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.

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

Clarence Thomas accused of giving elite group access to Supreme Court: Report​

59m ago

Justice Clarence Thomas’s involvement in a wealthy and exclusive club is under scrutiny during ongoing developments regarding potential ethical concerns surrounding some of the justices.

Months after securing his seat on the Supreme Court in highly contentious confirmation hearings, Thomas joined the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, named after the Gilded Age author.

More:

 

Clarence Thomas' aide got payments from lawyers with cases before the Supreme Court​

Several senior Washington litigators with business before the Supreme Court sent money to Thomas' then aide Rajan Vasisht, the Guardian reported.

Vasisht's Venmo transactions – no longer publicly visible – show that he took in seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously worked as his boss' clerks. The subject lines read: "Christmas party," "Thomas Christmas Party," "CT Christmas Party," and "CT Xmas party."

Included among the lawyers who made payments were:

More:

 
Seems to me that we have uncovered yet another weakness in the concept of self-government.

Thieves. Patronage.

"Shady and corrupt" SC Justice Amy Coney Barret.

Clarence Thomas and his free trips from mega-donor.

John Roberts' name on The List to Lolita Island.

Hugo Black was a "liberal" KKK leader.

LBJ's "inside man" Abe Fortas got $20K/year from Wall Street "Wolf " Louis Wolfson.

There's other scandals, but that is what I can remember for now. It is enough that there has to be some sort of oversight. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT GODS. They can be historically, they have been bought, coerced, owned.

Denying this reality and assuming the wearing of a black robe will make flesh-and-blood humans into intellectual, pure-thinking superbeings has been repeatedly demostrated even to the thickest-skulled. And playing a Dem vs Rep game is even stupider.

It's ALL persuasions. To say otherwise in naive. Or disengenuous.
 
searcher said:
Months after securing his seat on the Supreme Court in highly contentious confirmation hearings, Thomas joined the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, named after the Gilded Age author.
Click to expand...
Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans includes such people as Dave Thomas, Denzel Washington, Lawrence Welk, Oprah Winfrey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bob Hope and Carrol Burnett. What's wrong with Clarence Thomas being on that list too?

Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans was founded in 1947 to honor the achievements of outstanding Americans who have succeeded in spite of adversity and to emphasize the importance of higher education. The association is named for Horatio Alger, a 19th-century author of hundreds of dime novels in the "rags-to-riches" genre, extolling the importance of perseverance and hard work....ten American awardees are announced each year.


How could anyone have an issue with that? Clarence Thomas certainly fits the bill.
 
I do not think (knowing what I -- and you) know now about Lolita Island, that I would feel honored by someone who put Oprah Winfrey down as "Distiguished". More like "Depraved".
 
Unca Walt said:
It's ALL persuasions. To say otherwise in naive. Or disengenuous.
Click to expand...
Can anyone show evidence of it affecting the outcome of a case before the Court?

All these attacks on the SC lately are just the dems/leftists response to the mostly Constitutionally-based rulings the current court has handed down.

They are attempting to build support for adding justices to the court or imposing term limits or some other way of controlling the court more to their liking.

IMHO, as long as the court's rulings are based on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, (the only correct interpretation, btw) I couldn't care less who let any of 'em use their boat, or anything else.

Now, if they are taking favors to sway their rulings to go against the Constitution, as most modern days dems/leftists want the court to do, then yes, that would be wrong.
 
Unca Walt said:
I do not think (knowing what I -- and you) know now about Lolita Island, that I would feel honored by someone who put Oprah Winfrey down as "Distiguished". More like "Depraved".
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, but she was on there in '93 and Epstein's island wasn't even close to being on people's radars. It's a lifetime award.
 
Joe King said:
Can anyone show evidence of it affecting the outcome of a case before the Court?
Click to expand...
Joe -- Love ya, but that is as far as I read on the post above. Your heart is good, but are simply leading with your chin with your eyes closed.

To answer your question: You will be able to show evidence affecting the outcome of a Court case by the time you get to the end of this post.

The crooks in black robes I named above. The hoopla is BECAUSE they got caught being "bought" on issues.

Look... if you don't believe me (or don't want to) I will pick just one. After that, you are on the hook to type in the name of the SC person, and add some word meaning wrong-doing/being bought/bribed/coerced/owned.

You will most ricky-tick have an epiphany. These people are human to the soul -- with a human's weaknesses in different areas: money, power, sex, fear, greed.

OK -- This one answers you directly:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Abe Fortas suffered a fatal flaw for judges. He liked to take bribes. Appointed to the Supreme Court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Fortas had already faced serious allegations of improperly promoting LBJ’s political career while serving on the highest court in the land. Things got a lot worse for Justice Fortas in 1969, when it was revealed that he had accepted a secret legal retainer from his former friend and client, infamous Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson. Under their agreement, Wolfson was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year for life in return for special help and “consultation” during his pending trial on charges of securities fraud.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The eponymous "Wolf Of Wall Street" had a Supreme Court Justice in his pocket for $20K/year for life.

So yeah, they ARE human. And if you open your eyes and check the date that Roberts went on the Lolita Express, you will see the operation was in full swing at that time. Even royalty was getting young stuff. They did not go there for surfing or having a grand outdoor cookout. It was all underground**

**And it was all fimed. Did somebody mention Roberts?
 
^^^^^^^

From the link:

Wolfson started a charitable foundation, which in 1966 paid Supreme Court Justice and Wolfson friend Abe Fortas a $20,000 lifetime annual retainer for unspecified consultation. Researchers suspect this sum may have represented an attempted bribery to secure Fortas's assistance with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Wolfson had appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court had refused to review his conviction and Fortas did not participate in that decision, it was viewed as an attempt to buy his way out of a conviction. Controversy surrounded Fortas and he returned the $20,000 retainer and ultimately resigned from the Supreme Court in 1969.[9]

Louis Wolfson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Like we useta say: There it is.

Fortas was dirty from the get-go. His bosom pal was the Riverboat Gambler. His promotion of LBJ was in equal proportion to LBJ's promotion of him. (hands washing emoji)

"Appointed to the Supreme Court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Fortas had already faced serious allegations of improperly promoting LBJ’s political career while serving on the highest court in the land."
 
The ONLY reason the court is currently under attack is due to its mostly conservative makeup.

If it wasn't for that, and the leftists/dems were getting rulings they liked, we wouldn't be hearing a peep about anything going on with the court. Instead, all those complaining, would instead be singing its praises.

In no way shape or form, is Clarence Thomas a crook. He's the best justice the court has had in either of our lifetimes.
....and the bulk of the attacks have been against him.

I hadn't seen any recent attacks on the leftist/dem justices.

As for Roberts, he very well could be, but we've known for well over a Decade where his loyalties lie.
Ie: it's not with the Republic. His obozo care ruling proved that.

As for Fortas, all ya gotta do is look at who nominated him, to know that he was gonna be a crook.

Imho, as long as the rulings are firmly based on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, the court is properly doing its job.
....and we've gotten more correct rulings in the past 3 years than we have in the past 30 years. That alone says that the court is currently improving.
 
JK: The court is OWNED. The obvious stuff has gotten all the hellway down to this forum. <-- think about that astonishing fact. Bribes? Nah... Just greased handshakes, free rides, parties...

The non-obvious stuff won't be in print per se. You (and everyone that gives five minutes or less to look) will find the footprints in the CIA/Epstein connection. Roberts got to diddle a kid (that is, if it was that benign and did not include bloodletting...)

He is owned. What he does as a SC judge will be discreet. But how would you like to have a discreet SC Judge at your mercy? Nobody could prove a connection... What power.

The court's rulings have shifted to the right somewhat. Wow. As directed by the owners. That the rulings changed somewhat has NO bearing on the fact that the black robes have dangling threads held by those in the background.
 
And just to drive the stake in a little deeper...

"Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010."

From another source: Law students are required (no option) to buy her book. Permanent sales

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's staff prodded colleges and libraries to buy her books

For colleges and libraries seeking a big name for a guest lecturer, few come bigger than Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court justice who rose from poverty in the Bronx to the nation’s highest court.
apnews.com
 

Ginni Thomas Under Scrutiny Following Arrest of Michigan Fake Electors​

There are calls for Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, to face investigation for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election results after 16 Republicans were charged in Michigan over a "false elector" plot.

Ginni Thomas has long come under scrutiny over her actions in the wake of the last election, including sending text messages to Donald Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows urging him to help overturn the results of the election, while describing Joe Biden's fair victory as the "greatest heist of our history."

Ginni Thomas is also alleged to have sent emails to dozens of Arizona election officials and lawmakers claiming it was their "constitutional duty" to install a "clean slate of electors" who would be willing to declare Trump the winner in the Grand Canyon State in 2020. Thomas is said to have told the lawmakers to "stand strong in the face of political and media pressure" and falsely claimed the responsibility to choose electors was "yours and yours alone."

More:

 

How Harlan Crow Slashed his Tax Bill by Taking Clarence Thomas on Superyacht Cruises​

For months, Harlan Crow and members of Congress have been engaged in a fight over whether the billionaire needs to divulge details about his gifts to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, including globe-trotting trips aboard his 162-foot yacht, the Michaela Rose.

Crow’s lawyer argues that Congress has no authority to probe the GOP donor’s generosity and that doing so violates a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the Supreme Court.

Members of Congress say there are federal tax laws underlying their interest and a known propensity by the ultrarich to use their yachts to skirt those laws.

Tax data obtained by ProPublica provides a glimpse of what congressional investigators would find if Crow were to open his books to them. Crow’s voyages with Thomas, the data shows, contributed to a nice side benefit: They helped reduce Crow’s tax bill.

More here:

How Harlan Crow Slashed his Tax Bill by Taking Clarence Thomas on Superyacht Cruises

In lavishing gifts on the Supreme Court justice, the billionaire GOP donor may have violated tax laws, according to tax experts.
www.propublica.org
 

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court​


Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democrats’ attempt to mandate stronger ethics rules.

Alito, one of the high court’s leading conservatives, is just one of multiple justices who have come under recent scrutiny for ethics controversies that have fueled the renewed push.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

More here:

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court

Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democ…
thehill.com
 
^^^^

U.S. Congressman Slams Alito's "Wrong, Arrogant" Claims, Gives Evidence​

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal for the second time in recent months, this time not to defend his own ethics but to argue that Congress has little jurisdiction over the Supreme Court and therefore no business trying to impose ethical standards on its Justices.

[NOTE: Alito is responding to the uproar over the Justice Clarence Thomas revelations and subsequent legislation that advanced in the Senate to impose on the Supreme Court similar ethical standards that all lower courts must already adhere to by law.]

Alito, famously a constitutional originalist, claims that the SCOTUS was not created by Congress but by the Constitution, in which he finds no provision allowing for the imposition of ethics on the Court by Congress.

More:

MSN

www.msn.com
 
"Alito, famously a constitutional originalist, claims that the SCOTUS was not created by Congress but by the Constitution, in which he finds no provision allowing for the imposition of ethics on the Court by Congress."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I find that Constitutionally correct, and genuinely repulsive.

What Alito should have said:

"While the Constitution truly has no provision for Congress to demand ethics from SCOTUS judges, it is absolutely mandatory to accept the fact that those elected to SCOTUS are human. As such, at the very least a clearly defined set of overriding rules must be adopted within the structure of SCOTUS to define moral and legal hard limits of individual judges' behavior."

"They are not gods, and they are NOT outside the law."
 
Congress, POTUS and SC are all CO-branches of our government. Ie: none of the three have direct authority over the others as to how they each conduct their own business of government.
....and the ONLY reason we see all the hit pieces on the SC is because the leftist/dems are PO'd about not getting their way on all SC decisions, like they have for the previous 80+ years on almost all cases before the Court.
 
searcher said:
evil swine - stone them
blasphemers - crucify them
heretics - boil them in oil

Get em good!
Click to expand...
They're (leftists/dems) are the ones suddenly po'd at the SC because they no longer have a majority on the court. They are the ones trying to "get 'em". They're the ones attempting to change the court.
....and all because we've recently started getting rulings that are based on the Constitution. Leftist/dems prefer rulings that go against the Constitution.
 
Spot on correct. This glaring problem has definitely become public because the left/dems control of the SC judges has become less firm. Cannot have that.

That does not mitigate the demonstrated need for a barbed-wire "Do Not Cross" line for SCOTUS judges.

When "some" rulings become dependent upon gifts/money/threats/yada given to SCOTUS judges, we must accept these gods have clay feet. Just like the rest of us. We put real laws upon ourselves. SC Judges? Nope.
 

Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel​

Aug. 10, 5:45 a.m. EDT

During his three decades on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has enjoyed steady access to a lifestyle most Americans can only imagine. A cadre of industry titans and ultrawealthy executives have treated him to far-flung vacations aboard their yachts, ushered him into the premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to fetch him — including, on more than one occasion, an entire 737. It’s a stream of luxury that is both more extensive and from a wider circle than has been previously understood.

Like clockwork, Thomas’ leisure activities have been underwritten by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence. Their gifts include:

At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.

This accounting of Thomas’ travel, revealed for the first time here from an array of previously unavailable information, is the fullest to date of the generosity that has regularly afforded Thomas a lifestyle far beyond what his income could provide. And it is almost certainly an undercount.

Lots more here:

Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel

The fullest accounting yet shows how Thomas has secretly reaped the benefits from a network of wealthy and well-connected patrons that is far more extensive than previously understood.
www.propublica.org
 
Please, account for all the speaking engagements and travel for all the "Justices" and get back to me. Otherwise, its just a racist witch hunt.
 
IMO, there is ample evidence of melting the "rules" into unrecognizability from clearly observed patronage throughout SCOTUS -- regardless of "stripe".

This is NOT a political thing from the POV of the real problem. It is a freakin' exploding dynamite hint that the members of SCOTUS poop and pee, buy and sell, eat and drink just like humans.

They REQUIRE "laws" delineating the limits of their behavior exactly like the laws that limit your behaviour and mine.

They do not have, nor do they want (GEE!! Susprise!!) laws that would tend to indicate they are to be regarded as human.

If you were a Buyer for, say, IBM. Your decision will mean millions of dollars in revenue for the companies you choose. Every time.

Guess what happens to an IBM Buyer who accepts anything (that no one just walking in off the street would also be given).

Like a plane trip. Other "courtesies" such as those commonly accepted, seen as normal for all the SCOTUS.

Fired that day. Never an exception.
 
Last edited:

US thinktank linked to billionaires behind supreme court wealth tax case lobbying​

An influential thinktank closely linked to two billionaires who provided lavish travel gifts to conservative supreme court justices is behind a successful lobbying campaign to get the US high court to take on a case that could protect them and other billionaires from a possible future wealth tax.

The Manhattan Institute was one of eight conservative advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs urging the supreme court to take on Moore v US, a $15,000 tax case that Democrats have warned could permanently “lock in” the right of billionaires to opt out of paying fair taxes.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer is chairman of the Manhattan Institute and Kathy Crow, who is married to real estate mogul Harlan Crow, serves as a trustee of the group. Both have provided two of the justices – Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, respectively – with private travel gifts and have socialised with the judges on lavish vacations, according to reports in ProPublica and other media outlets.

Billionaire-linked US thinktank behind supreme court wealth tax case lobbying

Manhattan Institute one of eight conservative advocacy groups that filed amicus briefs urging the court to hear Moore v US
www.theguardian.com
 
Nothing like using the system to punish the people you envy just because you didn't make it that far in life. Rich bastards! No wonder the under performers don't like Trump.

You could take away 100% of the billionaires wealth, and it would run the USA for something like a month. However, it would do major damage to future tax revenues. So how much is too much? Are resources best left with people that can maximise the return on them and in turn employ the maximum possible number of people? Or do we want more public service positions pushing paper around desks? Call me old school, leave the resources with the successful and expect more success. I guess some would consider that stupid.
 
A perfect example of greed/weakness being a human trait, and SCOTUS members are human. So they resist any change to the "working system".
 

US Supreme Court's Alito rejects recusal in tax case​

(Reuters) -U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday rejected a push by Senate Democrats to have him recuse himself from a tax case that involves an attorney who interviewed him for a newspaper article and helped him "air his personal grievances."

Alito, in a statement attached to a routine order issued by the court in the case Moore v. United States, said, "There is no valid reason for my recusal in this case." Individual justices make recusal decisions for themselves.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin and nine other Democrats on the panel on Aug. 3 sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts asking him to ensure that Alito recuses himself in the case involving plaintiffs Charles and Kathleen Moore.

More:

 
Opinion piece from the Daily Beast

Congress Needs to Show Samuel Alito and the Supreme Court Who’s Boss​

Justice Samuel Alito is making plain his view that the U.S. Supreme Court is not just the highest court in the land but the highest branch of government.

In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, Alito asserted that Congress lacks the authority to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court, saying, “No provision in the Constitution gives the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”

Ironically, the very circumstances of Alito’s interview demonstrate the high court’s rudderless system of self-guided ethics navigation. The interview was conducted by attorney David Rivkin, Jr., and Wall Street Journal editor James Taranto. Rivkin represents conservative billionaire donor Leonard Leo, who is the subject of Congressional inquiries into his involvement with Supreme Court justices. Rivkin also represents a party with a current case pending before SCOTUS.

More:

 

Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events​


On Jan. 25, 2018, dozens of private jets descended on Palm Springs International Airport. Some of the richest people in the country were arriving for the annual winter donor summit of the Koch network, the political organization founded by libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch. A long weekend of strategizing, relaxation in the California sun and high-dollar fundraising lay ahead.

Just after 6 p.m., a Gulfstream G200 jet touched down on the tarmac. One of the Koch network’s most powerful allies was on board: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Fact-based, independent journalism is needed now more than ever.

During the summit, the justice went to a private dinner for the network’s donors. Thomas has attended Koch donor events at least twice over the years, according to interviews with three former network employees and one major donor. The justice was brought in to speak, staffers said, in the hopes that such access would encourage donors to continue giving.

That puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has brought cases before the Supreme Court, including one of the most closely watched of the upcoming term.

Read the rest:

Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events

Thomas has attended at least two Koch donor summits, putting him in the extraordinary position of having helped a political network that has brought multiple cases before the Supreme Court.
www.propublica.org

​

 
They are not -- despite their personal assumption -- gods.
 

Exposed: SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Faith Group Being Investigated by FBI Over Abuse Allegations​


The FBI is investigating a faith group tied to Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett over allegations of abuse, RadarOnline.com has learned.

In a surprising development to come as Barrett’s conservative SCOTUS colleagues remain under scrutiny for a series of ethics concerns, it was revealed that the FBI is investigating the faith group People of Praise.

More:

 

We Don’t Talk About Leonard: The Man Behind the Right’s Supreme Court Supermajority​

THE PARTY GUESTS who arrived on the evening of June 23, 2022, at the Tudor-style mansion on the coast of Maine were a special group in a special place enjoying a special time. The attendees included some two dozen federal and state judges — a gathering that required U.S. marshals with earpieces to stand watch while a Coast Guard boat idled in a nearby cove.

Caterers served guests Pol Roger reserve, Winston Churchill’s favorite Champagne, a fitting choice for a group of conservative legal luminaries who had much to celebrate. The Supreme Court’s most recent term had delivered a series of huge victories with the possibility of a crowning one still to come. The decadeslong campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade, which a leaked draft opinion had said was “egregiously wrong from the start,” could come to fruition within days, if not hours.

Over dinner courses paired with wines chosen by the former food and beverage director of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., the 70 or so attendees jockeyed for a word with the man who had done as much as anyone to make this moment possible: their host, Leonard Leo.

More:

We Don’t Talk About Leonard: The Man Behind the Right’s Supreme Court Supermajority

The inside story of how Leonard Leo built a machine that remade the American legal system — and what he plans to do next.
www.propublica.org
 
^^^^^^

How to Score a FREE RV, SCOTUS Style​

Oct 27, 2023
2:44

Don’t worry about Justice Clarence Thomas living high on the hog, it’s probably only basic American rights at stake. In the latest of several reported economic & ethics-related scandals surrounding Thomas, what started out as a sweetheart loan deal from a healthcare exec turned into a free luxury motorcoach. Score!! The question is, when will he finally be reprimanded?

​

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…