Justice Clarence Thomas has secretly accepted luxury trips from a major Republican donors

It's very Game of Thrones, when you put it that way, isn't it?

Game of Benches.

 

I understand your point but it’s a racially charged term for blacks that’s quite unecessary. For example, calling Thomas a corrupt, morally bankrupt POS will get you there in most of what you would like to convey negatively. His race doesn’t need to come into the equation

not to mention Tom’a cabin is a pretty sad book, the reference is in poor taste

 

with the way Uncle Thomas talks about his own family and stuff like this

In 1991, one of Ginni Thomas’s aunts told The Washington Post that the future justice “was so nice, we forgot he was Black,” adding, “He treated her so well, all of his other qualities made up for his being Black.”

there’s definitely some self-hatred going on

 

NBA referees are more impartial than Supreme Court justices…what a world we live in.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas received between $270,000 to $750,000 within the past 17 years from a real estate company that no longer exists, Washington Post reports


What a corrupt piece of sht

 

See earlier post. While technically true, company changed it's name, ever so slightly, and he didn't carefully change the name on his declaration forms. Not clear what he would be "hiding" in this case, beyond being sloppy and inattentive. Compared to all the something-burgers, this new scoop seems like a nothing burger.

Anyway, to @LosPollosHermanos point, I said earlier and deleted a longer post, but I basically agree. I am one white liberal dude who would say: if a Black person wants use "uncle Tom" go for it, b/c at least they've walked somewhat in those shoes in this white-controlled culture. But I haven't walked in those shoes, and who am I to criticize what someone does to survive, get along, or in some cases, get ahead. It's not like my own life is a shining example of sacrificing comfort for convictions. (e.g. I'm still paying taxes and paying salaries of people like Thomas, and for wars I don't agree with, all because I'm too lazy and soft to go to jail for my convictions, etc.) That's my current thinking on it, and agree the guy (by evidence) seems like a corrupt person absent any racial identity. Plenty to criticize there.

 

As a non-white person, I still don't like calling people an "uncle Tom" or whatnot. We're just not in people's heads and a huge part of the problem we have is how much we see people presume what others are thinking when in reality they have no clue.

That said, I do find this troubling - it's one thing if this was in isolation - but come on, how sloppy is this guy where there are all these things popping up where he is claiming he didn't know or thought he was doing the right thing. He's a supreme court justice, he should be a person who has his **** together and doesn't make these kinds of mistakes. The other 8 justices don't have all this controversy around them around their finances and gifts - why?

 

Not a puppet - he's Crow's Pet Negro. After all, someone has to shine "Massa's" shoes.

 

So this donor paid for the house and remodel and now she has been living there rent free since he bought it..............This kind of stuff happens all the time Even if this is on the up and up (which I doubt) and the lavish trips that was paid for, its horrible judgement for a SCOTUS to accept this and dam, Clarence is cheap as hell. In a friendship you have a give and take, I wonder what Clarence does to give back

Optics are even worse when you consider his cuckoo wife who is a right wing nut job....................nothing to see here people move along. Not a dam thing will happen, the gop wont say anything because there are to many getting busted for breaking the law and have no room to talk.......nip it in the bud

 

He is more a Sambo than Uncle Tom
just that Tom fits his name better

Honestly . .. He is just a TRAITOR to the whole USA

Rocket River

 

If Congress actually believed in accountability over ideology there would be an investigation there would be an investigation, impeachment and removal from office. As is it’s more likely that more justices are added to the court than they Thomas is removed.

 

When's this guy going to get run out of town? ZZZAZAAAZZ A****ING BORING!!!!!!!

 

Something is seriously wrong without Supreme court when a justice is acting like this without any repercussion.

 

Kind of strange they didn't become "very good friends" until Thomas became a Supreme Court Justice.

 

This ******* thinks we're too stupid to know how long he's been a SC Justice.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas and the Plague of Bad Reporting
The Washington Post and ProPublica commit comically incompetent journalism. But by stirring up animus, they increase the risk of a tragic ending.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justic...rt-safety-def0a6a7?mod=hp_opin_pos_3#cxrecs_s

excerpt:

Over the weekend a team of four reporters at the Washington Post—Shawn Boburg and Emma Brown, with Jonathan O’Connell and Alice Crites listed as having “contributed”—uncovered another Thomas error. This one is a doozy. According to the 1,240-word story, which appeared on the front page of Monday’s paper, Justice Thomas “for years” has claimed income from a company that “has not existed since 2006.” That firm, Ginger Ltd. Partnership, managed real estate in Nebraska and was founded by his wife, Ginni Thomas, and her relatives. Seventeen years ago it was dissolved and its holdings were transferred to a new entity, Ginger Holdings LLC.

That’s it. The company changed legal form but kept the same name and address. There’s no suggestion that its business has changed or that Justice Thomas failed to disclose any income. “The previously unreported misstatement might be dismissed as a paperwork error,” the Post quartet allow. “But it is among a series of errors and omissions that Thomas has made.” It’s admittedly trivial but fits the pre-established narrative, so the Post runs with it.

The Post quartet cite ProPublica’s contribution to that narrative as if it were established fact: “Thomas failed to report the sale of the three Georgia properties to Crow in 2014, and he also continued to report that he owned a share of those properties as late as 2015, his disclosure forms show. In addition, beginning in 2010, his disclosures described the properties as being located in Liberty County, Ga., even though they were actually located in Chatham County.”

Talk about a series of errors and omissions. As I reported, there was a family property in Liberty County; Justice Thomas disclosed only one property, in Liberty County, in 2010-15; and he never disclosed his part-ownership of the Savannah house where his mother lived—nor was he obligated to, as it wasn’t a rental property and generated no income.

The Post quartet compound ProPublica’s bad reporting by piling on errors of their own: Whereas the troika simply ignored Liberty County, the quartet apparently noticed the reference in Justice Thomas’s 2010-15 disclosures and explained it by simply assuming it was a lie rather than stopping to wonder if ProPublica had missed something. The Post’s story was published before mine, but it has yet to be corrected.

None of this is to deny that the Thomas revelations were newsworthy. They’re the sort of story that deserves a few hundred words on page 4, and that a single competent reporter should be able to handle. That describes an exemplary 1991 piece by the Post’s Ruth Marcus (now a columnist) headlined “Brennan Discloses Gifts From Local Developer.”
​

more at the link

 

What an incompetent Piece of sht. One of the highest position in the land and can't even disclose his info properly and he's suppose to b the one we trust to intrepret our laws where words matter? That's like having a guy who sucks at math do your taxes

 

another excerpt from the WSJ piece:

On Monday, “a source close to Thomas” told CNN that the justice would do so. “The source said . . . it was an oversight not to report the real estate transaction. Thomas believed he didn’t have to disclose because he lost money on the deal, according to the source.” It is the justice’s share of the sale price ($1,000 or more), not a profit, that triggers the statutory obligation to report.

How big a deal is it to amend a form after missing a disclosure? Consider these examples, which reader Darin Bartram dug up:

• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 2012 disclosure amended her 2011 report, which “inadvertently omitted” the sale of shares in an exchange-traded fund that she had bought earlier the same year. “The Value Code should have [sic] been L and the Gain Code should have [sic] been A,” the amendment says.

• Ginsburg amended her 2017 disclosure to reflect that she had “inadvertently omitted” a gift of an opera costume worth $4,500.

• Justice Stephen Breyer reported in an amended 2018 disclosure that he had “inadvertently omitted” two stock sales by his wife, one in 2006 and one in 2018.

• In February 2022, three days after President Biden nominated her to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson amended her 2020 disclosure to note that in various years between 2011 and 2021 she had “inadvertently omitted” travel reimbursements for two speaking trips, a university teaching salary, four nonprofit board memberships, her husband’s consulting income and a 529 college savings plan. No senator mentioned these omissions at her confirmation hearings.

Apart from Ginsburg’s disappointing grammar, it’s hard to see a scandal here. Justice Thomas’s decision to amend his disclosure is so insignificant that ProPublica, which discovered and hyped the omission, hasn’t bothered to claim vindication or to report the amendment at all. Justin Elliott, a member of the site’s anti-Thomas troika, tweeted the CNN story but didn’t mention the amended disclosure. Instead he touted the revelation that “Harlan Crow is not charging Justice Thomas’ mother rent.”
​

more at the link

​

 

Man who can't fill out disclosure forms is also able to divine intent of long-dead Constitutional authors.