SCOTUS Gifts and GOP Math

[NATI BENGALS]

I'm not on board with members of the SCOTUS accepting gifts that turn out to have a lot of monetary value.

Kind of surprised to see this story so far down the headlines list already and this is the first I'm seeing it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-millions-dollars-gifts-clarence-thomas.html

   









$35 = $2,400,000

Seriously though. I think that chart shows we have some problems that need to be addressed.

[Belsnickel]

I personally think that if you receive a paycheck from the federal government, you should have the same rules as all federal employees when it comes to gifts. Here is the problem, though. We have too many different rules: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7353

Now, the ethics guidelines for federal judges are very...squishy, and even more so when it comes to SCOTUS because of course they are. I have a real problem with any group doing their own oversight like some of these groups do, and that includes the courts.

The code of conduct for the courts is made by the judges themselves with the Chief presiding over all of it. What could go wrong?! The issue here lies with the way federal judges tend to think of themselves. Ask those attorneys who have practiced in federal courts for any significant period of time and they will tell you that the jurists tend to have a rather elevated opinion of themselves, somehow above reproach. This exists across any sort of partisan boundaries and increases as you move up the judicial ladder. To put it another way, they tend to think their shit don't stink. This is just what I have learned from the legal media I consume and also knowing some of these lawyers myself (I live in a small city that also has a federal courthouse).

Now, don't let this be confused with me saying they are bad judges, they just tend to have an attitude about them that is disastrous when it comes to self-governance. There needs to be a new solution to this. Every group should have some say in their own ethics codes, but there should be an independent group that plays a role in aiding in this oversight that is accountable to the people in some way. But nothing will ever happen, so yeah...

[*michaelsean*]

(06-07-2024, 07:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I personally think that if you receive a paycheck from the federal government, you should have the same rules as all federal employees when it comes to gifts. Here is the problem, though. We have too many different rules: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7353

Now, the ethics guidelines for federal judges are very...squishy, and even more so when it comes to SCOTUS because of course they are. I have a real problem with any group doing their own oversight like some of these groups do, and that includes the courts.

The code of conduct for the courts is made by the judges themselves with the Chief presiding over all of it. What could go wrong?! The issue here lies with the way federal judges tend to think of themselves. Ask those attorneys who have practiced in federal courts for any significant period of time and they will tell you that the jurists tend to have a rather elevated opinion of themselves, somehow above reproach. This exists across any sort of partisan boundaries and increases as you move up the judicial ladder. To put it another way, they tend to think their shit don't stink. This is just what I have learned from the legal media I consume and also knowing some of these lawyers myself (I live in a small city that also has a federal courthouse).

Now, don't let this be confused with me saying they are bad judges, they just tend to have an attitude about them that is disastrous when it comes to self-governance. There needs to be a new solution to this. Every group should have some say in their own ethics codes, but there should be an independent group that plays a role in aiding in this oversight that is accountable to the people in some way. But nothing will ever happen, so yeah...

Maybe this is too simplistic, but checks and balances. Congress and the President can pass laws that govern this kind of thing.

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2024, 10:49 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Maybe this is too simplistic, but checks and balances. Congress and the President can pass laws that govern this kind of thing.

They can, but they won't. If Congress passed laws to govern the courts on this regard then people would go "but wait, don't you all make your own ethics rules, too?" Of course, SCOTUS could also end up ruling that Congress does not have the authority to check the court in that way.

[Arturo Bandini]

1$ is already too much.

[NATI BENGALS]

It would be nice to see the historical data.

Looks to me like it might be a newer issue.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-07-2024, 12:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: 1$ is already too much.

That’s how I feel. At least one of them felt that way too.

[Arturo Bandini]

That Thomas guy loves them gifts right ?

I'm pretty sure he's opposed to any form of assistance for other people because : Nothing is free ?

[Mike M (the other one)]

I wonder why Pelosi isn't on this list.. Oh yea, insider trading isn't an ethical issue

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2024, 11:01 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I wonder why Pelosi isn't on this list.. Oh yea, insider trading isn't an ethical issue

Well, it is. Of course maybe it is because the article is about SCOTUS, not Congress.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-08-2024, 11:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it is. Of course maybe it is because the article is about SCOTUS, not Congress.

Ofc it is. the SCOTUS has more conservatives on it, so it gets the attention right now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

A breakdown of the gifts would be helpful. For example, Thomas stays at a friend's resort for free, that's a gift. If you owned a resort wouldn't you let your friends stay there for free? My point being that this seems rather less significant than, "Hey, here's a brand new Audi S8". And yes, I was specific as that is the gift I'd like to receive if any of you are so inclined.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2024, 11:22 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ofc it is. the SCOTUS has more conservatives on it, so it gets the attention right now.

They also get more attention because they are perceived as being the non-political branch even though that is a farce. The people expect politicians to do that sort of shit, as sad as that may be. Jurists should be above that but the public is learning that is not the case.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2024, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A breakdown of the gifts would be helpful. For example, Thomas stays at a friend's resort for free, that's a gift. If you owned a resort wouldn't you let your friends stay there for free? My point being that this seems rather less significant than, "Hey, here's a brand new Audi S8". And yes, I was specific as that is the gift I'd like to receive if any of you are so inclined.

But here's the thing, if you had a friend that had an interest in something that you had some decision-making authority over and they gave you a free stay at a resort, would that not look suspiciously like an attempt to influence? The mere image of impropriety is enough to undermine the rule of law when it comes to these things, and we are learning that the hard way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2024, 11:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But here's the thing, if you had a friend that had an interest in something that you had some decision-making authority over and they gave you a free stay at a resort, would that not look suspiciously like an attempt to influence? The mere image of impropriety is enough to undermine the rule of law when it comes to these things, and we are learning that the hard way.

I completely agree, I've said here repeatedly that the appearance of impropriety is as bad as actual impropriety.  I'm just raising a point that all "gifts" are not equal.

[*pally*]

I'd be curious if Justice Thomas declared these "gifts" on his taxes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-08-2024, 12:26 PM)pally Wrote: I'd be curious if Justice Thomas declared these "gifts" on his taxes.

Which again raises questions about the nature of said gifts.  Is staying for free at a resort something you have to pay taxes for?  Is hitching a ride on a private jet something you pay taxes for?

I'm also curious why you're only curious about Justice Thomas and no one else's gifts.

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-08-2024, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm also curious why you're only curious about Justice Thomas and no one else's gifts.

Are you though?

[Mike M (the other one)]

If Trump wins, think Thomas will retire?

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-08-2024, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which again raises questions about the nature of said gifts.  Is staying for free at a resort something you have to pay taxes for?  Is hitching a ride on a private jet something you pay taxes for?

I'm also curious why you're only curious about Justice Thomas and no one else's gifts.

Another question may be what has the net worth of the judges, and how has it changed since they stepped up to the bench?

We know many in Congress and the Senate have become substantially richer in their time in "public service." I agree some gifts are nothing to some people, like if Elon Musk gave someone a trip into space via Space X, that's nothing to him and a cool thing to do for a friend. Versus gold bars, bricks of cash, and carious luxury items.

While a distinction, even appearing like you are receiving gifts is not a good take. Are the gifts tied to decisions 1:1 where he was the difference make and go against his general trend of judgement?  idk