I have been loosely following this story and I have generally supported him in past when he was accused of doing something wrong. However this new developing story that he has received large gifts for years without disclosing them is one I am having a hard time justifying. I have no problem with Thomas having a rich friend who treats him to nice things, as long as the friend does not directly or indirectly become party or beneficiary of a case that goes before the court. What does bother me is the failure to declare these gifts. It is not clear whether his failure to disclose constitutes a legal violation or just an ethical violation.

I really don't want to lose a conservative seat on the supreme court but this is not looking good for him.

I have been loosely following this story and I have generally supported him in past when he was accused of doing something wrong. However this new developing story that he has received large gifts for years without disclosing them is one I am having a hard time justifying. I have no problem with Thomas having a rich friend who treats him to nice things, as long as the friend does not directly or indirectly become party or beneficiary of a case that goes before the court. What does bother me is the failure to declare these gifts. It is not clear whether his failure to disclose constitutes a legal violation or just an ethical violation.

I really don't want to lose a conservative seat on the supreme court but this is not looking good for him.

It's not a legal violation.  Gifts in the form of "personal hospitality" were not listed in the disclosure rules until last month.  Whether or not the trips should have been disclosed is now in question.  Adding the specific case for "personal hospitality" demonstrates there was no such requirement before last month.  The confusion, ambiguity or question as to that type of gift needing to be disclosed should be enough to shield Thomas (and all the Justices) from impeachment on these grounds.

There's no real means of enforcing these rules for the SCOTUS.  Unlike every other government branch or judicial court, SCOTUS has no stated code of ethics.  That leaves the analysis of what's unethical up to Congress who has the power to codify this practice.

Only one Justice has ever been impeached:  Samuel Chase, in 1804-05, but he was acquitted in the Senate.

Democrats need to stop the Scorched Earth tactics they've been employing since Trump was elected.  It's not enough to smear their opponents in hopes they lose an election.  now they want them impeached, kicked out of office, banned from all government service, and/or thrown in prison.

This is what you call "extreme," even though they like to pretend it's Republicans who are the extremists.

After the witch hunts come the Stalinist purges

After the witch hunts come the Stalinist purges

Yeah, this looks like a typical demorat witch hunt in my opinion.

The fact that ur questioning this shows their tactic is working.

Wait till another "violation" is created that targets only certain appointed judges.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It's not a legal violation.  Gifts in the form of "personal hospitality" were not listed in the disclosure rules until last month.  Whether or not the trips should have been disclosed is now in question.  Adding the specific case for "personal hospitality" demonstrates there was no such requirement before last month.  The confusion, ambiguity or question as to that type of gift needing to be disclosed should be enough to shield Thomas (and all the Justices) from impeachment on these grounds.

There's no real means of enforcing these rules for the SCOTUS.  Unlike every other government branch or judicial court, SCOTUS has no stated code of ethics.  That leaves the analysis of what's unethical up to Congress who has the power to codify this practice.

Only one Justice has ever been impeached:  Samuel Chase, in 1804-05, but he was acquitted in the Senate.

Democrats need to stop the Scorched Earth tactics they've been employing since Trump was elected.  It's not enough to smear their opponents in hopes they lose an election.  now they want them impeached, kicked out of office, banned from all government service, and/or thrown in prison.

This is what you call "extreme," even though they like to pretend it's Republicans who are the extremists.

They wont stop until they get what they want. This is why the GOP is on the losing end.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Eliminate all opposition.

By whatever means possible.

This is their agenda.  No objectivity involved.  Over everything else. 

Even legality.

Eliminate all opposition.

By whatever means possible.

This is their agenda.  No objectivity involved.  Over everything else. 

Even legality.

We need to eliminate “them” by whatever means possible. Time for a purge!

It's not a legal violation.  Gifts in the form of "personal hospitality" were not listed in the disclosure rules until last month.  Whether or not the trips should have been disclosed is now in question.  Adding the specific case for "personal hospitality" demonstrates there was no such requirement before last month.  The confusion, ambiguity or question as to that type of gift needing to be disclosed should be enough to shield Thomas (and all the Justices) from impeachment on these grounds.

There's no real means of enforcing these rules for the SCOTUS.  Unlike every other government branch or judicial court, SCOTUS has no stated code of ethics.  That leaves the analysis of what's unethical up to Congress who has the power to codify this practice.

Only one Justice has ever been impeached:  Samuel Chase, in 1804-05, but he was acquitted in the Senate.

Democrats need to stop the Scorched Earth tactics they've been employing since Trump was elected.  It's not enough to smear their opponents in hopes they lose an election.  now they want them impeached, kicked out of office, banned from all government service, and/or thrown in prison.

This is what you call "extreme," even though they like to pretend it's Republicans who are the extremists.

I would really need to sit down and look at the specific laws and ethical regulations to say for certain whether this constitutes any actual violation. However, even if he skated around any actual rule violations, this still makes me uncomfortable when being done by someone on the highest court in the land. I think judges should try to live above reproach and this just seems like it would be something he should have declared without having to be told to declare it by some law. The appearance of impropriety is bad even if there is no actual impropriety.

Remember when the former Honolulu police chief bought a motorcycle from the store that was awarded the contract to sell multiple ATVs to the police department? There may have been no quid pro quo and she may have paid standard market price for the motorcycle but it still looks bad and shouldn't have been done in my opinion.

The fact that ur questioning this shows their tactic is working.

Wait till another "violation" is created that targets only certain appointed judges.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

They are grasping at smoke in the air most of the time but every once in a while they grab onto something tangible. When they do I think we should concede otherwise we lack integrity.
Just as how they never want to give Trump credit for anything good, if we don't give Trump any criticism for anything bad then we are no different than them. (Not making it about Turmp, just using that as an example)

I would really need to sit down and look at the specific laws and ethical regulations to say for certain whether this constitutes any actual violation. However, even if he skated around any actual rule violations, this still makes me uncomfortable when being done by someone on the highest court in the land. I think judges should try to live above reproach and this just seems like it would be something he should have declared without having to be told to declare it by some law. The appearance of impropriety is bad even if there is no actual impropriety.

Remember when the former Honolulu police chief bought a motorcycle from the store that was awarded the contract to sell multiple ATVs to the police department? There may have been no quid pro quo and she may have paid standard market price for the motorcycle but it still looks bad and shouldn't have been done in my opinion.

It's not that complicated.

The impeachment process for a justice is the same as a president.  The House votes on whether to impeach based on the allegations.  They send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, and the Senate holds a trial.

Given that Thomas is the most conservative member of the court and the House is under Republican control, it's more likely than not that any calls for his impeachment will be voted down.

The same people were screaming for Kavanaugh to be impeached as well.  Even with control of the House, they couldn't impeach.

Several Democratic presidential hopefuls are calling for the impeachment of Supreme
Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after a new book provided unreported details of an incident
of alleged sexual misconduct while he was a student at Yale.

Because justices receive lifetime appointments, removing one is harder than just calling up
someone and firing them. In order to remove one, you have to impeach them.

The process is the same as impeaching the president of the United States. The House of
Representatives would vote on whether to impeach the justice in question. If the justice is
impeached, there would be a Senate trial.

The House needs only a simple majority to impeach a Supreme Court justice or any federal
judge. To convict and then remove the justice or judge, the Senate requires a two-thirds majority.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/politics/scotus-impeach/index.html

The Democrats spend more time trying to solidify their party's power through disruption rather than doing their actual jobs.

Did these “grifts” have any relation to any pending SCOTUS cases?

Did these “grifts” have any relation to any pending SCOTUS cases?

You know if they did, that fact would be front and center in the headline.

The people who bring up "just the appearance of impropriety" as the standard also argued that Biden's son's business ventures with foreign adversaries don't prove anything.

 

Even the Chief Justice is disinclined to participate in this witch hunt.

Chief SCOTUS Justice Roberts denies request to testify on ethics amid Thomas reports

Did these “grifts” have any relation to any pending SCOTUS cases?

There have not been any cases mentioned where Thomas' friend is a party. If he were then I think there would be recusal and potential bribery issues for sure. It could just be that the rich guy likes a sympathetic ear to conservative issues. Of course it could be that they are really just good friends as well.

It's not that complicated.

The impeachment process for a justice is the same as a president.  The House votes on whether to impeach based on the allegations.  They send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, and the Senate holds a trial.

My last comment wasn't focusing on removal though, it was focusing on integrity.

There have not been any cases mentioned where Thomas' friend is a party. If he were then I think there would be recusal and potential bribery issues for sure. It could just be that the rich guy likes a sympathetic ear to conservative issues. Of course it could be that they are really just good friends as well.

Other articles stated that there are no cases linked to his friend.  Not yet anyways until they create 1.

"youre a GOP and theres a 2A case pending, thus u bribed the judge."

My last comment wasn't focusing on removal though, it was focusing on integrity.

The topic is about impeachment, which if followed through to a verdict, ought to include expulsion as a punishment.

If not, then the impeachment was not serious.  it was an unwarranted waste of tax payer money and resources -- nothing more than a political attack.

If not, then the impeachment was not serious.  it was an unwarranted waste of tax payer money and resources -- nothing more than a political attack.

We have seen what they've done to Trump and anyone who helps him.  So the next logical step is to do the same to any justice who doesn't fall in line and violate the constitution for them.  Right now, they're probing.

At what point does Brown Shirts come into mind for the rest of the people?

If the shoe was on the other side and George Soros was giving free trips and perks to a liberal judge would the right say anything?  Regardless of politics, ethics should be followed. There's no room for corruption.  We are not communists.

Chief justice Roberts is staying quiet on the issue.  That tells me it's common practice for the justices to be wined and dined by people with and without an agenda.

If Roberts entertains this BS, they will all be caught up in the flood.

Just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet a dollar.