Political So now what

[glockman]

Get off your "it's OK if Liberals do it" high horse.

Obviously the proposed reforms apply across the board.

He is some cases a 30 second search reveals.

Report: Harlan Crow Has a Stake in 4 SCOTUS Cases — and Thomas Hasn’t Recused

Crow’s financial interest in the cases, as uncovered in new exclusive research, could sway Thomas’s decisions.

truthout.org

Supreme Court Did Review Case Involving Harlan Crow—Contradicting Clarence Thomas’s Claim

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm suing a company that was part of the Crow family real estate portfolio in 2004.

www.forbes.com

Your 30 second search provided proof of what Stephen is saying.
One of the conflicts that they called out is Chevron deference. How do you claim that is a conflict for Thomas and only him?



EDIT: Dude, did you even read these? The first link pretty much states that any and all cases the involve real estate or wealth are a conflict because Harlan Crow owns real estate and is wealthy.
Here are the cliff notes
Conflict one- Crow may benefit from Chevron Deference because it affects 20k agency rules and one of those deal with fair housing.
Conflict two - Crow may benefit from removing the eviction moratorium enacted during covid because one of his companies filed 122 evictions.
Conflict three- Crow may benefit from changes to the ADA because he owns an apartment complex that was sued and had to install ramps and pay $75k in damages.
Conflict four - Crow will benefit from a law that would ban creating wealth taxes because he is wealthy.

This is the proof of conflict of interest you are touting?

 

[Trate D]

Get off your "it's OK if Liberals do it" high horse.

Obviously the proposed reforms apply across the board.

I don't think he’s riding the high horse. I think he’s just curious why those are your only examples? Why not include allegations from both side’s? It only takes 30 seconds…

 

[Stephen]

I am amazed that any one thinks it is ok for a Justice to accept "gifts". Do you really believe the bribers. O sorry gift givers gave thousands or tens of thousands out of their true friendship and kindness. I would have a hard time accepting a gift of those values from any friend regardless of their wealth. Something is not right. They are too powerful and vital to the country to have any stink or even the appearance of stink on them. Right or left does not matter. they are paid enough. If they need more they can work elsewhere

Its asinine to believe that powerful people aren't going to have friends in high places and vice versa. I mean literally look at your own life, have you not had "friends" just because they might provide some benefit for you even though they might have some questionable characteristics? Don't lie to yourself, of course you have. Extrapolate that out to the level of a Senator, President or Supreme Court Justice. Its inevitable in this place we call "the real world".

It sure would be nice if everything was as squeaky clean as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but realpolitik's a bitch I suppose?

 

[Stephen]

Get off your "it's OK if Liberals do it" high horse.

Nah, its a good view up here.

Obviously the proposed reforms apply across the board.

He is some cases a 30 second search reveals.

Report: Harlan Crow Has a Stake in 4 SCOTUS Cases — and Thomas Hasn’t Recused

Crow’s financial interest in the cases, as uncovered in new exclusive research, could sway Thomas’s decisions.

truthout.org

Supreme Court Did Review Case Involving Harlan Crow—Contradicting Clarence Thomas’s Claim

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm suing a company that was part of the Crow family real estate portfolio in 2004.

www.forbes.com

Yaknow, I have a friend, who has a cousin, who's sisters second husband's niece met Kevin Bacon once.

 

[notajeep]

Its asinine to believe that powerful people aren't going to have friends in high places and vice versa. I mean literally look at your own life, have you not had "friends" just because they might provide some benefit for you even though they might have some questionable characteristics? Don't lie to yourself, of course you have. Extrapolate that out to the level of a Senator, President or Supreme Court Justice. Its inevitable in this place we call "the real world".

It sure would be nice if everything was as squeaky clean as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but realpolitik's a bitch I suppose?

Isn't this the REAL reason we're friends Stephen?

 

[Stephen]

Isn't this the REAL reason we're friends Stephen?

I deny everything.

 

[Houndoc]

Its asinine to believe that powerful people aren't going to have friends in high places and vice versa. I mean literally look at your own life, have you not had "friends" just because they might provide some benefit for you even though they might have some questionable characteristics? Don't lie to yourself, of course you have. Extrapolate that out to the level of a Senator, President or Supreme Court Justice. Its inevitable in this place we call "the real world".

It sure would be nice if everything was as squeaky clean as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but realpolitik's a bitch I suppose?

The issues isn't who their friends are.

It is what those friends give and that those friends or their companies have cases before the court.

I find it rather surprising and disappointing that people who generally distrust government and those in power see no problem with Supreme Court justices receiving large gifts and expensive travel and not refusing themselves when their is a real or preceived conflict of interest.

 

[Houndoc]

And note the second link that involved a company Crow was part owner of when the case was reviewed by SCOTUS.

 

[DAA]

..have you not had "friends" ... even though they might have some questionable characteristics?

This describes anyone who considers me a friend.

- DAA

 

[glockman]

The issues isn't who their friends are.

It is what those friends give and that those friends or their companies have cases before the court.

I find it rather surprising and disappointing that people who generally distrust government and those in power see no problem with Supreme Court justices receiving large gifts and expensive travel and not refusing themselves when their is a real or preceived conflict of interest.

But you haven't provided any proof of that happening. Your proof is that Thomas has a friend who owns companies so Chevron Deference is a conflict of interest!

That's like saying you shouldn't be able to run for city council because the city council makes laws about businesses and you are a business owner in the city. That is the level of conflict you are citing and it's pervasive enough that EVERY POLITICIAN AND JUDGE would have to recuse themselves from every case.

Every judge who is powerful enough to reach the Supreme court will have powerful friends. Every case seen by the Supreme Court will have far reaching implications that can and will affect most business owners. The cases you are calling out, Wealth tax, Chevron Deference, ADA changes, you don't think all the sitting judges have conflicts at the same level? Sonia Sotomayor is just a home body with no wealthy friends or friends who own companies or real estate? Is that your position?
At least Thomas isn't requiring public institutions to buy 11,000 copies of his book before he speaks there. You will notice at the bottom of this article that public institutions, like colleges repeatedly leverage Supreme Court Justices by inviting rich donors to hob knob at events with the Justices so they will get more donations from the wealthy, so it would seem this type of relationship with the ultra rich is not only common but sought after.

AP investigation reveals potential conflicts of interest for Supreme Court justices

Emails and other documents show that Supreme Court staff members have been directly engaged in facilitating book sales by asking schools how many copies they want to buy and by helping to arrange the purchase of mass quantities.

www.pbs.org

 

[anderson750]

Also can anyone point to a decision where a judge with a claimed conflict was a vote to put a decision in the majority for someone?

 

[Houndoc]

@glockman , it is entertaining how your defense of any conservative is simple what about someone else.

Absolutely ethics standards should apply across the board.

And I will stand by my point that a judge should not rule on a case their spouse is at all connected to.

Yes, the wealthy and powerful are well connected to other wealthy, powerful individuals. That does not mean they need to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from those friends.

In contrast, while in vet school I organized a presentation to students by a member of Congress. He refused to allow our organization to buy his dinner before the meeting to avoid appearance of conflict of interest or campaign violations.

 

[glockman]

I'm not defending conservatives. I'm pointing out the absurdity in the "easy to find" evidence you provided. None of those cases have a specific conflict of interest based on Thomas' relationship to Crow. You told Stephen to get off his high horse, then provided totally bunk evidence and condescendingly stated how easy it was to find.

You have repeatedly picked up whatever the talking point for the democratic party is and ran with it. I don't know if it's because you like being a contrarian in this group or if that is your actual political opinion.

I have repeatedly pointed out that I want smaller government with less power over me because I believe both parties and the majority of politicians have zero interest in doing what is right past the first year or two at most. What I will defend is the constitution as it sits. The person who proposed these term limits is a life long politician. You don't see a conflict of interest there? You think a guy who has been in federal politics for 40 years proposing term limits for judges now that the court is stacked against his party is a move to improve the country? That is to say if you believe this was actually Biden proposing it, which it isn't, he isn't capable enough at this point. So who is pushing this proposal?

I find it entertaining that you are in favor of changing the constitution based on allegations of hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to a judge but don't seem to want to remove the president based on allegations of millions of dollars paid to him by a country we are sending billions to.

Here is my political stance. They all suck. Any proposal to take an ounce of my freedom is an attempt to get them more power and more money. Any attempt to change the constitution is an attempt by either side to tilt the scale in their favor.

 

[Stephen]

The person who proposed these term limits is a life long politician. You don't see a conflict of interest there? You think a guy who has been in federal politics for 40 years proposing term limits for judges now that the court is stacked against his party is a move to improve the country? That is to say if you believe this was actually Biden proposing it, which it isn't, he isn't capable enough at this point. So who is pushing this proposal?

The even crazier thing is that until a week ago, Biden was one of the biggest opponents to court packing and term limits for justices. Why the sudden change indeed?

 

[Stephen]

Interesting angle on the ethical issues of the 18-year term limits I hadn't thought of here:

The Ethical Danger of 18-Year Supreme Court Terms | National Review

It’s not a crazy idea. But it’s still a bad one.

www.nationalreview.com

A key paragraph:

But if the justices go in knowing they can serve 18 years and may well be leaving the bench before they are ready for retirement, the whole incentive structure changes. It becomes much more enticing to line up employment after the Court in which the justices can really cash in. That’s exactly the revolving-door dynamic we see so much of elsewhere in the government, where members of Congress and executive-branch appointees make policy with one eye on where they will land in a lobbying gig or with a defense contractor or some other benefactor. Justices who are thinking about who will employ them next are a much larger potential ethical threat than anything we’ve seen in recent decades.

 

[glockman]

Interesting angle on the ethical issues of the 18-year term limits I hadn't thought of here:

The Ethical Danger of 18-Year Supreme Court Terms | National Review

It’s not a crazy idea. But it’s still a bad one.

www.nationalreview.com

A key paragraph:

This happens all over the government. My dad spent 35 years at the FAA. You know where all the FAA directors go when they retire? Boeing or another major aviation company. They know the in's and out's of the system so they can assist their new employer to exploit it. They usually make 4-10x what they made in their government job too. Again, the money wins and there is no free system to eliminate that. Every attempt just gets leveraged by the richest, smartest and most motivated or most corrupt entity. The fewer levers there are to force multiply for those people the better.

 

[anderson750]

I'm not defending conservatives. I'm pointing out the absurdity in the "easy to find" evidence you provided. None of those cases have a specific conflict of interest based on Thomas' relationship to Crow. You told Stephen to get off his high horse, then provided totally bunk evidence and condescendingly stated how easy it was to find.

You have repeatedly picked up whatever the talking point for the democratic party is and ran with it. I don't know if it's because you like being a contrarian in this group or if that is your actual political opinion.

I have repeatedly pointed out that I want smaller government with less power over me because I believe both parties and the majority of politicians have zero interest in doing what is right past the first year or two at most. What I will defend is the constitution as it sits. The person who proposed these term limits is a life long politician. You don't see a conflict of interest there? You think a guy who has been in federal politics for 40 years proposing term limits for judges now that the court is stacked against his party is a move to improve the country? That is to say if you believe this was actually Biden proposing it, which it isn't, he isn't capable enough at this point. So who is pushing this proposal?

I find it entertaining that you are in favor of changing the constitution based on allegations of hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to a judge but don't seem to want to remove the president based on allegations of millions of dollars paid to him by a country we are sending billions to.

Here is my political stance. They all suck. Any proposal to take an ounce of my freedom is an attempt to get them more power and more money. Any attempt to change the constitution is an attempt by either side to tilt the scale in their favor.

Can I request a mic drop emoji?

 

[bobdog]

Its asinine to believe that powerful people aren't going to have friends in high places and vice versa. I mean literally look at your own life, have you not had "friends" just because they might provide some benefit for you even though they might have some questionable characteristics? Don't lie to yourself, of course you have. Extrapolate that out to the level of a Senator, President or Supreme Court Justice. Its inevitable in this place we call "the real world".

It sure would be nice if everything was as squeaky clean as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but realpolitik's a bitch I suppose?

That is insulting. It is not asinine and I have never had friends to benefit me in any other way than friendship.

I think what is asinine is to think bribes are ok.

 

[Stephen]

That is insulting. It is not asinine and I have never had friends to benefit me in any other way than friendship.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. It must be nice to never have run into a situation where the only reason someone wants to be your friend is because you can offer them something they want or need. That is truly a rare life that you have lived if that is the case.

I think what is asinine is to think bribes are ok.

I don't see anyone saying that they think bribes are OK. I was simply explaining that realpolitik dictates that people, particularly those in power, are inevitably going to be confronted with people and groups who are out to win them over for their cause. Do I think that's "OK", no. Do I accept that that is the way American politics work, particularly at the highest level? Yes. Would I like to see that change? Sure. But it's not going to change to any significant extent in my lifetime, so you have to examine the situation rationally and make your decision based on the facts at hand.

 

[glockman]

That is insulting. It is not asinine and I have never had friends to benefit me in any other way than friendship.

So you have never known someone that you weren't very close with but you did things together? I have friends that I ride MTB's with, friends I shoot with, friends I Jeep with and friends I ride dirt bikes with. In each case, I am pretty much only friends with them because of the benefit of doing those activities together. If they stopped the shared interest activity, we would no longer be friends. Almost everyone has these types of friendships and only a small handful of friends that you are close with for other reasons, not because you share an interest, like your friend from childhood. That is the type of relationship I believe Stephen it talking about, not seeking out a person who has a welder so you can befriend them to use their welder.