Wow. Mike Pence once kind of sort of stood up against his friends to kind of do the right thing so maybe he has a point
Billionaire Harlan Crow Also Bankrolled GOP Lawmakers Blocking SCOTUS Ethics Reform A new analysis shows Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have received more than $450,000 from the same GOP megadonor who has lavished Justice Clarence Thomas with undisclosed gifts. Spoiler KENNY STANCIL May 09, 2023 asking Harlan Crow—the billionaire GOP megadonor who has secretly showered U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts since the mid-1990s—to provide a full accounting of his financial ties to Thomas and any other judges on the high court. It comes as "no surprise" that none of the panel's nine Republicans signed the letter, Accountable.US declared Tuesday, because they have collectively accepted nearly half a million dollars in campaign cash from Crow since the turn of the century, as a new analysis from the watchdog group shows. Last month, one day after ProPublica published its bombshell report on Crow's under-the-table funding of near-annual luxury vacations for Thomas—the first of what would become many revelations about the two men's financial relationship—Accountable.US calculated that the current Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee received $453,300 from Crow between 2001 and 2022. The group revised that figure up to $457,000 on Tuesday in light of a $3,700 donation Crow made to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) earlier this year. The following is a list of Crow's total contributions to the nine GOP lawmakers on the panel as well as their affiliated PACs and joint fundraising committees, in descending order: Cornyn: $294,800 Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa): $46,600 Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.): $23,900 Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas): $23,500 Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.): $20,600 Sen. Mike Lee (Utah): $19,500 Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.): $13,400 Sen. John Kennedy (La.): $8,300 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.): $6,400 "There should be bipartisan outrage about the undisclosed gifts and travel billionaire megadonor Harlan Crow has given Justice Thomas," Accountable.US president Kyle Herrig said last month. "Senate Judiciary Republicans should join their Democratic colleagues to act. However, their silence so far may be because they have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Crow as well." "The highest court in the land should have the highest ethical standards," he added. "When it doesn't, Congress should exert its oversight authority." Not only have Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with apparent conflicts of interest refused to join their Democratic colleagues in trying to establish enforceable ethics rules for the Supreme Court, but they have attempted to downplay the seriousness of the court's growing crisis of legitimacy. Several of the panel's GOP members used last week's hearing on proposed Supreme Court ethics reforms—a hearing Chief Justice John Roberts refused to testify at despite mounting evidence of possible corruption involving Thomas and others, including Roberts himself as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch—as "an opportunity for political grandstanding and performative outrage," Accountable.US noted Tuesday. "Cornyn claimed Congress did not have the authority to regulate the courts due to separation of powers—a claim that was disproven by an expert witness that testified at the hearing," Accountable.US pointed out. "Cruz claimed the hearing was not about judicial ethics, but instead, was an attempt to attack Justice Thomas for having rich friends." Lee went so far as to say that "when this chapter of American history is written, those who attack Justice Thomas today will be justly dismissed as intolerant bigots." Meanwhile, Graham, the ranking member, accused the left of trying to "delegitimize the court and cherry-pick examples to make a point." Echoing his right-wing ally, Grassley argued that recent revelations are part of a long-term effort to "cast doubt on certain judges and justices, all because the left is opposed to recent court rulings." Kennedy, for his part, denounced "attacks on conservative justices" as "targeted" and "exaggerated" and dismissed proposed Supreme Court ethics rules as "unnecessary." Two days after right-wing senators accused reform advocates of launching what Cruz called a "smear campaign" against Thomas, ProPublicarevealed that Crow also paid tens of thousands of dollars for the jurist's grandnephew to attend a pair of elite private schools. This came after earlier exposés about Crow footing the bill for yacht trips, buying and remodeling Thomas' mother's home, and more. Given the mounting evidence of potential connections between Crow's gifts, which Thomas sought to keep hidden, and Thomas' inclination to rule in ways favorable to his superrich benefactor, calls for the judge to resign or face impeachment are growing. Not only does Crow have links to numerous right-wing groups involved in Supreme Court cases since Thomas was first confirmed to the bench in 1991, but his own real estate company, Crow Holdings, was directly implicated in a 2021 case before the court. As The Lever reported last month, Thomas voted to end the Covid-era federal eviction moratorium after Crow Holdings called the lifesaving policy a threat to its "profit margins." Now, as a group of New York City landlords prepares to ask the high court to overturn local rent control laws condemned by Crow Holdings—a move that would endanger rent stabilization efforts nationwide—"there is no indication" Thomas would recuse himself, the outlet noted. Moreover, as Common Dreamsreported last week, an Americans for Tax Fairness analysis of campaign finance data shows that after Thomas provided a deciding vote in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Crow family's average annual campaign contributions soared by 862%, from $163,241 before 2010 to $1.57 million since. This massive increase, which is partly reflected in Crow's donations to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, underscores how the 5-4 ruling that effectively legalized unlimited political spending has strengthened the wealthy's ability to shape electoral outcomes, further undermining U.S. democracy. On Tuesday, The Leverargued that the main goal of Crow and other billionaires who provide gifts and outside money to members of the Supreme Court is not to obtain certain decisions in specific cases, given that the court's right-wing ideologues would likely rule conservatively anyway, but to prevent GOP appointees from becoming more liberal over time—a phenomenon that has occurred in the past. Alluding to Monday's letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), The Washington Post reported that "if Crow ignores the request for information by the committee's May 22 deadline, it's unclear what Durbin's next move would be." The San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is returning to Capitol Hill after an illness kept her away from the Senate since February. Feinstein's absence has left Durbin without a majority on the panel, enabling the GOP minority to impede action, but her return would open up options. In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Durbin did not rule out the possibility of a subpoena, saying that "everything is on the table." In addition to the implementation of robust ethics rules, progressives have called for other far-reaching changes to disempower the country's "rogue" Supreme Court justices, including expanding the court. Seats have been added seven times throughout U.S. history. Polling data shows that public approval of the nation's chief judicial body has decreased sharply in the months since its reactionary supermajority eliminated the constitutional right to abortion care, among other harmful and unpopular decisions. According to a survey conducted last month, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults no longer have confidence in the high court.
God forbid anyone investigates the Justices. We can’t have people questioning the legitimacy of the court.
Here I was thinking ol ginni was just trying to overthrow the government because she was a bigoted conspiracy theorist. How naive
Put me on SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan was worried about the ethics of accepting bagels from friends, while Clarence Thomas was enjoying expensive vacations paid for by a GOP megadonor: report https://www.businessinsider.com/sup...-bagels-clarence-thomas-paid-vacations-2023-5
Say what you will about Thomas, he's detestable, but he at least understands that the system and court is all bullshit and is squeezing this for as much personal enrichment as possible. Libs who believe in muh institutions are such marks.
I watched this last night. I knew a bit about Thomas's upbringing because of my grandpa. But I didn't know much about Virginia Thomas. The comments at their wedding by her family members don't really surprise me. However, it would have been funny to be in the room with Thomas's college classmates when this whole ordeal went down (apparently, when Thomas was loosely into Malcolm X/Black Panther movement, he was against interracial marriage).
Yea they do a good job. Watergate was great. David Duke was great. Clinton, Iraq, Roe v Wade, all great. As big of a fan as I am of them, the Biggie/Pac one was the only let down. Probably bc I already knew most of it so I wasn't learning anything. I learned a ton in the others.
The Frontline doc solidified how weak of a moral compass Thomas has had for most of his life. The same folks that made fun of him during seminary school for being black or speaking Gullah used him later in life to perpetuate the idea that blacks were inferior and just wanted handouts when he was made head of the EEOC. His self-hatred has eaten him alive, and instead of seeking some therapy, he's decided to rain terror on an already fucked up American justicial system. I can't say that Virginia Thomas's god-awful ideology made him this way. She probably just made him channel his powers into her passion projects. I do, however, believe that colorism within the American black community severally fucked him up more than anything else.
Here would be my response. Art I Sec VIII necessary and proper clause is a broad mother fucker. Art III Sec I says Justices serve “during good behavior”. Art I Sec II gives the House the power of impeachment and Art I Sec III gives the Senate the power to convict. Impeachment came about in England pre-war to keep the aristocracy in check. Art II Sec III “high crimes and misdemeanors” at the time of the writing of the constitution absolutely was understood to mean abuse of power among other bad governmental actions, and not acts necessarily criminal in nature. As such, Congress absolutely has constitutional authority to legislate an ethics code on the SCOTUS. In fact, not only does it have the authority to do so, but by doing so it will be more clearly laying out the constitutional expectations of “good behavior” for Justices before actions will lead to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. And, as such, Congress can drag Crow’s ass in to testify with threat of contempt of Congress. Don’t back down. Don’t defer to SCOTUS in any way.
Slow Burn Clarence Thomas https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vd2F0ZXJnYXRl?ep=14
I'm trying my best to not let what I know about him now cloud what I'm learning but man some of this is just so on the nose.
my knowledge of him started at his hearings. My folks (RWNJs) thought a Republican Scotus justice from Ga was awesome so they vilified Anita Hill. So yeah learning about his upbringing is interesting. Holy Cross gave us Bill Simmons and Clarence Thomas. Tough look
This is the first series I've listened to or watched on Clarance that even references his grandmother. Good on Joel for digging deep into this with Clarence's mom. Behind The Bastards did go into detail on why Clarence's grandfather didn't take in his sister. His grandfather saw no use for women (He even abandoned Clarence's mom). This puts in perspective Clarence's comments about women over the years. Especially black women (At a 1980 conservative conference, he called his sister a welfare queen and entitled).
His dad being a piece of shit doesn't excuse him being a piece of shit. Not saying you're saying that, just wanted to say that.
What's next, companies being able to sue employees for missing time because it hurts the companies productivity?