Clarence Thomas’ Latest Pay-to-Play Scandal Finally Connects All the Dots
slate.com
ProPublica released a new report on Friday detailing Justice Clarence Thomas’ close relationship with the Koch brothers with previously undisclosed and extraordinarily damning new details.
According to ProPublica, the justice developed a friendship with the Kochs as they were funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into right-wing causes, many of which ended up before the Supreme Court. The brothers then used Thomas to raise money for their sprawling network, inviting him to speak at “donor events” that brought in millions of dollars.
He disclosed none of these activities on his annual disclosure forms, an obvious violation of federal ethics law.
So before, we could only assume from the preponderance of evidence that Thomas is corrupt as shit. Now we know it for a fact. And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices. They also own most of congress.
End legalized bribery now.
Let's end the Koch family fortune while we are at it.
Pretty sure you'd have to end the Koch family to do that. I wouldn't stop you.
It's just the Koch brother now. Happily one of the wretched fucks died a few years ago.
If I recall right there's 3 brothers. Two were right wing scumbags, but I think the third wanted absolutely nothing to do with any of it
It's actually not legal to bribe a government official and charging the Kochs and others would be an excellent start (since going after a SC Justice is apparently difficult)
Well of course not, thats why they're not called "bribes", they're called "campaign donations".
Are they campaign donations for the next time Thomas has to run for his lifetime appointed office?
Problem is the people who are taking the bribery also get to determine the legality of it. SCOTUS could say that bribing a justice is totally legal and the only recourse would be a new amendment. Even then, I'm not sure what would stop them from ignoring the new amendment in their rulings.
The problem with the court granting itself judicial review was that it didn't come with checks and balances like the rest of the government functions.
At minimum, it’s time to investigate Clarence Thomas. When the Democrats retake the house (hopefully in 2024 after the Republicans shutdown the government over nothing), they need to begin impeachment hearings in the House. I don’t care if the Senate will never remove him.
That's right. You don't skip your responsibilities because you think another link down the chain won't fulfill their duties. You do your job and make whoever skips out on their responsibility to put their name to it. Doesn't matter if nothing practical comes of it. Integrity and faith in "the system" demands no less.
He and is going to take every dime they can hustle and sign off on any "Supreme Court decision" that Koch's lawyers hand to him.
And he's not even going to pretend to feel bad about it because there's not a god-danged anyone is going to do to stop it. He's a whore, bought and paid for.
That's a bit offensive to whores. They only sell their bodies, he's selling democracy.
He's selling the body politic.
Right so he's more of a pimp
I practice this like a sport, met Donald Trump and he froze up
Standing on his Bentley yelling, "Pimps down, hoes up"
~The Coup
I love the USA, but I'm surprised at how passive the average American has become. Thomas is actively making your lives worse in exchange for bribes. Where are the mass protests? SCOTUS will do nothing about it, and neither will Congress, if you don't protest.
Half our population is insane actually
This sounds like a joke but it actually isn't.
About 30% are openly in some kind of weird suicide pact, and the other 20% will vote for the same people as them, just while furrowing their eyebrows sometimes
*of voters
This is why the police force in America is equipped like an army, to quickly and violently suppress any protests. Then when you have a prison stay on your record, no more voting, struggling to get a job or even survive.
Where were they on jan6?
In the crowd...
Title 18 section 1507 makes it illegal to protest outside a judges home, and they have indicated they will use the same law to prevent protests outside the court.
Don't be surprised.
Everyone here is either indoctrinated enough to be here for it, powerful enough to be above it, or disassociated enough to endure it.
It's just what happens after 22 years of social shock doctrine (I made that term up. I will not elaborate. Ama closed).
Naomi Klein beat you to it by about 15 years.
(You got the reference.)
Of course, none of this actually matters in the slightest unless those ethics violations have consequences.
This POS assaulted Anita Hill and never should've been affirmed.
And biden called her a liar
He's a donkey. At least he's not a traitorous criminal against the countries democracy.
Clarence Thomas is clearly not just a threat to the integrity of the court but to the entire United States. If we are going to have a functional democracy, he needs to be removed from office and imprisoned.
murica is winning and winning and winning.
So does this mean we get a redo on all the laws he influenced? Since like, clearly he was cheating the whole time and has made unjust decisions?
Nah it just means he keeps on keeping on with the debauchery until he keels over sometime in the next ten years.
Banana republic
Oligarchy
Kakistocracy
I've seen this term thrown around on Lemmy in different contexts, so I looked it up and the wikipedia page gives a very specific definition of that term relating to a type of economic situation. I don't think that particular definition applies in this case, or does it?
It's less the economic definition than it is this:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/banana-republic
noun - Usually Disparaging.
a small, poor country, often reliant on a single export or limited resource, governed by an authoritarian regime and characterized by corruption and economic exploitation by foreign corporations conspiring with local government officials.
any exploitative government that functions poorly for its citizenry while disproportionately benefiting a corrupt elite group or individual.
It literally doesn't matter. The republicans don't care and they've gerrymandered control away from the democrats so it can't change.
Even if democrats had control it would just be more of the same bullshit with some sugar coated feel good nonsense that still funnels wealth to the real owners of the country while appearing to make a difference.
What do you do with the democratic process when the same people control the judges, the legislative branch, and the executive branch? The answer is nothing. You just continue on getting f'd like the cows we all are.
This is not a nation of the people, it's a nation of the owners.
There's more than one way to run a democracy, and more than one way to tally votes; it just so happens that the way we're currently doing it —First Past The Post Voting— is utter shit; it's the lynchpin of the two party system and systemic corruption.
If we commit grassroots focus to electoral reforms in favor of Ranked Choice Voting then all these insidious actors will find power to be much more slippery.
I want this but I don't see any way of it happening in current republican controlled states. Seems really difficult in democrat ones too.
1492 Project
I feel like every case justice thomas was a part off and had a vote on the winning rule should be thrown out.
We need to look forward to 2024, take back the House and get a 60 vote majority in the Senate, along with the White House...maybe then, things will change.
I don't see any scenario where Democrats take 60 seats in the Senate. The states have polarized so much, and the system favors the Republican states too much.
Unlike the House, Senate races are state wide and can't be gerrymandered.
It's going to take a major effort focused on reforming the Supreme Court to flip those seats, but looking at 2020, we flipped BOTH seats in Georgia which is about as red as it gets.
The existing boundaries of the states is their built-in gerrymander. One voters opinion in Wyoming counts 50 times a Californian.
That's true. We just have to work on getting through the disenfranchisment.
Yup. I, personally, want 100% vote by mail. We've been doing it in my state since 2000, it's safe, effective, results in high turnout and engagement, really nothing to hate.
Oh, except Republicans lose when more people vote. ;)
That didn't work the last time why would it work this time?
Because we didn't do it last time.
You people make it sound like Thomas is somehow responsible for the slew of right-wing decisions of the court and not the fact that trump got 3 judges in there
They are both problems, but if blatant corruption concerns you less than which way they naturally lean, you might be a partisan moron.
The republicans aren't calling for him to step down so this is partisan politics, not an actual call for ethics reform.
That is because one party at least tries to be ethical most of the time and the other doesn't even have the courtesy to pretend. Ethics shouldn't be a party issue but here we are.
Both parties have a multitude of sketchy relationships, and a shady past. Manchins a democrat and he's the biggest sellout for Big Oil
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/20/joe-manchin-big-oil-democratic-senator
And yet one side is clearly worse than the other
Nobody's falling for your crap here
There are like a dozen stories on the front page right now about Democrats running against Menendez and/or calling for him to resign for corruption. Nobody's falling for this "both sides" crap anymore.
Manchin is the most Republican of the Democrats and he's the best you could come up with when looking for Democratic corruption?
Kinda proving your opponent's point here
Anti-corruption should be bipartisan.
But it isn't. Conservatives aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in winning. So act accordingly.
And Trump should have been removed when he was impeached.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html
Clarence Thomas has been a skeevy moron for a loooong time. Of course Trump's three appointments are why certain cases are getting pushed to SCOTUS, and why they're being ruled on the way they are, and I don't think anyone is trying to put that on Thomas alone.
The court has shifted hard right, and Thomas is corrupt.
Did I say he wasn't? The fact that he's being targeted alone is the issue I have, there's 0 articles posted here talking about any other judge
Oh shit, do you have evidence of other justices engaging in a similar level of corruption?? I'm very interested to see any articles or evidence you have to that effect.
Otherwise engage with the topic at hand, which is Thomas and the Koch brothers.
whatabout...
Howabout you grow up?
How about if you have evidence or concerns of other judges, you tell us and we can add them to the list?
I've seen Alito come up a time or two, especially in the context of his insistence that there are no checks on the judicial branch. But he's been in some comprimising ethical situations like Thomas has, too.
People are only able to post here about news that is reported. The dominos are falling fast on Thomas. I'd bet that there is some kind of investigation already going on into Thomas' and other SCOTUS justices around unethical payments, and that so much is being discovered about Thomas that the presumed investigation will become public quite soon. The other justices? Maybe they're being looked at very closely, too, but their dominos aren't falling as fast.
We don't know exactly why so many details about Thomas' receiving payments under the table are reaching the media to be reported on, but somebody is digging, and they're digging like it's their job, because it very likely is. There's a lot that is not publicly known, so quit acting like randos on the internet should be posting news stories that don't exist. Or if they do exist, post them your fucking self.
Clarence had like a 15 year head start on the supreme Court. It's going to take Sam a little while to catch up.
it's almost like having appointed supreme court judges without term limits is a colossally bad idea
Like many things, the core concept was good for the time.. To try to insulate the court from unstable politics and presidential whims, in the interests of a stable legal system that doesnt have to be afraid of being replaced when they displease the president.
its just no one had the foresight to see that one side would betray the country 200 years in the future and turn the court into a corrupt, bought and paid for factory from which the undermining and destruction of democracy could be launched.
The Supreme Court was thrown into chaos because republicans refused to appoint any justices under Obama (Edit. I neglected to specify in his last year, Thanks to the next poster for pointing that out), This giving them more than enough picks under their guy to permanantly damage the court and skew it forever in their favor short of radical action.
I don't think "in his last year" matters. That's some calvinball nonsense McConnell pulled out of his ass to justify grinding the function of his branch of government to a halt and everyone just... went along with it. The year isn't what mattered, what mattered was that Obama was a black Democratic president and McConnell thought he could get away with it.
Now, now, Obama DID get Sotomayor and Kagan. McConnell only blocked Merrick Garland.
That being said, in my lifetime, Democratic Presidents have only put FIVE members on the court, Republicans got 15. Carter is the one who drew a blank.
Nixon/Ford got as many in their two terms as all the Democrats since then COMBINED.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
Kagan, Elena - Obama
Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden
Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
Stevens, John Paul - Ford
O'Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump
You are right. I forgot to specify in his last year, that is entirely on me.
A lot of the shit Thomas has slipped into his writing over the years has been used to justify the worst parts of the recent terms.
Thomas is the most right-wing of the current justices, so much so that he has actually (partially) dissented when the other right-wingers don't go far enough for his tastes.
One of the others will write something, and he'll come in with a concurrence and try to take it so much further, and he does it every single time he's not given the majority opinion.
So you're saying keep Thomas on the court because he's done such a good job?
Whare are yoi getting that from?
Thomas is the one we have smoking gun evidence of corruption for.