Sixteen justices brought a bag of chips to the party. One brought a catered banquet, a private jet, and a superyacht, and here is why nobody can do a thing
Any laws put in place by 🍊 or his administration can be reversed never ever let them tell you that there’s nothing they can do to remove 🍊’s orders .. it’s all BS
Mitch - just incredible - to you, for going through this and breaking it down like you have, and to me, for working a career where I've always been taught to "avoid even the appearance of impropriety" - in the same state Thomas is from. What a hypocrite. What a joke that the American legal profession's last word can tolerate such corruption.
I'd always lumped both Thomas and Alito as being on the take, but it really is all Thomas.
He and his wife. Two pigs bellied up to the trough. But, what’s even worse is their comments in response to criticism indicate an underlying sense of entitlement to these “perks if the job”.
In a partisan attempt to keep Republicans in power, SCOTUS voted to encourage red states to disenfranchise People of Color. Alito leads the corruption. Thomas voted with five White justices in favor of the racist decision.
In addition to Alito’s manipulations, and those by other corrupt Justices, Chief Justice Roberts ignores his own conflicts by failing to disclose $Millions of income from his wife’s business of suggesting lawyers for Corporations to use when trying cases before her husband and the other eight members of the Supreme Court.
I'm writing to urge you to support legislation extending the existing federal gift limit — $50 per gift, $100 annually per source, the standard already binding members of Congress and executive branch employees — to cover federal judges, Supreme Court justices, the President, and the Vice President, including their immediate families, for the duration of their terms.
Four reasons this matters:
1. Consistency: Congress and agency staff are barred from accepting gifts above this threshold precisely because unregulated gifts create influence and its appearance. Judges, justices, and our chief executives should not answer to a lower standard than junior federal staffers.
2. Stakes: A Supreme Court ruling or presidential decision can affect millions of people and billions of dollars — far higher stakes than most gift-giving relationships in government, which argues for tighter rules at the top, not looser ones.
3. Disclosure has failed: Watchdog reporting has documented hundreds of gifts worth millions of dollars flowing to justices over two decades, much of it undisclosed until journalists uncovered it. Self-reporting without a hard cap hasn't worked.
4. It protects officials too: A bright-line rule lets judges and executives decline gifts without personal awkwardness — "I'm legally barred" is easier than judging influence case by case.
I recognize the counterarguments: a strict cap could chill ordinary friendships, Congress regulating the judiciary raises separation-of-powers questions, and valuation/enforcement is imperfect. These are reasons to write careful, well-defined rules — not reasons to leave the most powerful, least accountable offices in government exempt from a standard everyone else already follows.
Please cosponsor and advance legislation closing this gap.
“There is no independent body anywhere with authority to investigate a complaint against a justice and impose a consequence for breaking that code…”
Technically there is such a body: the Congress through its power to impeach. But the penalty on conviction is all or nothing, it can only be removal from office and a ban from holding future office. The process is unwieldy, and partisan considerations make it unlikely to ever happen.
Agreed that legislation is needed to enforce good behavior without relying only on the “nuclear option” of impeachment.
This corruption is disgusting. It reflects poorly on one of our most important institutions. The corrupt justices drag down respect for our legal system and the ethical justices are tarred with the same brush. Shame on Thomas and Alito. And on Roberts for standing by and letting it happen. History will not be kind, but we need action now. Clearly a problem mostly confined to conservative members of the bench. Republicans will do nothing about it. So much for "draining the swamp".
It is tricky. I would be inclined to acquiesce when a gift is school tuition for a sitting Justice whose salary may not afford such a payment. Except when it comes to thomas. That gift would, of course, be disclosed as would be the lack of available financial aid from the school.
Yet it does point to a constructive purpose for someone other than the Justice. In thomas's case, however, the value of that disclosure would not be proof of a single act of corruption, but would provide evidence of a pattern of greed and malfeasance.
Easy work-around: find the school and establish a scholarship at that school so the largesse comes from the school not from the donor. I see payment of private school tuition as acceptable, if a Supreme Court Justice can not afford the tuition. Why? Because it is an intellectual investment in a person's future.
Why should school tuition get any more consideration than a wad of cash or a trip on a private plane? If you get down to letting the traitors take money for "good" causes, then you get into unnecessary weeds.
What do you think about making and enforcing recusal rules whereby any case with a Judge participates in if they have ANY financial ties or conflicts of interest, gets automatically set aside. This way ALL of Thomas's shady rulings would be tossed out.
The idea is to make the Justices prove that they have no conflicts of interest - or else.
Who would judge the ethics violations? A bipartisan congressional committee? A rotating panel of Federal judges?
Yes, so disappointing that the highest court in the land, have ripped at the fabric of ethical conduct. When the SCOTUS becomes corrupt then what? Where do we go?
Any laws put in place by 🍊 or his administration can be reversed never ever let them tell you that there’s nothing they can do to remove 🍊’s orders .. it’s all BS
Mitch - just incredible - to you, for going through this and breaking it down like you have, and to me, for working a career where I've always been taught to "avoid even the appearance of impropriety" - in the same state Thomas is from. What a hypocrite. What a joke that the American legal profession's last word can tolerate such corruption.
I'd always lumped both Thomas and Alito as being on the take, but it really is all Thomas.
He and his wife. Two pigs bellied up to the trough. But, what’s even worse is their comments in response to criticism indicate an underlying sense of entitlement to these “perks if the job”.
Thomas is seriously corrupt. There should be a third Party nonbiased oversight group. No more self regulating.
In a partisan attempt to keep Republicans in power, SCOTUS voted to encourage red states to disenfranchise People of Color. Alito leads the corruption. Thomas voted with five White justices in favor of the racist decision.
In addition to Alito’s manipulations, and those by other corrupt Justices, Chief Justice Roberts ignores his own conflicts by failing to disclose $Millions of income from his wife’s business of suggesting lawyers for Corporations to use when trying cases before her husband and the other eight members of the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS—THE ROBERTS COURT—IS HOPELESSLY CORRUPT.
It’s time for judiciary term limits.
A formal letter to our representative example:
Dear [Representative],
I'm writing to urge you to support legislation extending the existing federal gift limit — $50 per gift, $100 annually per source, the standard already binding members of Congress and executive branch employees — to cover federal judges, Supreme Court justices, the President, and the Vice President, including their immediate families, for the duration of their terms.
Four reasons this matters:
1. Consistency: Congress and agency staff are barred from accepting gifts above this threshold precisely because unregulated gifts create influence and its appearance. Judges, justices, and our chief executives should not answer to a lower standard than junior federal staffers.
2. Stakes: A Supreme Court ruling or presidential decision can affect millions of people and billions of dollars — far higher stakes than most gift-giving relationships in government, which argues for tighter rules at the top, not looser ones.
3. Disclosure has failed: Watchdog reporting has documented hundreds of gifts worth millions of dollars flowing to justices over two decades, much of it undisclosed until journalists uncovered it. Self-reporting without a hard cap hasn't worked.
4. It protects officials too: A bright-line rule lets judges and executives decline gifts without personal awkwardness — "I'm legally barred" is easier than judging influence case by case.
I recognize the counterarguments: a strict cap could chill ordinary friendships, Congress regulating the judiciary raises separation-of-powers questions, and valuation/enforcement is imperfect. These are reasons to write careful, well-defined rules — not reasons to leave the most powerful, least accountable offices in government exempt from a standard everyone else already follows.
Please cosponsor and advance legislation closing this gap.
Sincerely,
“There is no independent body anywhere with authority to investigate a complaint against a justice and impose a consequence for breaking that code…”
Technically there is such a body: the Congress through its power to impeach. But the penalty on conviction is all or nothing, it can only be removal from office and a ban from holding future office. The process is unwieldy, and partisan considerations make it unlikely to ever happen.
Agreed that legislation is needed to enforce good behavior without relying only on the “nuclear option” of impeachment.
Mitch what is the first thing we the people can do to stop this.
Thomas is a CROOK !
This corruption is disgusting. It reflects poorly on one of our most important institutions. The corrupt justices drag down respect for our legal system and the ethical justices are tarred with the same brush. Shame on Thomas and Alito. And on Roberts for standing by and letting it happen. History will not be kind, but we need action now. Clearly a problem mostly confined to conservative members of the bench. Republicans will do nothing about it. So much for "draining the swamp".
It is tricky. I would be inclined to acquiesce when a gift is school tuition for a sitting Justice whose salary may not afford such a payment. Except when it comes to thomas. That gift would, of course, be disclosed as would be the lack of available financial aid from the school.
Yet it does point to a constructive purpose for someone other than the Justice. In thomas's case, however, the value of that disclosure would not be proof of a single act of corruption, but would provide evidence of a pattern of greed and malfeasance.
Easy work-around: find the school and establish a scholarship at that school so the largesse comes from the school not from the donor. I see payment of private school tuition as acceptable, if a Supreme Court Justice can not afford the tuition. Why? Because it is an intellectual investment in a person's future.
Why should school tuition get any more consideration than a wad of cash or a trip on a private plane? If you get down to letting the traitors take money for "good" causes, then you get into unnecessary weeds.
Plus, a SCOTUS judge can't pay one child's tuition???
Oh the HORROR if they have to do what every other American family does - budget for school, weigh the options and LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS.
Sorry, I don't go for approving school tuition for judges' children, grandchildren, neighbors, or clergy, etc. WTH?
This is absolutely disgraceful! Is there a new “top of the ladder?”
What do you think about making and enforcing recusal rules whereby any case with a Judge participates in if they have ANY financial ties or conflicts of interest, gets automatically set aside. This way ALL of Thomas's shady rulings would be tossed out.
The idea is to make the Justices prove that they have no conflicts of interest - or else.
Who would judge the ethics violations? A bipartisan congressional committee? A rotating panel of Federal judges?
Is there an accounting of gifts related to recusals and rulings? That is, which justices benefitted fron gift and ruled in gifter's favor?
Yes, so disappointing that the highest court in the land, have ripped at the fabric of ethical conduct. When the SCOTUS becomes corrupt then what? Where do we go?
We're here now, that's for sure.
It's so disheartening when people in high status positions that require our faith are found to have dipped in the honey pot. Remember Pete Rose?
I think term limits are one easy way.
I like the idea of rotational assignments for federal judges instead of these obscene lifetime appointments.