Supreme Court

PF5

Ranger
Clarence Thomas belatedly discloses lavish travel expenses paid for by Harlan Crow politico

The conservative justice has faced scrutiny over his acceptance of vacations from the Republican donor.

1717783638817.pngJustice Clarence Thomas has faced criticism for accepting lavish trips from Harlan Crow, a Texas real estate mogul and Republican megadonor, without disclosing them.

Justice Clarence Thomas belatedly acknowledged that Republican billionaire Harlan Crow paid for Thomas’ accommodations during trips in 2019 to Bali and Sonoma County — a disclosure that comes amid unprecedented scrutiny of the Supreme Court and the wealthy benefactors close to the justices.

The acknowledgment of Crow’s largesse was included in an annual financial disclosure report filed by Thomas and made public on Friday. Financial reports for eight of the nine justices were also released Friday. Justice Samuel Alito received a 90-day extension to file his report, as he did last year.

Justice Clarence Thomas belatedly acknowledged that Republican billionaire Harlan Crow paid for Thomas’ accommodations during trips in 2019 to Bali and Sonoma County — a disclosure that comes amid unprecedented scrutiny of the Supreme Court and the wealthy benefactors close to the justices.
The acknowledgment of Crow’s largesse was included in an annual financial disclosure report filed by Thomas and made public on Friday. Financial reports for eight of the nine justices were also released Friday. Justice Samuel Alito received a 90-day extension to file his report, as he did last year.

Three justices reported receiving six-figure amounts last year from book deals or royalties. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Beyonce gave her four concert tickets worth about $3,700.

According to Thomas’ newly-released report, Crow and his wife provided food and one day of hotel lodging during Thomas’ trip to Indonesia in July 2019, and Crow also picked up the tab for a four-day stay by the justice a few days later at a private club in Monte Rio, California, which is home to the Bohemian Grove, an all-male retreat.
Thomas has faced criticism for accepting lavish trips from Crow, a Texas real estate mogul and Republican megadonor, without disclosing them. Thomas has called Crow a close and longtime personal friend.
Thomas’ new filing explained that he “sought and received guidance from his accountant and ethics counsel” as part of a “review of prior filings that began last year.” The gifts from the Crows were “inadvertently omitted at the time of filing,” Thomas said on the new form, which primarily covers the 2023 calendar year.

Thomas’ 2019 trip to Indonesia with the Crows — some of it spent aboard a private yacht — was first reported last year by ProPublica, which noted it was not included on the justice’s disclosure form for that year.

Thomas later said he’d been advised by ethics officials that “personal hospitality” from friends did not need to be reported. However, the new filing appears to be a concession that whatever ambiguity may have existed around travel on private jets or yachts, gifts of stays at hotels or clubs owned by third parties have long been required to be disclosed.

For the past two years, the court’s ethics practices have been the subject of intense attention and criticism, as journalists, court-reform advocates and legal ethics experts have increasingly questioned the financial and personal ties of the justices, as well as the political, business and personal activities of some of the justices’ spouses. Senate Democrats have subjected the high court to withering criticism, with many suggesting that ethics lapses show the Republican-appointed justices to be under the sway of conservative activists.

Amid the firestorm, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented step last November of adopting a formal ethics code, although it lacks an enforcement mechanism and in some respects is weaker than vaguer ethics principles endorsed earlier by the justices.

Alito, like Thomas, has faced particular scrutiny. He flew on a private jet and vacationed in Alaska with a hedge fund billionaire with interests before the court, ProPublica reported, and two controversial flag displays associated with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol flew at his homes, the New York Times reported. A spokesperson for the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, which processes the financial disclosure forms, confirmed that Alito had received an extension to file his report but did not provide a rationale for the delay.

Various justices reported cashing in on book deals last year. Jackson reported nearly $900,000 in a book advance, paid through a limited liability company. Justice Brett Kavanaugh earned $340,000 in book royalties in 2023, and Justice Neil Gorsuch reported $250,000 in royalty income, according to the filings. Justice Sonia Sotomayor saw about $87,000 in book royalties and was paid about $1,900 for her voice performance in the PBS Kids animated show Alma’s Way.

In addition to receiving the four tickets from musician Beyonce Knowles-Carter, Jackson also received artwork for her chambers valued, in total, at $12,500.

Thomas reported his wife, Ginni Thomas, again received an undisclosed salary and benefits from Liberty Consulting, a consulting firm she established in connection with work she did for various conservative organizations. Public officials are not required to disclose their spouses’ salaries, but Thomas’ form put the value of his wife’s business at between about $15,000 and $50,000.

The Thomases also received two photo albums valued at $2,000 from Terrence and Barbara Giroux. Terrence Giroux appears to be the former executive director of the Horatio Alger Association, a nonprofit whose board of directors counts Thomas as an honorary member, according to Thomas’ filing.

Chief Justice John Roberts reported some rental income from a cottage in Maine and share of a cottage in Ireland. Additionally, his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts received a base salary and “commission” from the attorney search firm for which she works. After POLITICO and other outlets reported on Jane Sullivan Roberts’ work, the chief justice began reporting in his disclosures that some of her income comes from commissions.
 
WATCH: in secret recording Alito admits he doesn’t see any room for compromise and agrees there must be a fight to make america a Christian nation.

(Credit: Lauren Windsor)
 
WATCH: in secret recording Alito admits he doesn’t see any room for compromise and agrees there must be a fight to make america a Christian nation.

(Credit: Lauren Windsor)
This will be where it gets interesting. There’s a lot of discussion about Christian Nationalism today. Don’t think the idiot MTG. Don’t even think our own Lankford. It’s really more Speaker Johnson and others. They are predominantly Calvinists or New Reformers.

Most believe in some form of theology that centers on the doctrine of election where God has predetermined one’s afterlife destination.

They don’t believe Catholics are elect. Most don’t even see Catholics as Christians. So what’s the rub?

All 6 conservatives on the Sup Court are Catholics.

If we tip to religious tests and CN at some point these 2 sides will decide they can’t coexist or share power. That’s where it gets interesting.
 
Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to block an effort by Senate Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill Wednesday on the Senate floor.

 
Given unfettered, legal, insider trading, you'd think Congress wouldn't open a discussion about monetary ethics. I guess the millions they make are ok because it never influences their voting records.
The issue lies In equality of the branches and being able to hold each other accountable. As all 3 branches of govt are equal

Congress HAS guidelines and gift ethics rules in place AND the Supreme Court has every right to question and hold Congress to those standards as part of checks and balances

That does NOt exists for the Supreme Court and not only do they not have ethics guidelines the Executive and Legislative branch can hold them too ..they don't even have a requirement to report any outside money they are getting.

This you have a gap in the checks and balances of the 3 branch system that needs to be closed
 
The issue lies In equality of the branches and being able to hold each other accountable. As all 3 branches of govt are equal

Congress HAS guidelines and gift ethics rules in place AND the Supreme Court has every right to question and hold Congress to those standards as part of checks and balances

That does NOt exists for the Supreme Court and not only do they not have ethics guidelines the Executive and Legislative branch can hold them too ..they don't even have a requirement to report any outside money they are getting.

This you have a gap in the checks and balances of the 3 branch system that needs to be closed

Not disagreeing with your post, but there is NO check/balance on Congress when it comes to stock trading based on their knowledge of upcoming legislation/regulation. It's why so many of them are worth tens of millions of dollars, even though their salaries are < $200k/year (ish).
 
The issue lies In equality of the branches and being able to hold each other accountable. As all 3 branches of govt are equal

Congress HAS guidelines and gift ethics rules in place AND the Supreme Court has every right to question and hold Congress to those standards as part of checks and balances

That does NOt exists for the Supreme Court and not only do they not have ethics guidelines the Executive and Legislative branch can hold them too ..they don't even have a requirement to report any outside money they are getting.

This you have a gap in the checks and balances of the 3 branch system that needs to be closed
This is the Republican party the last 10 years. Every unwritten norm now has to be codified because of the corruption and abuse. Don't like who the electorate voted for President? Well, it always meant to be more of a suggestion we'll just have the Vice President choose.
 
Not disagreeing with your post, but there is NO check/balance on Congress when it comes to stock trading based on their knowledge of upcoming legislation/regulation. It's why so many of them are worth tens of millions of dollars, even though their salaries are < $200k/year (ish).
Dems have been trying to do something about it and Republicans keep blocking it

Sens. Ossoff, Kelly Introduce Bill Banning Stock Trading by Members of Congress

 
Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to block an effort by Senate Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill Wednesday on the Senate floor.

This is where the divisiveness has worked beautifully for the politicians to the harm of the people.

When we functioned as a society with differences of opinion, something like this, the outrageous taking of massive amounts of money by a Supreme Court Justice, would have caused the citizenry to be angered regardless of party. If a Senator tried to block it like Graham he would feel the wrath of angry voters.

Now, we are so polarized and ready to believe only the nonsense put out by one side or the other, that they can get away with anything. Graham should be getting hundreds of calls and letters from angry republican voters since he is protecting government malfeasance. But, not now, people won't hold their own team accountable.
 
Dems have been trying to do something about it and Republicans keep blocking it

Sens. Ossoff, Kelly Introduce Bill Banning Stock Trading by Members of Congress


I don't think this is quite reality. CERTAIN members of congress have been trying to do something about it and other members of congress are blocking it. I would guess that there are more democrats that are supporting the bans, but it isn't only dems supporting and it isn't only Republicans blocking. Unfettered greed is non partisan.

Also, there are many different bills being put out there and some would help while others are window-dressing at best. Nancy Pelosi, stock trader supreme, has blocked many a good bill and supported sham bills. She ain't no republican.

But in the nine months since, Pelosi and committee leaders have refused to allow votes on the many congressional stock ban bills that members have introduced, including two with bipartisan support. Democratic Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) recruited 12 Republicans and 58 Democrats to cosponsor her bill. Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) joined with Republican Representative Matt Rosendale (R-MT) and several Democratic colleagues to introduce a House bill with Democratic and Republican co-sponsors.
Instead of supporting either of these, or even allowing the legislative process to move forward, Pelosi tasked Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to create a new bill. If Lofgren’s name sounds familiar to those who’ve listened as calls for a stock ban have grown louder, it’s because she presided over an April hearing where she sarcastically asked advocates whether, in addition to selling off stocks, members of Congress should have to give up their homes.
 
I don't think this is quite reality. CERTAIN members of congress have been trying to do something about it and other members of congress are blocking it. I would guess that there are more democrats that are supporting the bans, but it isn't only dems supporting and it isn't only Republicans blocking. Unfettered greed is non partisan.

Also, there are many different bills being put out there and some would help while others are window-dressing at best. Nancy Pelosi, stock trader supreme, has blocked many a good bill and supported sham bills. She ain't no republican.

But in the nine months since, Pelosi and committee leaders have refused to allow votes on the many congressional stock ban bills that members have introduced, including two with bipartisan support. Democratic Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) recruited 12 Republicans and 58 Democrats to cosponsor her bill. Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) joined with Republican Representative Matt Rosendale (R-MT) and several Democratic colleagues to introduce a House bill with Democratic and Republican co-sponsors.
Instead of supporting either of these, or even allowing the legislative process to move forward, Pelosi tasked Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to create a new bill. If Lofgren’s name sounds familiar to those who’ve listened as calls for a stock ban have grown louder, it’s because she presided over an April hearing where she sarcastically asked advocates whether, in addition to selling off stocks, members of Congress should have to give up their homes.
Ohh no doubt ANYONE on capital Hill is trying really hard to pass it . They all benefit, still doesn't mean that the Supreme Court should NOT have gift limits
 
I don't think this is quite reality. CERTAIN members of congress have been trying to do something about it and other members of congress are blocking it. I would guess that there are more democrats that are supporting the bans, but it isn't only dems supporting and it isn't only Republicans blocking. Unfettered greed is non partisan.

Also, there are many different bills being put out there and some would help while others are window-dressing at best. Nancy Pelosi, stock trader supreme, has blocked many a good bill and supported sham bills. She ain't no republican.

But in the nine months since, Pelosi and committee leaders have refused to allow votes on the many congressional stock ban bills that members have introduced, including two with bipartisan support. Democratic Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) recruited 12 Republicans and 58 Democrats to cosponsor her bill. Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) joined with Republican Representative Matt Rosendale (R-MT) and several Democratic colleagues to introduce a House bill with Democratic and Republican co-sponsors.
Instead of supporting either of these, or even allowing the legislative process to move forward, Pelosi tasked Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to create a new bill. If Lofgren’s name sounds familiar to those who’ve listened as calls for a stock ban have grown louder, it’s because she presided over an April hearing where she sarcastically asked advocates whether, in addition to selling off stocks, members of Congress should have to give up their homes.
But if they do a stock ban, how will we know what to invest in?
 
So, a prominent Republican thinks the Supreme Court ethics bill is really about abortion. It is a way for Democrats to get back at the court for overturning Roe vs Wade.

So, what, surely most Republicans believe that Supreme Court justices should have the freedom to accept as much bribery as they want from individuals and lobby groups wanting all or nearly all abortion banned.

 
Last edited:
So, a prominent Republican thinks the Supreme Court ethics bill is really about abortion. It is a way to get back at the court for overturning Roe vs
Wade. So, what, surely most Republicans believe that Supreme Court justices should have the freedom to accept as much bribery as they want from individuals and lobby groups wanting all or nearly all abortion banned.

This is a perfect example of what I wrote about above regarding the division. Look at the comments on that video, 10:1 they are people saying that Schumer should be in prison!
I'm not a fan of Chuck Schumer. But we have a supreme court justice who accepted $4 million in undisclosed gifts from someone with business in front of the court. And when Senators want to do something to stop that, the people whine that the senator should be in jail?

What could possibly be more cut-and-dry unethical that accepting millions of dollars in "gifts" from a person before your court?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top