04-07-2023, 05:36 PM
(04-07-2023, 04:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He would be in the wrong IF the rules that were changed/clarified were in effect all this time, they only came into effect in the last month.
Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.
Both parties involved have clearly stated there was no BUSINESS during any these vacations. So no violations.
I don't disagree with you on this. This is just one of those fun "letter versus spirit" things. I mean, there is a reason Crow's statement on the travel almost exactly mirrors the language of the exception. Seems like some thought had been given to that, almost like it was a CYA thing to work around the rules.
Probably wouldn't be as much of an issue if Thomas hadn't already been embroiled in conflict of interest issues in the not-so-distant past.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
