thomas. It's not completely unheard of to let a tenant stay in a home they don't own, but it's far less common than you portray, and it usually it involves inheritance structures. An unrelated 3rd party granting a life estate is extremely rare, granting a life estate and subsequently funding improvements to the home is basically a unicorn arrangement not available to anyone else.

The entire premise of the Joe Biden corruption allegations is that his family/friends got paid on his behalf, and the exact same people advocating that narrative are simultaneously saying there is nothing to see here with Thomas and Alito...

---

i didnt say there wasnt anything there.. yall are the ones falling for the Dominion narrative while missing the obvious.

When do we get to talk about Sotomayers staff pimping books about of the sacred halls of justice?

They are all doing it in different ways. Do we need more accountability for our justices? Looks like it? Is there rules in place now? Limited ones and nobody is pushing that avenue..

Now that we have discovered this, what are we gonna do about it besides shout at each other on a private schools message board? I bet that is all yall have done about it.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

catching a fish, sending a kid to school.........

shilds play:

sonia sotomayor: swinging for the fences!

$3,700,000.

go big or go home!

- kkm

{ sipping coffee }

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

---

I never said they were limited in their occupation.

Judges have to certain report gifts, and recuse themselves under certain circumstances where they have accepted them.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf#page3

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_3/rule3_13acceptanceandreportingofgift/

---

judge didnt accept a gift, his wife was paid for work..

Why is his wife getting paid for work a problem if there is no limitations on his spouses type of employment?

---

He accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts. Gifts were given to his family. Payments to his wife under cover. All from people who have a political interest in how the court rules in cases.

Becuase he is a SC justice. It's been a long standing ethics concept that judges, and anyone else who hold a public office of trust, especially judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Do you think its ok for George Soros to lavish Sotomayor with trips, and real estate deals for her family members?

---

Every citizen will have interest in how the court rules in cases. That point is null and void.

Still trying to undermine institutions of democracy I see while ignoring the corrupt stooge in the White House. Amazing the double standards the regressives deploy.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things. Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

---

I never said they were limited in their occupation.

Judges have to certain report gifts, and recuse themselves under certain circumstances where they have accepted them.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf#page3

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_3/rule3_13acceptanceandreportingofgift/

---

judge didnt accept a gift, his wife was paid for work..

Why is his wife getting paid for work a problem if there is no limitations on his spouses type of employment?

---

He accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts. Gifts were given to his family. Payments to his wife under cover. All from people who have a political interest in how the court rules in cases.

Becuase he is a SC justice. It's been a long standing ethics concept that judges, and anyone else who hold a public office of trust, especially judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Do you think its ok for George Soros to lavish Sotomayor with trips, and real estate deals for her family members?

---

Every citizen will have interest in how the court rules in cases. That point is null and void.

---

That's right, and that's why a sitting justice should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. What you're advocating is a half step away from blurring the lines against bribery.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

---

I never said they were limited in their occupation.

Judges have to certain report gifts, and recuse themselves under certain circumstances where they have accepted them.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf#page3

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_3/rule3_13acceptanceandreportingofgift/

---

judge didnt accept a gift, his wife was paid for work..

Why is his wife getting paid for work a problem if there is no limitations on his spouses type of employment?

---

He accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts. Gifts were given to his family. Payments to his wife under cover. All from people who have a political interest in how the court rules in cases.

Becuase he is a SC justice. It's been a long standing ethics concept that judges, and anyone else who hold a public office of trust, especially judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Do you think its ok for George Soros to lavish Sotomayor with trips, and real estate deals for her family members?

---

Every citizen will have interest in how the court rules in cases. That point is null and void.

---

That's right, and that's why a sitting justice should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. What you're advocating is a half step away from blurring the lines against bribery.

---

what you're suggesting is that a justice live in a bubble and be treated differently than any other citizen.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

---

I never said they were limited in their occupation.

Judges have to certain report gifts, and recuse themselves under certain circumstances where they have accepted them.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf#page3

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_3/rule3_13acceptanceandreportingofgift/

---

judge didnt accept a gift, his wife was paid for work..

Why is his wife getting paid for work a problem if there is no limitations on his spouses type of employment?

---

He accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts. Gifts were given to his family. Payments to his wife under cover. All from people who have a political interest in how the court rules in cases.

Becuase he is a SC justice. It's been a long standing ethics concept that judges, and anyone else who hold a public office of trust, especially judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Do you think its ok for George Soros to lavish Sotomayor with trips, and real estate deals for her family members?

---

Every citizen will have interest in how the court rules in cases. That point is null and void.

---

That's right, and that's why a sitting justice should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. What you're advocating is a half step away from blurring the lines against bribery.

---

what you're suggesting is that a justice live in a bubble and be treated differently than any other citizen.

---

With regard to how he conducts himself, yes I expect a justice, judge, elected official to be held to a higher standard of integrity and high character than the any other citizen. I don't expect their integrity, probity and uprightness to be on the level of a used car salesman, or horse trader. The Republican Party has blurred the lines of separation with Democrats.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

The money went to the school

The money went to a paid lobbyist for get this lobby work.

The money went a person who transacted a house for it. It is a standard practice to let people live in the house on these deals.

People go on vacation.. this would be your ONLY possible valid complaint.

---

Who was the beneficiary??? It doesn't matter if it passed through his hands or was bypassed to his benefit. Why do you believe SC justices should be held to a lower standard than judges and congressmen? Your partisanship promotes corruption.

---

The beneficiary of the scholarship was not the justice.
The beneficiary of the sale of the home was his mother, not the justice.
And in neither situation was anyone involved a party to a case before the court.

Geez, you are dense.

---

He would have had to pay it if they didn't, so it did benefit him.
It was to his benefit, because he has an interest in his mother's finances.
It doesn't have to be a party in a case. I just has to be someone who is interested in the outcome of a case. That's why they sometimes file amicas briefs.

Each of the above circumstances would be unethical for a sitting federal judge to accept. Some people would even call it corrupt.

---

No, only a twit would call it corrupt.

"..had to pay.."
That is patently false. He was not the young man's legal guardian. Just a helpful uncle. And his mother had assets to take care of herself, and did. In a legal contract between two adults not involving a SCOTUS justice.

"...someone who is interested in a case...."
Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. I'm interested in the outcome of most cases before SCOTUS. I have a clear loss/benefit on some of them, due to property right issues (farm = EPA/WOUSA litigations) or enumerated rights issues (1st and 2nd amendments...) I could file an amicus brief if I wanted to. So you could you. Or anyone here.

---

But it would be unethical for you to do so, and give money to a justice's spouse, family member, etc. What they have been doing is not permitted by a federal judge, nor a sitting congressman. If you are true to your belief, you should be against those restrictions also. Are you?

I'm interested in most cases also. That's why I don't want anyone attempting to put their thumb on the scale, in in congress, the federal court, or the SC.

---

LOL
No money was given by anyone to anyone.
Money was paid for representation services rendered by Ginni Thomas.

You're trying to spin a legal, free-market transaction into something nefarious.
Geez, you lefties truly do hate capitalism.

---

What you describe is not permitted by a federal judge. If you want to try to tag me as a lefty, then you should be tagged as a neo-fascist autocrat who hates democracy, law and order, and capitalism.

---

please cite where a federal judges spouse is limited in their occupation..

---

I never said they were limited in their occupation.

Judges have to certain report gifts, and recuse themselves under certain circumstances where they have accepted them.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf#page3

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_3/rule3_13acceptanceandreportingofgift/

---

judge didnt accept a gift, his wife was paid for work..

Why is his wife getting paid for work a problem if there is no limitations on his spouses type of employment?

---

He accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts. Gifts were given to his family. Payments to his wife under cover. All from people who have a political interest in how the court rules in cases.

Becuase he is a SC justice. It's been a long standing ethics concept that judges, and anyone else who hold a public office of trust, especially judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Do you think its ok for George Soros to lavish Sotomayor with trips, and real estate deals for her family members?

---

Every citizen will have interest in how the court rules in cases. That point is null and void.

---

That's right, and that's why a sitting justice should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. What you're advocating is a half step away from blurring the lines against bribery.

---

what you're suggesting is that a justice live in a bubble and be treated differently than any other citizen.

---

With regard to how he conducts himself, yes I expect a justice, judge, elected official to be held to a higher standard of integrity and high character than the any other citizen. I don't expect their integrity, probity and uprightness to be on the level of a used car salesman, or horse trader. The Republican Party has blurred the lines of separation with Democrats.

---

there is a reason it is called the uniparty.. those lines have been blurring since Bush Sr

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

---

That's why I said they're smarter about it than Hunter. A little (sarcasm) here and there is easier to escape attention and easier to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue, and speciously argue.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

---

That's why I said they're smarter about it than Hunter. A little (sarcasm) here and there is easier to escape attention and easier to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue, and speciously argue.

---

Smarts got nothing to do with it. This is about what is real and what is not.

Reality is, nobody lobbies a SCOTUS judge just in case they happen to have one of the infinitessimally small number of lawsuits that rise thru the courts all the way to SCOTUS. Millions of lawsuits are filed each year. About 50k make it to federal appeals court. In a good year, 8k of those federal cases bother to make a petition to SCOTUS. Less than 1% of those petitions get heard. Those are Lotto type odds. The guy who spends money year after year to surreptitiously lobby a SCOTUS judge just in case he might get lucky enough to get his case heard by SCOTUS is by any reasonable measure the dumbest SOB on earth.

Reality is, Ginni will still have a career after Judge Thomas retires. She had a lobbying business before he became a judge, because her skills and contacts existed before he became a judge. After he retires, she will still have a lobbying business for as long as she wants one, because her skills and contacts are neither connected to nor contingent upon her husband's position, in any conceivable way.

Reality is, Hunter is not too dumb to hide his influence peddling. He just can't afford to be discreet. He's on the clock. After his dad leaves office, the gig is up. He'll have nothing to sell. So he's got to fill the bag as much as he can as fast as he can.

Reallity is, politics is full of low-lifes who feel a sense of duty to smear people they cannot defeat with ideas.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

---

That's why I said they're smarter about it than Hunter. A little (sarcasm) here and there is easier to escape attention and easier to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue, and speciously argue.

---

Smarts got nothing to do with it. This is about what is real and what is not.

Reality is, nobody lobbies a SCOTUS judge just in case they happen to have one of the infinitessimally small number of lawsuits that rise thru the courts all the way to SCOTUS. Millions of lawsuits are filed each year. About 50k make it to federal appeals court. In a good year, 8k of those federal cases bother to make a petition to SCOTUS. Less than 1% of those petitions get heard. Those are Lotto type odds. The guy who spends money year after year to surreptitiously lobby a SCOTUS judge just in case he might get lucky enough to get his case heard by SCOTUS is by any reasonable measure the dumbest SOB on earth.

Reality is, Ginni will still have a career after Judge Thomas retires. She had a lobbying business before he became a judge, because her skills and contacts existed before he became a judge. After he retires, she will still have a lobbying business for as long as she wants one, because her skills and contacts are neither connected to nor contingent upon her husband's position, in any conceivable way.

Reality is, Hunter is not too dumb to hide his influence peddling. He just can't afford to be discreet. He's on the clock. After his dad leaves office, the gig is up. He'll have nothing to sell. So he's got to fill the bag as much as he can as fast as he can.

Reallity is, politics is full of low-lifes who feel a sense of duty to smear people they cannot defeat with ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Reallity is, politics is full of low-lifes who feel a sense of duty to smear people they cannot defeat with ideas.

---

That's one reason why Trump shouldn't be renominated as the R candidate.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

---

That's quite a view you have through those rose colored glasses. No I just don't like and will not excuse 3rd world political graft and grift in the judiciary, or anywhere else in the government. Has nothing to do with her success. I think Hunter should be held accountable, including his father if they can show he was a partner in his son's exploits while he held office.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

---

That's why I said they're smarter about it than Hunter. A little (sarcasm) here and there is easier to escape attention and easier to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue, and speciously argue.

---

Smarts got nothing to do with it. This is about what is real and what is not.

Reality is, nobody lobbies a SCOTUS judge just in case they happen to have one of the infinitessimally small number of lawsuits that rise thru the courts all the way to SCOTUS. Millions of lawsuits are filed each year. About 50k make it to federal appeals court. In a good year, 8k of those federal cases bother to make a petition to SCOTUS. Less than 1% of those petitions get heard. Those are Lotto type odds. The guy who spends money year after year to surreptitiously lobby a SCOTUS judge just in case he might get lucky enough to get his case heard by SCOTUS is by any reasonable measure the dumbest SOB on earth.

Reality is, Ginni will still have a career after Judge Thomas retires. She had a lobbying business before he became a judge, because her skills and contacts existed before he became a judge. After he retires, she will still have a lobbying business for as long as she wants one, because her skills and contacts are neither connected to nor contingent upon her husband's position, in any conceivable way.

Reality is, Hunter is not too dumb to hide his influence peddling. He just can't afford to be discreet. He's on the clock. After his dad leaves office, the gig is up. He'll have nothing to sell. So he's got to fill the bag as much as he can as fast as he can.

Reallity is, politics is full of low-lifes who feel a sense of duty to smear people they cannot defeat with ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Reallity is, politics is full of low-lifes who feel a sense of duty to smear people they cannot defeat with ideas.

---

That's one reason why Trump shouldn't be renominated as the R candidate.

---

Ramaswamy 2024!

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

---

That's quite a view you have through those rose colored glasses. No I just don't like and will not excuse 3rd world political graft and grift in the judiciary, or anywhere else in the government. Has nothing to do with her success. I think Hunter should be held accountable, including his father if they can show he was a partner in his son's exploits while he held office.

---

if?!

Sworn testimony not enough proof?

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

---

That's quite a view you have through those rose colored glasses. No I just don't like and will not excuse 3rd world political graft and grift in the judiciary, or anywhere else in the government. Has nothing to do with her success. I think Hunter should be held accountable, including his father if they can show he was a partner in his son's exploits while he held office.

---

if?!

Sworn testimony not enough proof?

---

What sworn testimony exists that says Joe was involved in or profiting from Hunter's business?

Go ahead and quote it please.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What I described was a private-sector business entering into a contract with another private sector business, a contract to which no federal judge was party.

Geez you are dense.

---

Things of value were given. Doesn't have to be cash. Why do you resist holding our public officials to a high standard? Do you prefer third world graft? Requiring ethical behavior of our public officials is what sets us apart from the likes of Mexico, Colombia, and Venezueala. Look inward to who is dense. Don't be so naive.

---

quit moving the goal posts and covering the field with white chalk. Your statement above in bold was about cash. When I point out such is flatly not true, then you move to the travel and then inflate the value of it by 100x. Hopping a ride on a private plane rather than commercial is....well....I've done that with friends who own planes. It's what you do when your friends are going to the same place you are.

Geez you arguments are so tedious.

Thomas didn't put any money in his pocket by forcing people to buy their stuff like another sitting justice did.

---

It's always been about anything of value, to him, his wife, family, or anything that he would have had to pay for himself if he were to pursue the same, or money paid quietly to his wife's company for commercial services rendered. Federal judges and congressmen cannot accept those things (no, but their spouses can hold employment for which they can be paid). Why do you think justices should be any less accountable? (I'm not suggesting they should be.) You haven't answered that quetion, and I can only surmise you have a double standard when it comes to people you support.

---

The double standard is all yours = a spouse of a judge may not engage in free enterprise without posing a conflict of interest to a judge, since a judge will hear cases concerning commerce.

---

No it's about the nature of the relationship to the officeholder and the financial interest of the person paying for influence. Under your standard, Hunter's activities shouldn't be questioned or reported.

---

There is no relationship between Judge Thomas and his wife's business clients. She was in that business when they married and has done it continuously for decades, and you have been unable to identify any cases where her clients were a plaintiff or defendant in a case before SCOTUS.

Same cannot be said about Hunter, who is patently in the business of selling access to elected officials in impromptu business ventures sitting astride the lines of US foreign policy.

---

I don't approve of Hunter either. There are some similarities. Being in that business before they were married is irrelevant. It is his relationship and hers with Harlan Crow for example. He sits on the board of a lobby group that has interests in various cases that come before the SC. The Thomas's shouldn't be accepting gifts from him, or others for that matter. Your views are no different than the corruption in places like Mexico. Influence peddling has no place in our judicial system.

---

It's only irrelevant because your argument needs it to be.

Ginni Thomas has along career as a political consultant. 98% of political consultants have a career path that starts out as a legislative aide, then transitioning into election consulting, which inevitable leads into lobbying or related activities because the private sector is a far larger market of customers than the election business. Further, the private sector goes to work every day, every week, every month, every year, over decades and centuries. Elections, however, happen once every 2 years for about 6 months.

So Ginni did what millions of people have done before her, at a high level. One of the better ones in the business.. She just happened to marry a judge you don't like, so you're trying to turn every paycheck she ever EARNED into some kind of influence peddling scheme.

Hunter, on the other hand, does not have that kind of resume. He's the coke-head playboy son of a corrupt politician who made it thru law school then frequency hopped around from jobs in one industry after another, ending up doing business with foreign interests with whom the US had substantial aid packages over which his father had influence if not control. Wherever Joe went, Hunter followed along in the shadows. Classic influence peddling scheme, and not a terribly tidy one at that, given the dissolution seen on the laptop photos.

And here you are covering for him.

---

It's interesting that you excuse Ginni but not Hunter. My liking Justice Thomas is not at issue. I liked him as a Justice until it came out he and his wife were receiving gifts and emoluments. Why do you think the donor instructed Conway to keep it quiet? The Thomas's are just a little more sophisticated about their grift and graft than Hunter.

---

A reminder to correctly fill out a check is not a cover-up. It means, "make sure to make the check her company, not her, so we won't have yahoos alleging that we are paying her for something other than the work she actually did."

You just can't stand the fact that a justice you don't like has a wife with a successful career of her own. That's why you conflate her lifelong success with the actual grifting of a dissolute young man whose career prospects dovetail closely with US policy initiatives overseen by his father, literally getting hired by companies interfacing with his father.

Absolutely nothing like that has ever occurred with the Thomases.

In fact, I don't think Hunter ever took a vacation with any of his clients, because, unlike Ginni Thomas, he did have a need to keep things hush-hush.

---

That's why I said they're smarter about it than Hunter. A little (sarcasm) here and there is easier to escape attention and easier to try to obfuscate and confuse the issue, and speciously argue.

---

Smarts got nothing to do with it. This is about what is real and what is not.

Reality is, nobody lobbies a SCOTUS judge just in case they happen to have one of the infinitessimally small number of lawsuits that rise thru the courts all the way to SCOTUS. Millions of lawsuits are filed each year. About 50k make it to federal appeals court. In a good year, 8k of those federal cases bother to make a petition to SCOTUS. Less than 1% of those petitions get heard. Those are Lotto type odds. The guy who spends money year after year to surreptitiously lobby a SCOTUS judge just in case he might get lucky enough to get his case heard by SCOTUS is by any reasonable measure the dumbest SOB on earth.

Reality is, Ginni will still have a career after Judge Thomas retires. She had a lobbying business before he became a judge, because her skills and contacts existed before he became a judge. After he retires, she will still have a lobbying business for as long as she wants one, because her skills and contacts are neither connected to nor contingent upon her husband's position, in any conceivable way.

Reality is, Hunter is not too dumb to hide his influence peddling. He just can't afford to be discreet. He's on the clock. After his dad leaves office, the gig is up. He'll have nothing to sell. So he's got to fill the bag as much as he can as fast as he can.

Reallity is, politics is full of low-lifes who feel a sense of duty to smear people they cannot defeat with ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Reallity is, politics is full of low-lifes who feel a sense of duty to smear people they cannot defeat with ideas.

---

That's one reason why Trump shouldn't be renominated as the R candidate.

---

Ramaswamy 2024!

---

Ramaswamy has a lack of understanding and the importance of the US role on the world stage.