Supreme Shenanigans

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

searcher said:
Ebony, ivory screwing America in perfect harmony.....................

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has for more than two decades accepted luxury trips nearly every year from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow without reporting them on financial disclosure forms, ProPublica reports.

In a lengthy story published Thursday the nonprofit investigative journalism organization catalogs various trips Thomas has taken aboard Crow's yacht and private jet as well as to Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks. A 2019 trip to Indonesia the story detailed could have cost more than $500,000 had Thomas chartered the plane and yacht himself, ProPublica reported.

Click to expand...

That's a racist article. Two can play this game.
 
Oooh! Oooh!

Thomas out with RICH....WHITE....RAY-CYST....Wepubwiccans!

Thomas be a WHITE SUPREMICIST!

And those waycyst Wepubwiccans, need to be FORBIDDEN to associate with blacks!

STAMP OUT RACISM...WITH SOCIAL SEGREGATION!

Slavery is Freedom!
 
The recent and not altogether surprising revelation that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel accommodations paid for by a prominent Republican donor — Thomas and his wife, Ginni, a right-wing activist and pro-Trump zealot, apparently do not spend their entire vacation in an RV — has once again prompted calls for reform of America's highest court. Thomas's evident disdain for ethical standards, which includes his blithe attitude toward his wife's activism, has contributed to the Supreme Court's steadily declining approval ratings. To critics, this is simply another example of the court's commitment to a partisan agenda rather than the dispassionate interpretation of the law.

 
Sure. Legislated by CON gress.

Which will be repealed once the Left has an solid majority, perhaps an exclusive hold on the Court.d

We need term limits on EVERY office and position in the FedGov - and it needs to be put in the Constitution, that it's not able to be repealed by whim of a change in majority after an election.

And since Washington cannot reform itself, it will only be sent to the States out of an Article V Convention of State delegates.
 

Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose 2014 real estate deal with GOP megadonor, ProPublica report finds​


Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose a 2014 real estate deal he made with a GOP megadonor, according to a ProPublica report published Thursday.

The deal involved the sale of three properties in Savannah, Georgia, that were owned by Thomas and his relatives to the megadonor, Harlan Crow, according to ProPublica, which said that tax and property records showed that Crow made the purchases through one of his companies for a total of $133,363.

But Thomas “never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties,” the report said, noting that ethics law experts told the outlet that his failure to report it “appears to be a violation of the law.”

More:

 
As per usual, the RINO wing of the Uniparty is gonna let the kooks win.

They've corrupted the FBI, CIA, CDC, even NASA. Now they're gonna destroy SCOTUS.
 
What does it take to have a Justice recuse themself from a case. A belief in something greater than themselves or a lot of knowledge about any given subject. If that is the case then every Justice should recuse themself on every case that comes before them. After all they are lawyers and lawyers and the law clerks know more about the law than the majority of our population. After all remember the old quote "To much knowledge is a dangerous thing". Given that perhaps we should do away with all courts and justices. Let disputes be decided by the weight of public opinion. A lot of people would be woken up to something that they may not like. Then we will see and learn something about free speech. In that area you could be right and judged wrong.

What should we do?
 
^^^^ Term limits for everyone in politics & judgeships.
- No lifetime appointments to any politician or judge.
- You want to be a supreme court judge, run for the office and let the people pick who they want.
- Full financial disclosures by everyone running for office. Once in, full financial disclosures every year you are in office.
- Once in office you abide by a strict code of conduct or you're gone.
- As to judges, no religious fanatics allowed. End. Period.

Could go on and on but that would be a waste of my time since nothing I'd like to see done will ever happen.
 

Clarence Thomas has for years claimed income from a defunct real estate firm​

Story by Shawn Boburg, Emma Brown • 50m ago

Over the last two decades, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has reported on required financial disclosure forms that his family received rental income totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a firm called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership.

But that company — a Nebraska real estate firm launched in the 1980s by his wife and her relatives — has not existed since 2006.

More:

 
walkingnam said:
The first thing we ought to do is get rid of all the lawyers.
Click to expand...
Get rid of all the lifer politicos. TERM LIMITS, in ANY decisionmaking position. Elected or appointed.

Second thing we do, is get rid of Fiat Money. By killing the source - the Federal Reserve. The Constitution stipulates that nothing shall be money but gold and silver. EVERY living Congress-cretin and official under oath should be investigated for Treason in this blatant violation.

Dry up the money for these destructive stunts, AND THEY STOP. Dry up the seigniorage, and Soros, Gates, Schwab, Larry Fink, and the rest of these idiots who are flush with New Money...they have to find another way to steal, another way to pay for their psychotic obsessions.

Yeah, I know...this is what SHOULD be. Men in Hell should have ice water, too. Ain't happening.
 

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s property sale to prominent lawyer raises more ethical questions​

Story by Jessica Schneider • 46m ago

A nearly $2 million sale of property co-owned by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch to a prominent law firm executive in 2017 is raising new questions about the lax ethics reporting requirements for Supreme Court justices.

Property records from Grand County, Colorado, show that the Walden Group LLC – a limited-liability company in which Gorsuch was a partner – sold a 40-acre property on the Colorado River to Brian Duffy, chief executive officer of the prominent law firm Greenberg Traurig.

 
Giddy with victory, after having a sort-of perp walk for Trump...and having gotten Carlson sacked, finally...which will be the end of FNC (seems odd that the Murdoch scions aren't concerned for their own future, with this corporate-suicide move)...it's time to stamp out the last holdouts of an era where law was sacrosanct and legal arguments were to be evaluated on their own merits.

That means Thomas has to be destroyed. Not just retired; DESTROYED.

We've already seen what today's Left likes in SCOTUS kangaroos. Merrick Garland nearly got the nod. I'm sure, now, they can find somebody even more corrupt and brain-copulated - maybe some six-two mesomorph, who's decided he's a teenaged girl and wants to sit in court in a miniskirt.
 

Supreme Court's 'unsigned, unexplained orders' are creating havoc: expert​

Story by Tom Boggioni • 17m ago

According to a leading expert on federal law, the current conservative-majority Supreme Court has gone to extraordinary lengths to issue emergency orders at a historically high rate on hot-button issues, and that is raising concerns about their so-called "shadow docket."

In an interview with the Atlantic's Adam Serwer, University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladek expressed dismay at how the court has been handling its workload and said the uptick in emergency orders -- many unsigned and lacking legal reasoning -- is creating chaos for the lower courts because they are devoid of guidance for future cases.

More:

 

Why All 9 Supreme Court Justices United to Avoid Accountability​

Opinion by Shan Wu • 3h ago

The only thing the Supreme Court seems united about is its refusal to adopt a judicial ethics code.

Despite being rift by historically high tensions and distrust following the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion, all nine justices signed a statement in which they effectively rejected adopting a mandatory code of ethics for the nation’s highest court—the only court that functions without a judicial ethics code.

More:

 
From the link:

In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided to send his teenage grandnephew to Hidden Lake Academy, a private boarding school in the foothills of northern Georgia. The boy, Mark Martin, was far from home. For the previous decade, he had lived with the justice and his wife in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was “raising him as a son.”

Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martin’s tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

www.propublica.org

Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.

Crow paid for private school for a relative Thomas said he was raising “as a son.” “This is way outside the norm,” said a former White House ethics lawyer.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org
 

Conservative Activist Urged Ginni Thomas’ Name Be Left Off Billing Paperwork: Report​

The conflict-of-interest scandal surrounding the Supreme Court justice and his wife is growing bigger by the day

BY NIKKI MCCANN RAMIREZ
MAY 4, 2023

A CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL activist urged there be “no mention of Ginni” in billing paperwork for consulting payments to Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Documents obtained by the Washington Post, reveal that in 2012 Leonard Leo — an advisor to the nonprofit Judicial Education Project — directed payments to Thomas for unspecified consulting services during a year in which the organization filed a brief before the Supreme Court.

According to the Post, Leo instructed Kellyanne Conway, then a prominent GOP Pollster, to bill the Judicial Education Project “another $25K,” and then direct the money to Thomas. “No mention of Ginni, of course,” Leo added in a message to Conway explaining how to handle the paperwork for the billing.

More:

www.rollingstone.com

Conservative Activist Urged Ginni Thomas' Name Be Left Off Billing Paperwork: Report

The conflict-of-interest scandal surrounding the Supreme Court justice and his wife is growing bigger by the day
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
 

Justice Thomas Ethics Review Questioned by US Court Leader in 2012​

Story by Zoe Tillman • Yesterday 7:46 PM

(Bloomberg) -- More than a decade ago, a member of the US court system’s leadership body raised red flags about its handling of public allegations of wrongdoing against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Those concerns spurred internal process changes, but no additional probe of the justice’s conduct. Now, under renewed pressure following reports about the justice’s relationship with a GOP megadonor, the judiciary’s governance arm is again being asked to investigate one of its most powerful colleagues.

More:

 

‘Captured court’: Hayes on Leonard Leo's two-fold plan to form this Supreme Court​

May 5, 2023


8:33

Leonard Leo and the right had a problem: they were putting people on the court, and then couldn't control how they ruled. So they came up with a two-fold solution to create a captured court—one that explains Clarence Thomas' benefactors.
 

Clarence Thomas Targeted in Supreme Court Expansion Push​

Story by Jon Jackson • Yesterday 5:41 PM

A group of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday announced the reintroduction of legislation that would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats.

While speaking about the legislation—the Judiciary Act of 2023—Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts singled out recent allegations made against Justice Clarence Thomas as a reason for supporting the act.

More:

 

The Clarence Thomas Ethics Scandal for Dummies​

Opinion by Jonathan Chait • Yesterday 8:00 AM

I used to think that the basic premise of how public service is supposed to work was understood and agreed on by basically everybody. But in light of the Clarence Thomas ethics scandal, it is worth spelling out what I had previously taken for granted.

Here’s how public compensation works. Government employees get salaries, which are designed not only to entice them to take the job but to wall them off from private influence. A public servant can make some extra money on a side arrangement — say, selling a property they own or writing a book — but those payments would be disclosed, so that the public could see that it is legitimate income rather than a vehicle for disguised payments.

More:

 
From the link:

As journalists continue to dig into the justices’ financial reports and other documents, new questions continue to arise about their recusal and disclosure practices. The court’s steadfast refusal to adopt a written code of conduct — it is the only court in the U.S. without one — raises further questions. And the justices’ unprecedented Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices, recently provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, only made things worse.

 

Who Owns SCOTUS - Masters of the Supreme Court Revealed​

May 18, 2023


10:28

The Supreme Court is under attack by a secret plot to break its “independent spirit.” Hamilton and the other framers envisioned a Supreme Court that would be immune to public opinion, the arguments of presidents and senators, and great wealth alike - but today's GOP has a different, more nefarious plan…
 

Lawrence: Why does Clarence Thomas’s billionaire friend own ‘the garden of evil’ & Hitler’s teapot?​

May 23, 2023


12:14

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell discusses GOP billionaire mega donor Harlan Crow’s defense of his relationship with Clarence Thomas, his collection of Nazi memorabilia and the statues of dictators that fill his "garden of evil."
 

Supreme Risk​


Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion established 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade, raising concerns about the future of other rights rooted in Supreme Court rulings. Although most rights are secured by statutes and regulations, others are guarantees extrapolated by the court from the often abstract language of the Constitution. Some of these are recent rights, like the right to carry a handgun in public. But many are longstanding, like the right to be read a Miranda warning by police before being interrogated, and trace their origins to the liberal majorities that presided on the court from the 1950s through the 1970s, an era often called the “rights revolution.” Because these rights were established by the court, the court alone gets to decide whether to preserve, shrink or unmake them.

To get a better sense of which rights may be at risk — in whole or in part — ProPublica scoured judicial opinions, academic articles and public remarks by sitting justices. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, have had decadeslong careers and lengthy paper trails. By contrast, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest justice, has almost no prior record. We found dozens of rights that at least one sitting justice has questioned. Below, you can explore these rights and the objections levied against them. We include federal legislation that’s been introduced to protect a given right, as well as lawsuits active in lower courts that could become vehicles for the justices to revisit existing rights in the future.

More:

projects.propublica.org

Supreme Risk

An interactive guide to rights the Supreme Court has established — and could take away.
projects.propublica.org
 

Ugly SCOTUS Truth They Warned Us About 20 Years Ago​

May 31, 2023

6:43

An urgent SCOTUS warning from beyond the grave… A previously stricken Supreme Court ruling (more than two decades old) surfaces to warn us that allowing big money in politics risked turning United States officials into tools of an emerging “plutocracy.”
 

Why Alito, Kagan recusal decisions at Supreme Court raised eyebrows​

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan became the first to utilize a new ethics principle that indicates justices may explain why they are recusing themselves from a case.

But her conservative colleague on the bench, Justice Samuel Alito, opted not to share why he was stepping aside from a separate case, raising questions about whether the court can reach a consensus on its ethics standards, which have been under heavy scrutiny.

More:

 

Justice Alito pushes back on report detailing travel, trip with billionaire​

Yesterday 7:00 PM

Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday issued a public rebuttal to a new report detailing a luxury vacation he took with a wealthy hedge fund manager who later had business before the Supreme Court.

According to ProPublica, Alito accompanied billionaire Paul Singer, a GOP megadonor, on a fishing trip in 2008. Alito was flown there on a private jet provided by Singer, which the investigative outlet said would have cost more than $100,000 one-way.

More here:

 
Politicians (and I count SCOTUS among that class) and cockroaches both dislike sunshine.
 
pmbug said:
Politicians (and I count SCOTUS among that class) and cockroaches both dislike sunshine.
Click to expand...
That may be true to an extent, but the recent attacks on the Supreme court are completely unwarranted. All it is, is the far left people upset that recent court rulings are attempting to help right the ship.

Returning legislative authority from the executive branch agencies to congress, is a good thing.

States being made to have only Constitutional gun laws, is a good thing.

Returning Rights previously (and rightly) held by the States, is a good thing.


The Constitution was written in such a way as to only allow the fed.gov to take actions specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Which is the way it should be.


For most of the past 100 years we've had a mostly left leaning SC that permitted a huge increase in fed gov power. Now that we have a right leaning court, all the leftist's who've gotten their way for almost the whole time are up in arms over it. Now just because they don't have every decision go their way, they wanna cry foul. What they need to do instead is to read the Constitution and start supporting it as it was intended when written.
Ie: become good liberty loving Americans who support their Constitution, instead of constantly trying to destroy it.
 

Opinion: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has vast power and life tenure. So what’s his problem?​

In an indignant recent piece in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. vehemently defended his right to receive a free luxury vacation and offered America yet another window into his disturbing worldview. The bizarre episode was just the latest example of Alito’s insistence on enjoying the country’s respect even when he fails to act respectably. As the court’s public standing plummets, Alito appears aggrieved that the public has the audacity to criticize him.

In the op-ed published Tuesday, Alito attempted to “prebut” a then-forthcoming ProPublica story detailing a lavish 2008 fishing trip he took as a guest of a hedge fund billionaire who has had a series of cases before the court. The billionaire, Paul Singer, flew the justice via private jet to Alaska, where they were hosted by yet another conservative megadonor at a fishing lodge.

More here:

www.latimes.com

Opinion: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has vast power and life tenure. So what's his problem?

The conservative who wrote fiery opinions overturning Roe vs. Wade and dissenting on LGBTQ+ rights can't stand criticism for his free fishing trip or anything else.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
 

Alito Could Deliver Another Ruling For Billionaire Benefactor​

The hedge fund of Justice Samuel Alito’s billionaire benefactor has been using a recent Alito-backed Supreme Court ruling to try to pressure federal regulators to back off new financial rules designed to fight fraud, according to documents reviewed by The Lever.

The hedge fund, Elliott Management, has been arguing that the rules are unconstitutional, and could ultimately try to bring a case before Alito to strike down the new regulations if they are enacted. The high court is currently considering a petition to hear a separate case involving the same firm.

ProPublica this week reported that Elliott Management founder, president, and co-CEO Paul Singer provided an undisclosed private jet flight to Alito, and has been a major donor to the Judicial Crisis Network, a dark money group that has funded campaigns to install conservative judges throughout the judiciary — including Alito. The justice has declined to recuse himself in past cases involving the hedge fund.

More:

www.levernews.com

Alito Could Deliver Another Ruling For Billionaire Benefactor

Hedge fund of GOP mogul who funded luxury trip is trying to kill financial regs.
www.levernews.com www.levernews.com
 
^^^ "The court's new conservative majority has used obscure procedural orders to shift American jurisprudence definitively to the right," Vladeck writes."

Yet doesn't give one example.
....and these days, the Constitution itself is seen as obscure by a lot of people in gov, the media and sadly, the general public.

Also, why no complaints about the past 80 or so years where the court definitively shifted American jurisprudence to the left? Vladeck doesn't seem to have a problem with that.
...but get a couple years with a court that actually uses the Constitution on which to base its rulings and the left freaks out. How dare we not always get our way, they think.


"The Trump administration, meanwhile, asked for emergency relief a whopping 41 times and got its way 28 times."

Again, no examples given.

What's important here is, what were those issues the court heard? Were they ones with true Constitutional issues about them?


Just because the court rules on something in a manner one may not personally agree with, does not make the ruling wrong. Nor is it a reason to attack the court, as we've seen in many recent hit pieces over the past 2 or 3 years.

The only thing that can make it wrong, is if it is not in harmony with the Constitution and its original intent.<----- Anything in gov that goes against that, is abhorrent, and we should all be in agreement on that.


The Constitution says what it says, not what any particular person might prefer it to say.
 

Should There Be Term Limits For SCOTUS Judges?​

Jul 9, 2023


3:39

Should SCOTUS judges be tossed out after serving a term limit? Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom