Sure, dude. That excuse absolves all wrongs. Sure it does.Clarence Thomas defends not disclosing free vacations from 'dear friend' GOP megadonor https://t.co/ZcxBI9C7rY
— Raw Story (@RawStory) April 7, 2023
How many vacations does he take with friends that date back to before he was on the Supreme Court I wonder.
— Schooley (@Rschooley) April 7, 2023
"Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years," Thomas said. "As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable."He's been on the Court for 32 years. Oops.
A reminder that only Supreme Court Justices can recuse themselves from cases. No one can force them to recuse. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?Shorter Clarence Thomas: My buddy Harlan had no business before the court, I claim, even if I presided over a case that decided that his wining and dining of me wasn't bribery.
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) April 7, 2023
Justice Thomas' statement. Personal hospitality is a nice dinner or maybe a weekend visit at a close friend's lake house. It's not persistent travel where you rub shoulders with conservative folks with litigation interests before SCOTUS on an at-least-annual basis. pic.twitter.com/nX4vnBqTx3
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) April 7, 2023
Gee, Clarence; what d'you do for an encore? Your buddy Antonin could at least tell the press: "Fuck you! I"m a genius!"*, and they'd believe it. What d'you got?You can't expect someone as important as a SCOTUS justice to concern himself with little things like rules.
— Schooley (@Rschooley) April 7, 2023
Clearly legal opinions differ. Oh, whatever do we do now?"Letting somebody use your private jet to travel around the country is not 'extend[ing]' hospitality 'on' your property. It is lending out your property" to spare him the cost of flying.
— Will Saletan (@saletan) April 7, 2023
"Thomas broke the law."@Dahlialithwick & @mjs_DC nail the justice. https://t.co/n5SEqKidyc
We align ourselves with the former view: Clarence Thomas broke the law, and it isn’t particularly close. The best argument in his defense is that the old definition of “personal hospitality” did not require him to disclose transportation, including private flights. This reading works only by torturing the English language beyond all recognition. The old rule, like the statute it derives from, defined the term as hospitality that is “extended” either “at” a personal residence or “on” their “property or facilities.” A person dead-set on defending Thomas might be able to squeeze these yacht trips into this definition, arguing that, by hosting Thomas on his boat for food, drink, and sightseeing, Crow “extended” hospitality “on” his own property. But lending out the private jet for Thomas’ personal use? Come on. There’s no plausible way to shoehorn these trips into the old rule—which quotes the statute verbatim—even under the most expansive interpretation imaginable. Letting somebody use your private jet to travel around the country is not “extend[ing]” hospitality “on” your property. It is lending out your property to someone else so they can avoid paying for a commercial flight. Thomas broke the law, a law which contains serious civil penalties, though the bogus technicality on which he relies, in addition to his political clout, will be more than enough to ensure that he never faces any actual legal consequences.Yeah; we're fucked.
Yes, it is. Yes, he is. Unless, as I said, you can shame a whore.It's disturbing that the immediate reaction to more proof of Clarence Thomas's conflicts of interest is always just complete resignation that he's untouchable.
— Schooley (@Rschooley) April 7, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment