Chief Justice John Roberts punts on request to investigate Clarence Thomas
Source: CNN
Washington(CNN)Chief Justice John Roberts has declined to directly respond to a congressional request to investigate Justice Clarence Thomas' alleged ethical lapses.
Roberts instead referred the request from Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin to the Judicial Conference, which serves as the policy-making body of the federal courts.
The Illinois Democrat had penned a letter urging Roberts to investigate Thomas after a ProPublica report that found that Thomas had gone on several luxury trips at the invitation of a GOP megadonor. The trips were not disclosed on Thomas' public financial filings.
Thomas said in a statement that he had not reported the trips because the ethics guidelines in effect at the time had not required such disclosures.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/22/politics/chief-justice-john-roberts-clarence-thomas/index.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Evolve Dammit
(21,777 posts)
Quanto Magnus
(1,347 posts)Roberts is probably hiding a few skeletons himself. He doesn't want to open the flood gates
Evolve Dammit
(21,777 posts)Quanto Magnus
(1,347 posts)his wife
$10.3 Million in consulting fees.....
Hmmmmmm.... first skeleton discovered.
marble falls
(71,932 posts)
2naSalit
(102,798 posts)Of many questions to come.
ck4829
(37,761 posts)
mobeau69
(12,374 posts)
FBaggins
(28,706 posts)The rule appears to say that it doesn't have to be reported if it is the sale of a personal residence.
I've seen that reported as "primary residence" - which would not include this sale. But since he was an owner and presumable stayed there occasionally... it might qualify
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)He didn't include any income from it, probably because his mother was living there. But he also didn't report the sale, which happened in 2014 and should have been listed on the disclosure form.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774093-2014-clarence-thomas-disclosure#document/p5
Jarqui
(10,909 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)bucolic_frolic
(55,142 posts)
Cha
(319,079 posts)
Marthe48
(23,175 posts)arrogant, lying, cheating, fascist, protecting his arrogant, lying, cheating fascist buddy.
Layzeebeaver
(2,286 posts)the SCOTUS will never indulge precedent when it might hurt them.
If it hurts us? no problem...
Paladin
(32,354 posts)
Turbineguy
(40,076 posts)straight up for lunch for a quiet word.
These creeps are messing up his legacy.
dchill
(42,660 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(179,869 posts)jimfields33
(19,382 posts)That’d be the first thing I’d look at if I were senator Durbin. That’s a very easy thing to look at.
anciano
(2,256 posts)What exactly were the "ethics guidelines in effect at the time"?
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." --- Sherlock Holmes
marble falls
(71,932 posts)Dick Durbin
durbin.senate.gov
Richard Joseph Durbin is an American lawyer and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Illinois, a seat he has held since 1997. A member of the Democratic Party, Durbin is in his fifth Senate term and has served as the Senate Democratic whip since 2005 and as the Senate majority whip since 2021. He chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, and led the Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination hearings. Durbin was born in East St. Louis, Illinois.
Don't sweat it: Dick Durbin lines his ducks up. You should read up on Dick Durbin.
marble falls
(71,932 posts)
niyad
(132,442 posts)
madamesilverspurs
(16,512 posts)Apparently, when Roberts promised to "call balls and strikes" he failed to disclose his white cane . . .
.
orleans
(36,919 posts)apparently they meet twice a year -- march & september!
Traditionally the Chief Justice has convened two meetings of the Conference each year, one in September and one in March. The members are required to attend each session unless excused by the Chief Justice, who will then designate a replacement. The Conference generally meets in Washington, D.C.
uscorts.gov
BigmanPigman
(55,151 posts)dchill
(42,660 posts)"ethics guidelines in effect at the time had not required such disclosures."
Supreme Court, substandard ethics.
ck4829
(37,761 posts)
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)Chief Justice Roberts’ Wife Is Latest Supreme Court Spouse To Spark Ethics Concerns.
The wife of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is facing scrutiny for potential conflict of interests after a former colleague warned the Justice Department and Congress about her role as a recruiter for law firms, the New York Times reports, the latest ethical issue to face the court after Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife already came under fire for potential conflicts.
Chief Justice John Roberts and wife Jane Sullivan Roberts Supreme Court
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts and his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts arrive at the ... [+]GETTY IMAGES
KEY FACTS
Jane Sullivan Roberts, a legal recruiter, has earned “millions” in commissions for recruiting attorneys for jobs at law firms, which include firms that have cases before the Supreme Court, her former colleague Kendal Price said, according to a letter obtained by the Times.
Price provided records to the federal government showing commissions the justice’s wife earned between 2007 and 2014, and asked for an inquiry into the matter, arguing it should be mandatory for justices to disclose information about their spouses’ work.
Price sued Jane Sullivan Roberts in 2014 after he was fired from her recruiting firm—the suit ended in arbitration a year later, and the attorney who represented Price in his suit against Roberts and her firm, James E. O’Connell, Jr., has not yet responded to a request for comment.
Price did not cite specific cases that are of particular concern to the chief justice’s work, but cited Jane Sullivan Roberts placing Obama-era Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at WilmerHale, a large law firm that has argued more than 125 cases at the high court, as an example, the Times reports.
The chief justice has never recused himself from a case due to his wife and does not disclose her clients or earnings on financial disclosures, according to the Times, only reporting her salary but not commissions—but Price argued that’s misleading, as commissions “depend on cultivating and capitalizing on relationships in order to consummate particular deals.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/01/31/chief-justice-roberts-wife-is-latest-supreme-court-spouse-to-spark-ethics-concerns/?sh=1c348595bb80
Response to LenaBaby61 (Reply #22)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)republianmushroom
(22,326 posts)This is thomas's court not roberts.
PSPS
(15,321 posts)czarjak
(13,639 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)If they could investigate SCOTUS, why didn't Roberts have the Judicial Conference investigate the Dobbs leak?
SouthernDem4ever
(6,619 posts)They are making decisions based on their likes and dislikes without deference to existing law or precedence. They can't even remove an obvious offender from their ranks.
ck4829
(37,761 posts)NullTuples
(6,017 posts)hydrolastic
(547 posts)According to a CNN article .... "The House needs only a simple majority to impeach a Supreme Court justice or any federal judge. To convict and then remove the justice or judge, the Senate requires a two-thirds majority."
This means we need to get more Senators to be able to do this. There is no other way apparently to get rid of him. Current political situation makes it impossible to remove him. Maybe if the DOJ would look at Ginni and her role in the insurrection and possibly his role in it. But really it would be way easier to just do whatever it takes to get 2/3 rds of the Senate. Then at the same time we could put term limits and or rotation in place along with more judges. What a Mess!
ExWhoDoesntCare
(4,741 posts)The traitor party does not vote against one of their own. They control the House, so impeachment will never even make it to a committee, never mind a floor vote. Even if a miracle happened and they did vote for it, the Senate wouldn't have the votes to convict. A 2/3 vote = 67. Good luck getting 16 members of the traitor party in the senate to turn on another traitor.
The votes aren't there, and they won't be there. Not for a very long time.
Sometimes we have to accept the reality we're dealing with, like how impeachment is an exercise in futility. We're better off focusing on the things we can do.
It sucks, but that's how it is.
RussBLib
(10,635 posts)...what it would take to add members to the SCOTUS? I believe that Congress can do it with another "Judiciary Act." I imagine the House could pass it with a simple majority, but not sure about the Senate, if a majority suffices or if a supermajority is needed. Obviously, the president would have to sign it.
I understand the size of the court has changed multiple times in our history, but has not changed since 1869. FDR tried, but failed.
Frankly, considering the ethical lapses we have uncovered, the denial of a SCOTUS pick that Obama should have had, and the hard-right careen of the SCOTUS, it seems we are OVERDUE for an expansion of the SCOTUS. If things turn sour afterward, the next Congress could simply pass another Act to take it back to 9.
Bluejeans
(150 posts)There's an easy solution -- just sent Chief Justice Roberts a subpoena.
Hassler
(4,924 posts)Criticism would see this as his chance to regain control of his court. But then Ol Balls and Strikes Roberts is really no better than Crooked Clarence.
Hassler
(4,924 posts)Criticism would see this as his chance to regain control of his court. But then Ol Balls and Strikes Roberts is really no better than Crooked Clarence.
ck4829
(37,761 posts)Kid Berwyn
(24,395 posts)
melm00se
(5,161 posts)action makes sense for a couple of reasons:
1. it removes the perception (or reality) of coverup for a fellow right winger, justice or whatever.
2. it avoids duplication of effort. The Court has no mechanism to remove a federal judge, only Congress does. If the Court investigates and recommends impeachment, that is lost time as Congress will have to thru its motions.