US Supreme Court Discussions

[N.E. Brigand]

It's wrong, and he should be impeached for it (he almost certainly broke the law here), but it's probably not bribery. Not only because Clarence Thomas was part of the unanimous Supreme Court decision in 2016 who ruled that this sort of thing isn't bribery, but because, as Elie Mystal says (and as John Simon once said of fellow film critic Charles Champlin's relationship with the Hollywood movie studios): you don't need to buy what someone is giving you for free.

[N.E. Brigand]

It's wrong, and he should be impeached for it (he almost certainly broke the law here), but it's probably not bribery. Not only because Clarence Thomas was part of the unanimous Supreme Court decision in 2016 who ruled that this sort of thing isn't bribery, but because, as Elie Mystal says (and as John Simon once said of fellow film critic Charles Champlin's relationship with the Hollywood movie studios): you don't need to buy what someone is giving you for free.

And I completely agree with this take:



(I also appreciate someone responding to Fleischmann's bad argument with this.)

[N.E. Brigand]

Also, Thomas's big benefactor paid an artist to paint this:



I wonder what key moment is being commemorated there.

[N.E. Brigand]

OK, one more excerpt from the new story:



My father and stepmother have done more than a little RV traveling over the past 20 years, and they actually do sometimes spend the night in Walmart parking lots. To my knowledge, they've never stayed at $2,000-per-night resorts (much less been gifted such an accommodation).

[RoseMorninStar]

V, do you know anything more about that painting??


Article regarding Thomas & Crow.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

V, do you know anything more about that painting??

I don't, but I think you meant to direct that question to N.E.B., as he is the one who posted it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[RoseMorninStar]

V, do you know anything more about that painting??

I don't, but I think you meant to direct that question to N.E.B., as he is the one who posted it.

Ooops. Sorry about that V. I did a bit of poking around and it seems Mr. Crow has quite a few very expensive artistic vanity projects, sculpture, etc.. some with political overtone, like a statue of Margaret Thatcher on his lawn.

[RoseMorninStar]

According to an extensive article from Propublica, the larger issue (than the vacations, etc.. ) is Thomas' personal use of Crow's private plane above & beyond group vacations, something which is required to be disclosed but was not.

[Frelga]

Can it get worse? But of course.

Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Benefactor Collects Hitler Artifacts

These collections include Hitler artifacts—two of his paintings of European cityscapes, a signed copy of Mein Kampf, and assorted Nazi memorabilia—plus a garden full of statues of the 20th century’s worst despots.

[N.E. Brigand]

Sen. John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, complains (citing a Wall Street Journal op-ed) that Clarence Thomas is being "smeared" because the "left is furious it lost control of the Supreme Court, and it wants it back by whatever means possible."

But as noted here, the last time it could said the left controlled the court was also the last time U.S. unemployment was less than 3.5%:

The last Supreme Court with a majority of Justices appointed by a Democratic president ended in like 1969. Republicans have been controlling the Supreme Court for so long, most of us don’t know what the alternative was like.

Republicans have been controlling the Supreme Court for so long, the last time Democratic appointees exercised control, the Democratic Party was an almost entirely different thing.

The whole saga of Roe v. Wade—from the decision itself in 1972 through Casey in 1992 through Whole Women’s Health in 2016 to its overruling by Dobbs in 2022—took place during a period of uninterrupted Republican control of the Supreme Court.

That last point really drives it home for me.

I also find this notable: the Supreme Court lost its Democratic-appointed majority after Abe Fortas, who had been appointed by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, was forced to resign in 1969 after it was found that he'd been given $20,000 by a banker who had been under criminal investigation (although I don't believe that banker's case ever went to the Supreme Court). Richard Nixon appointed Fortas's successor, Harry Blackmun (to be fair, over time, Blackmun proved to be less conservative than Nixon hoped).

Also you probably won't be surprised to find that the Nazi-memorabilia collector has donated heavily to Sen. Cornyn's campaigns over the years.

(Edited to note that Cornyn didn't actually pen the WSJ column but only cited it approvingly.)

Edited further to note that ProPublica editor Jesse Eisinger has responded to the Wall Street Journal editorial's complaints that the story about Justice Thomas used loaded terms like "superyacht," "private chef," and "exclusive all-male California retreat." Eisinger asks if the WSJ would prefer "extremely large boat,"* "short- & long-order cook who works just for him," and "place where no gurls 'lowd."

*The boat in question has been listed as one of the 100 largest privately owned yachts in the U.S.

(You will be shocked to learn that the WSJ regularly publishes the very terms, e.g. "superyacht," being decried today.)

[N.E. Brigand]

Mark Joseph Stern of Slate notes that other SCOTUS justices have disclosed various small gifts they received in the past few years even as Clarence Thomas failed to disclose these very expensive vacation trips he was given. Does that mean that they're following the rules and he's not? Or are they also receiving lavish gifts but just not disclosing those?

- - - - - - - - -
Also, here's a story in the Telegraph from less than three weeks ago about Harlan Crow's brother, Trammell:

"Billionaire linked to Sarah Ferguson accused of financing sex trafficking ring."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Has Thomas disclosed small gifts even has he failed to disclose the expensive vacation trips?

[RoseMorninStar]

From what I've heard, more legally problematic than the shared vacations is Thomas independent use of Crow's private plane in several occasions.

As for Crow and his art collection, I guess he has many statues, etc of world dictators.

[Frelga]

And napkins embroidered with Nazi symbols, lovingly displayed among other Nazi things. And as someone pointed out, having a Supreme Court Judge as your kept man is a symptom of a thirst for power, a la his garden tyrants.

Which reminds me, I need to print and frame our own memento from Nazi Germany - my husband's family name on the ruined wall of Reichstag. It was among many names left there by Soviet soldiers. We are not sure who it was, but it's a rare enough name that there's probably a connection. That's the kind of thing that needs to be displayed as a reminder of what lies at the end of the road to fascism.

In other news.
After an L.A. Times story on Thomas' gifts, he stopped disclosing - Los Angeles Times

[RoseMorninStar]

And napkins embroidered with Nazi symbols, lovingly displayed among other Nazi things. And as someone pointed out, having a Supreme Court Judge as your kept man is a symptom of a thirst for power, a la his garden tyrants.

It's not a good look is it? For people who profess to be on the side of .. oh.. 'family values' and 'justice' it sure looks a lot more like authoritarianism/fascism/oligarchy. I guess those 'values' don't include ethics/ethical behavior.

Which reminds me, I need to print and frame our own memento from Nazi Germany - my husband's family name on the ruined wall of Reichstag. It was among many names left there by Soviet soldiers. We are not sure who it was, but it's a rare enough name that there's probably a connection. That's the kind of thing that needs to be displayed as a reminder of what lies at the end of the road to fascism.

That's a unique bit of history. Rather unnerving.

In other news.
After an L.A. Times story on Thomas' gifts, he stopped disclosing - Los Angeles Times

I make rules for thee, not for me.

[N.E. Brigand]

U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democrat of New York) weighed in today on the scandal surrounding Justice Thomas. She notes that by Thomas's own admission (per the statement he released Friday), Harlan Crow didn't befriend Thomas until he was a Supreme Court justice, and she says of Thomas that the public needs to know "who advised him to break the law."

As for Crow's dictator statuary (which curiously seems not to include Hitler?) and Nazi memorabilia collection, Jeet Heer's take matches mine: "Going out on a limb, I don't think you own Hitler's teapot because you have a deep unquenchable hatred of Nazi ideology. There's something else at work. Not necessarily Nazism but some failure of taste, judgement, and historical consciousness."

Drew Flanagan, a World War II historian, has further thoughts on the "Hitler kitsch collecting impulse ... The dark charisma of objects associated with National Socialism seems to be able to seduce even those who mouth that it represents evil". Don't miss the reference to one of the less-remembered James Bond films!

A number of mainstream (even anti-Trump) conservatives like Jonah Goldberg and David French are coming forward to defend Crow against suggestions that he's a Nazi-sympathizer. But as one observer notes, this arguably strengthens the case that the Crow-Thomas relationship is corrupt: "These guys clearly feel indebted to Crow and can’t remain silent even when it’s incredibly humiliating to defend him on this."

I've seen indications that Crow also has hosted a some Democrats at high society events, if not so lavishly or closely as he has Republicans. But I don't see that as a defense of Crow any more than I believe that equal opportunity schmoozing reflected well on Jeffrey Epstein.

[Frelga]

Courtney Milan, a lawyer (and romance writer. I recently learned that there are many lawyers among romance writers, including Stacey Abrams), writes

There is a reason that the standard is “the appearance of impropriety.”

It’s not “prove there was a connection.” That’s essentially unprovable: we will never know how Thomas would have voted.

There is ABSOLUTELY the appearance of impropriety when you are accepting millions of dollars in “hospitality” from someone before the Court, and Thomas damn well knows it.

Added because yes I'm angry about it, just about every profession has rules against this kind of behavior. I *may* be responsible for influencing several hundred dollars in software purchases every few years, so I have to fill a 3-page form detailing potential conflicts of interest. In husband's industry there was a dustup when a general contractor accepted a TV and tickets to Hawaii from a subcontractor. Many places have a $20 limit for personal gifts even under the most innocuous circumstances. So for a Supreme Court Justice to claim that it's OK for him to accept luxury trips? Inexcusable.

[Sunsilver]

Yes, I certainly agree, Frelga. When I was doing secretarial work for the Ministry of Housing, Northern Plans Division, my supervisor was given a Christmas gift basket by one of the developers. It probably, in those days (1970's) cost about $40. I got to type up a polite letter in which he told the developer he couldn't accept the basket.

Yet Ontario premier Doug Ford gets away with letting his multi millionaire buddies buy up large sections of the Oak Ridges greenbelt, which are bordering his proposed superhighway... https://thenarwhal.ca/ontario-environme ... moQAvD_BwE

[RoseMorninStar]

Our daughter wasn't allowed to send anything more than a card when her former boss retired. And he was RETIRING!

What Thomas has done, for the highest court in the land, is shameful. I hope it is not de rigueur for all of the justices.