Astonishing Corruption at The Supreme Court?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 май 2023
- Ethics? Never heard of it 👨💻 Remove personal information off the web with Incogni with code LEGALEAGLE legaleagle.link/incogni ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? Get the EagleTeam! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
⚖ What's the solution here?
👨💻 Remove personal data online with Incogni! legaleagle.link/incogni
Can I share this on my channel?
Democrats need to take the GOP threat to democracy seriously and act accordingly, otherwise America is doomed to fall to authoritarianism and theocratic fascism.
Justice Thomas enters the chat..
Does this work retrospectively?
e.g. can I remove some information I'd like not to be public knowledge..
Since a Supreme Court appointment is for life, if you are found guilty of a felony, the punishment should be EXECUTION.
MERIKA
Man, I work for a local government agency and we aren't even allowed to give our supervisors birthday gifts. The fact that the highest court in the entire country has less ethical integrity than us is a huge joke.
Rules for thee but not for me
Is it really surprising though?? Everyone knows, atleast most street smart ones, that the legal system is only used against poor people!!
I work for a medical device company and, basically, we have to report if we bought some fries for a surgeon to prevent the appearance of undo influence. It’s astounding that the highest court in the land doesn’t have to do the same.
Retired federal employee here, we had really high standards, not sure how Thomas thinks that doesn't apply to him.
What I don't understand is WHY at the top is less stringent guidelines in play, why are not the top judges held to the same guide as lower judges?
All 9 of them saying, “don’t worry, we can self-police ourselves” is all the more reason to impose a code of ethics on them!
If I was in charge, (and if I could also ensure that their replacements would be better), I would impeach every single motherfucker on the court for signing that letter. All 9 of them. That's objective proof that they're all unforgivably corrupt.
@@atheos19 Also term limits!
A Puerto [blank] case should be brought against most of them, and their benefactors.
They’re being asked to impose a code of conduct on themselves. And they won’t even do that.
It leads me to believe they're all as corrupt as Thomas.
I work for a company, I am not a Supreme Court justice, but if someone gives me anything worth more than 25$ and I don't disclose it, I lose my job. Full stop. This is insane.
Really interesting. By chance what type of company do you work for that would require you to report 25 dollars in gifts from a 40 year friend?
@@cameron398all of them, actually. If that 40 year friend’s behavior conflicts with the interest of said company. :)
@@astronaut2317So, any triple A game I presume? This is a real question btw
with all due respect, that in of itself is crazy. if a friend gives me a 60$ game, i shouldnt have to disclose that to anyone.
@@cameron398do you lick boots for a living?
All I learned from this is that nobody will be held accountable.
Unless they use him for a scapegoat. Usually makes the herd feel safer that they "got one"
The funniest of all this is that Thomas's defense is basically "I didn't know the law." Since he's supposed to be one of the top legal professionals of the country.
“You had _ONE_ job.”
@@pixel_glitched If only it was "had," and not "have."
Have you heard his legal opinions? He is an ideological hack.
"I didn't know the law." I thought his rulings already made that abundantly clear.
@@shevek2954 🤣true
“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing”-SCOTUS
Are you talking about the 2020 election
@@osmosisjones4912they said SCOTUS
@@osmosisjones4912🍼😭
@@osmosisjones4912 The Republican party and Republican controlled state governments founded quite a few investigations themselves and they came to the same result.
@@osmosisjones4912no, they’re talking about SCOTUS
I was an administrative law judge during my legal career. Not only was I bound by the strict ethics rules of the State Bar of California, I was also bound by the even stricter ethic rules applied to judicial officers. I had to fill out detailed reports every year listing every source of any kind of income from stocks, bonds, speaking fees, gifts, etc.) and I was required to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” Regardless of whether he was technically required to report his free trips, etc, the actions of Justice Thomas certainly gives the appearance of impropriety. But no, the Supreme Court considers itself above such rules. Time for a change.
the fact that these people are unelected and serve LIFETIME appointments is staggeringly insane, to me
Yes, time for a change. Since you are in that field, is there something you could do to help that?
But 28 U.S. Code § 455 applies to Supreme Court justices just as it applies to all other judges and magistrates. The difference is that there is no-one to force these justices to comply, they can only be impeached. That'll never happen.
I don't know what's worse, that a judge in the highest-ranking judicial body in the United States of America didn't know well enough that what he was doing was unlawful, that he knowingly did it without fear of recourse, or that he was so out of touch that he didn't find what he was doing problematic at all.
That's a trifecta of suck right there.
getting to be about time for the pitchforks and torches
“I was unaware the law required me to report that.”
- Supreme Court Justice
I always heard ignorance of the law wasn't a valid excuse.
@@davidgalvez5341 Actually, in a lot of criminal offences, it is, if they require intent.
@@davidgalvez5341 It isn't. Unless you're a cop.
@@scifino1 intent doesn't mean intent to break the law, it is intent to commit the unlawful action. So no, not knowing the law is not a defense. At least not one that will keep you out of jail in the USA.
"I didn't know I couldn't do that?"
It's insane that we hold college basketball players to a higher standard for receiving gifts than we do for the literal nine people that decide our human rights.
Clearly it's all intentional. Why do you think billionaire families all go to Harvard law school? They don't need to work. They learn how to use law for the sole purpose of using it to oppress us and maintain their power.
Mad!
Never even thought of that aspect. Also, just think if this judge was a Democrat. The right wing would be trying to have him killed over this.
@@akinokusami3623 dude this applies to all of the federal government not just the supreme court the whole system is broken/corrupt/working as intended for the rich oligarchs who all financial and political leaders should be in prison
@@morphor THIS. WAKE UP PEOPLE.Elephant in the room, or giant ass, either way your supporting two sides of the same coin. CORRUPT career politicians with nothing but corporate billionaire D sucking skills.
My favorite part is a supreme court justice arguing "I didnt know this was illegal therefore It shouldnt be an issue" which is like the 5th graders understanding of the law, that if you didn't know it was illegal it doesnt apply to you
Shouldn't that disqualify him for the role? He lied in his resume, to court.
@@KafshakTashtak One would think.
How many times have we seen in real court cases: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Don't give Supreme Court justices the benefit of the doubt.
ANY politician (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Unaffiliated, whatever) who breaks the law needs to be prosecuted.
Judges (liberal or conservative) who take bribes need to be removed from the bench.
Elected and appointed officials are PUBLIC SERVANTS whose job it is to do what their constituents want, and judges are meant to be impartial, period. If you are not doing your job you deserve to lose your job!
Any found guilty should receive a life sentence irregardless of the normal punishment.
The greater the authority, the greater the responsibility, the greater the punishment for abusing that authority or neglecting that responsibility.
Evidence?
@@pixelman1234
Sorry, are you asking for evidence for someone saying that people who break the law should be prosecuted?
Are you dense?
Calling him "Justice" Thomas has a lot of bitter irony.
I'm an elected official - no power, no budget, I maintain monuments in a small town as a volunteer. I am in charge of nothing, nobody, and no money. And yet, when I got the job, I had to go through "conflict of interest" training, that could be summed up as "do not EVER accept ANY gift or service that has a value of greater than $50 as part of your job."
So, could I instead become a judge and cast aside all pretense of following the law?
Thank you for your work!
thanks for being cool :)
Not just a judge... most judges can be removed... but not a "Supreme Court Justice"🤐
Yes you are an idiot. Being honorable is idiotic in this society.
@@dickball2638 SCJs can also be removed the same as the President. But that is a similar impeachment and removal procedure. And well, you saw how the last few have gone. So Thomas is okay unless he himself takes up arms against the government.
I'm so sick of the two tiered legal system. I was a prison guard, and every year we were lectured on the crime of accepting "gifts". How we would get fired and even prosecuted. If only I had been "friends" with a billionaire...
You were part of the two-tiered justice system. 😂 You think any of those people you kept incarcerated were rich?
Shit, I was told I couldn’t take tips or gifts at Best Buy
@@TheBLGL weird comment. Why would he think any of those ppl were rich? where did he say that?
@@poindextertunes
The 2 tiered justice system is separated by wealth. Being a prison guard, he was enforcing that same justice system.
@@poindextertunes He's mad at him for being a Corrections Officer and thus being part of the criminal justice system, which they feel is unjust, and so are taking a swipe
I recall in my US politics and history classes/courses that the reason the Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointments was to AVOID corruption. Seems like it’s giving a lifetime of corruption instead.
It absolutely baffling that the system of checks and balances rarely ever applies to those at the highest positions
While attending college I worked as a bank teller, I had to refuse all gifts over $10 in value and report everything under for approval including Christmas cookies. Even though I had zero power to approve loans or remove late charges. It all got reported. He gets millions of dollar worth of gifts from influential friends, and he's got the power to make decisions that will influence millions of our lives. Where's justice in that?
I can't even accept a cheap branded ball point pen without declaring it and turning it in.
@@ScottBaker_ When I worked for a large multi-national the max was €25 which still had to be declared each time, 99% of the time this would be just to cover meals which the customer might have sprung for.
@@ScottBaker_so if someone dislikes you, they can give you multiple cheap gifts that you then have to declare?
It’s supreme justice
@@magnusbjarni yes
Can we all just pause for a moment and ponder that a supreme court justice is claiming ignorance of the law as an excuse?
For Thomas this is a plausible defense.
Americans love that defence, cops use it all the time
iirc he was never a judge so
Why the heck is he a justice
You think politicians read the bills and laws they put in place?
Ignorance of the law is no defence!
The ENTIRE accounting and audit profession has to be independent in practice AND IN APPEARANCE, so the validity of the information we prepare and review can be held to scrutiny. We mostly handle only money. I've never understood why SCOTUS, who sets legal precedent for the entire country, gets a lower standard.
The supreme court lost me at " corporations are people and money is speech".
That’s a great comment! Unfortunately, it’s an even bigger issue… And no one is talking about it. “ Citizens united“ is making everything more corrupt.
TERM LIMITS FOR ALL! NO EXCEPTIONS.
Mitt Romney: "Corporations are people, my friend.."
@@jonathanbethards3689 Corporations, as legal/business entities, are surrogate bodies ("corpus", Latin for "body") that shield actual people from liability. Mitt and SCOTUS meant that people are involved in corporations as officers, employees and stockholders, but they already have free speech. The ruling was just a way to stack the deck even more in favor of the wealthy.
To be fair, corporate personhood as a legal concept is extremely fundamental to business law. It's why they can enter into contracts, own property, and both sue people and be sued themselves. But they're not supposed to have *all* the rights of an actual human person.
My favorite thing is the way this is all being defended like "You can't possibly expect me, a Supreme Court Justice whose job and duty it is to interpret and understand complicated law, to correctly interpret and understand complicated law."
the latter is not complicated, though
"I thought being a supreme court justice just meant getting to eliminate the rights of women and disenfranchise trans people!"
@@agoo7581Yeah, I’ve just started referring to them as “clerics”, Supreme Ayatollah Brent “Biffed It” Kavanaugh.
@@agoo7581 i mean, thomas isn't wrong about that bit Dxracer
law does not equal law. The judges there probably don't know most real estate laws. They're supposed to be experts on the constitution.
It just reinforces the fact that we have TWO justice systems -- One for the rich, and one for the rest.
One's a justice system, the other is just a method of retaining power over and draining resources from the other.
Hahahaha and you aint gonna do nutin about it hahaha
@@kingforaday8725 you laugh at others suffering? Seriously? This isnt even a person falls down stairs but is otherwise ok scenario
@@morphor Some people can only be happy if someone else is miserable. It's honestly kinda sad
@@IwasFRAMEDiTELLyou That's sadism for you.
I remember the point being made that this job is for life precisely so that justices be not tempted to curry favor with private interests to secure their position after their term is over.
Actually with the phrase or IRS qualified dependent, the nephew could be a qualifying relative of Thomas, meaning he was Thomas’s dependent and would be required to disclose the gifts. This is based on the fact that he was the legal guardian, housed him, and raised him like a son.
Did the statute say "and" or "or"?
@@ShankarSivarajan or is what he said. I have pulled the statue itself though.
@@lancedooley9304 What? At 20:07 he clearly says "… _and_ who is a dependent defined by the IRS."
@@ShankarSivarajan then my mistake. But he would still meet all the requirements for the payment to be disclosed depending on how the law is written.
It’s crazy that regular civil servants have more restrictions, oversight and punishments then those at the highest levels.
except for police ofcourse. ;)
As it is in every field
I had to return pens. Nobody can give gifts over $3.00
@@Robbedem by design
As they say, a knife is sharp downwards but dull upwards
As a government employee, if I accepted any of these gifts I'd be out on my ass. I'm barely even allowed to accept a lanyard at a conference. The mere *appearance* of corruption is enough to warrant punishment.
That's your fault for having a boss. Why didn't you decide to be the top unassailable court in the land? Jk
Guess you just aint smart enough to get away with it!!! Thomas is hahahaha
If every part of the gov could do this, corruption would be through the roof
@@kingforaday8725 Are you seriously taking the pro-corruption stance?
That's not owning the libs, fam.
@@kenos911 Arguably, in the house and senate they just legalized it and called it lobbying
In a lower court the judge would be stripped of their seat and possibly disbarred if they were a lawyer before becoming a judge if something like this was found out. However, because he's a supreme court justice the only way to remove him would be an impeachment hearing in the senate, and the house separately. I find that extremely wrong.
Also your editors are getting really good.
If a court is supposed to be nonpartisan...they really gotta have things in place to make sure it stays that way...particularly by keeping the judges out of wealthy pockets.
When I worked as a county employee, I couldn't even accept a cup of coffee for free. This is an OUTRAGE!!
Exactly. At work, we had to declare everything, no matter how trivial. When corruption in high places is so blatant and unaccountable, democracy breaks down.
cops don't have to report all the freebies they get, either. Weird how people with actual powers don't really have accountability.
I’m a doctor and I cannot even get a pen for free!
@@octothorpian_nightmare of course they aren’t accountable, they create the laws
@@octothorpian_nightmare well, because they're with actual powers.
It’s legal when a Supreme Court justice do it, but if it’s a mail room clerk, please expect him/her to go to jail. This is the insane world that we live in.
At the very least he committed tax fraud. They should go after him like they did with Al Capone.
Rules for thee but not for me.
And yet when government officials namely the presidential press secretary spoke about encouraging people to go these very judges house's to harassing them unless they commit to vote for keeping roe VS. Wade. Which is actually illegal but nobody spoke up. Hunter Biden clearly using his father's position to get a job and kickbacks with what has some emails and other records that seem to link Joe Biden as recipients of some money from individuals who have connections to forgien countries. The classified documents that just lying around everywhere. All these things and yet no outrage but a story about a conservative judge well how dare they. I mean why are you surprised the whole government is corrupt the whole idea was elected officials would give service back to the country, but now it really is making sure how much benefits you can get. When politicians lose the election they become lobbyists who then use their knowledge and connections to earn millions to lobby things. I mean if you are going to call out things on government officials and politicians then make sure you call out not just one side but all of them. The news media once was supposed to be the watch dog, but now they become a tool for the politicians to use against normal citizens
It's more insane how we just stand by and let it happen.
He aint gonna be charged or impeached!!!! And he will do it again and yall cant do nutin about it!!! hahahahahahaha!!!!
THIS! This is why we need term limits for all positions in the government. No exceptions.
Yes, but good luck getting polticians to give themselves term limits.
@@allseeinghamster6001All politicians have term limits. Justices are not politicians (supposedly)
They don't wanna give up that job security most of us scrape along.
@@pokehybridtrainer Do you even have any idea why there are no term limits for justices? Why do you speak on something you clearly know nothing about
"No one would vacation at New Haven, CT." Ouch, I felt that one.
“Unchecked power over the entire American legal system” - that’s actually a nice concise way of describing everything that is wrong with said “legal” system.
pretty sure there's a lot more wrong than that
that's the most miniscule thing from all the things wrong with the legal system
As with any system, the buck has to stop somewhere. The problem is that it is stopping at a transparently partisan and corrupt court.
Do you remember the seperation of power and state it would apply in this very thing so they cant be affected tha anymore trying leaving politics out so good luck
Let’s be accurate: ours is a legal system not a justice system.
The Court has lost all credibility. When there is no appetite to deal with possible corruption and insufficient mechanisms of accountability, corruption will only become worse. The fact that the Court seems unconcerned with the appearance of corruption tells the tale.
this is the roberts court. he was placed on the court to do two things: dismantle the voting rights act, and allow unlimited dark money into political campaigns
he's done both of those things. he doesn't care about anything else
Apparently, that's all they have going for them. Guess we don't have to listen to them any more.
The delegitimization of the highest Court in the land tells a worrisome story. Never a healthy sign for a democracy.
That's because they all do it. Creating ethics and moral regulations would be like shooting themselves in the foot.
I disagree to a degree. I find it still very professional and focused on staying in their lane. It is still much more credible and less corrupt than Congress. But yes... there needs to more accountability.
Man, it's almost as though having a completely unaccountable super-legislature is a bad idea.
either he committed these crimes knowingly, or he's ignorant of the laws he is expected to live by and enforce, either way he is unqualified to remain a judge, let alone a supreme court justice.
It remains astounding to me that nine unelected, lifetime appointee overlords control the entirety of US legal canon with zero oversight or even the hint of a code of ethics. What checks and balances?
Nah but it's a democracy tho that mean tHe PoEpLe arE in ChaRgE
We're like 60 Senate votes shy of "checks and balances" working like it's supposed to.
Hey, guess who else gets a shitpot of money from the same donors.
Yeah but joe Biden launders more money than you can count through ukrain and we’re ok with it 🤷♂️ we don’t have any clue where it’s ended up but I bet you can guess
In theory, they are appointed by the executive branch, approved by the legislative branch, and lack enforcement powers.
They don't control "the entirety of us legal canon". There is a mechanism for the other two branches to undo every and any decision made by the Supreme Court. All the court can do is interpret current law. Congress has the power to initiate a change to the law and undo any interpretation they don't like. Problem is, Congress prefers to avoid many of the larger issues.
The Court's corruption is one thing, but what gets me is their arrogant refusal even to acknowledge possible wrongdoing.
It's also the case with other politicians in general
First rule of crime is to not admit to the crime.
They don't want to indict themselves.
@@jons787 Unless your Trump. In which case, admit loudly and claim it wasn't a crime. And if it was a crime he didn't do it. And if he did do it he was allowed to do it. And if he wasn't allowed to do it it's all liberals fault.
Dems have tried to take him out for years. A black republican refugee their stupid racist rhetoric
Wow, that was one subtle dig at New Haven, CT. @2:20 Beautiful!
Definitely illegal not to disclose real estate sales over a certain amount
It pisses me off so much that - as a state employee of a relatively small agency - I would have been terminated, lost my license to practice, and most likely been criminally charged for 1/100th of the things Thomas has had come to light recently.
False equivalency, you aren't given unchecked power for life.
@@Jay_Frank That makes it even worse.
@@Jay_Frank that makes it 100x worse.
We and all our elected officials knew that this setup was there. The Supreme Court governs itself , that is why BOTH PARTIES want THEIR judges on the court . Why are we shocked NOW ? 🇺🇸🙈🇺🇸🙈🇺🇸🙈 This may be the highest court in the land but , that does not mean it is ethical and moral !
@@MitChHic that makes it 1000x worse.
If regular citizens can be held to the standard that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, then a judge for the highest court in the land should definitely be held to that same standard, preferably one that's even harsher. How the hell does a supreme court justice claim to not know the law on something so obvious?!
_"How the hell does a supreme court justice claim to not know the law on something so obvious?!"_
Because he knows he won't be punished for it, so it doesn't matter.
Because he interprets the law...
Yes, I, after careful reflection, decided that the law says I don't need to do that.
>Sue me... I'm the judge above all judges anyway.
@@thomasderosso5625 I mean, why even lie, then?
@@huntercoleherr ---Because he knows he's wrong and what he did was highly illegal. He needs impeached and disbarred ASAP.
It's not just that he's a Supreme Court Justice, because that body actually was envisioned as a way to include laypeople with diverse life experience in the direction of the law.
No, the extra kick in the pants is that _he has a law degree._ He's claiming ignorance and inability in his _specific field of expertise._
2:20 lol the random dig at New Haven hahahaha
Always interesting, thank you.
Another prime example of why no one has full trust on the justice system.
You can never "trust" anything in government. You must always distrust and demand they "prove/justify" everything they do. No exception. What is sad is that the muppets from the D's or R's give "their side" a pass on things like this.
Which is why the appearance of corruption is just as bad as actual corruption.
You mean castle rock wasn’t enough?
I don’t even refer to it as the justice system it’s the legal system and we all know money is the best way to beat the system
It reminds me of that line from Animal Farm- Everyone is created equal, just some are more equal than others.
I can't imagine a more blatant and obvious reason for him to be kicked out. Even claiming ignorance, as the highest ruler of law in the country, being ignorant of the law should be reason enough to have him removed.
This.
I posted about this earlier but I will state it again - the Martin tuition issue COULD be okay. The Crows have given extensively to RMA over the years. In fact, they paid for a new academic building to be built at RMA in 1988. They also have funded numerous scholarships at RMA over the years. How do I know this? I graduated from RMA in 1990 and benefited from the Crow's kindness.
The question now becomes did Martin get his tuition paid for directly by Crow or did he get assigned a scholarship funded by the Crows from the Financial Aid Office at RMA. RMA has so many scholarships that the Crows fund that if the Financial Aid Office assigned him, things COULD be okay. If the tuition was paid DIRECTLY by the Crows, it is quite troublesome. We need more information in regards to this specific instance before we reach judgement in regards to this issue. No matter what, the visualizations of this are quite troubling.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and he's someone who makes it. So he's either really stupid and incompetent or incredibly corrupt. I hope for his sake it's the former because that's actually the better thing to be in this, by far.
As the cops always say to the civilians "ignorance of the law is not an excuse to not follow it"
Sotomyor recd 3.5ml. F u all
If Thomas didn't understand the rules, or made a number of little "mistakes" in his reporting of gifts, shouldn't that automatically disqualify him from sitting as any kind of justice / judge anywhere?
Above all else, SCOTUS is supposed to be about understanding the law, and ruling on interpretations thereof. Also, any good lawyer needs to pay attention to the details of whatever they're working on. I'd have thought this was fundamental.
I've been watching your videos for about a year...love them!
My favorite response to this issue is from Jordan Klepper on the Daily Show: “In Clarence Thomas's defense, the law is complicated. And he's only a Supreme Court Justice.”
The US supreme court doesn't have to follow US law. They are writing it.
@@joachimschoder They are not, Congress is.. they just interpret it. and it's fun seeing them using the most twisted or idiotic way to interpret sometimes to get the results they want.
"Let's go 200 years in the past, using law made before the country was even founded to justify this..."
@@joachimschoder Ah, so, for you to feel good about yourself, you need to admire people who were placed into positions of power via monetary means rather than people who do great good via great sacrifice. Got it. Noted.
The writers in that show definitely do not get paid enough.
@@nancycronin551 What?
The fact that the supreme court are not held to the same level of ethics and conflicts scrutiny as that of lower courts is an outright disgrace and something that needs remedying.
What you people don't understand is that scrutiny is enforced top down. No hierarchy can go up forever at some point there has to be someone or a group of people that have no boss. And if you have no boss there is no scrutiny.
@@NotYourBusiness-bp2qn so true. Such a dilemma.
@@NotYourBusiness-bp2qn that shows how hierarchies are built to fail for structures of governance. if all power comes from the top then all the structural weight rests on that pillar. A rotten pillar will collapse.
Not true. The president is subject to ethics laws. There’s nobody higher in the executive branch. Robert’s is deluding himself that Congress can’t pass and enforce ethics regulations on the SC - it absolutely can if it can ever function again.
@@NotYourBusiness-bp2qn ---Their boss is supposed to be the laws they swore to uphold, which obviously meant nothing to Thomas. Political appointments for life is a very stupid idea for obvious reasons.
I caught that New Haven, CT joke - well played!
I was hoping I had heard “Quid Pro Crow” at roughly 8:56. I urge you to use it in the future!
I tried to give my probation officer a coffee mug and she had to refuse it. The idea that a Supreme Court justice would accept all of these lavish gifts is unconscionable.
That's when you find a way to just stealth-gift it, sneak it onto her desk when she's not there... _via legal means, of course!_
@@wmdkitty I don't think breaking into a probation officer's desk is worth it, especially to break another law 😁
“i prefer walmart parking lots to beaches” over compensation at its finest.
Funny he doesn't have any pictures of Walmart parking lots only really expensive vacation pictures on all his social media
If you're going to lie at least make the lie believeble.
Lmao WHO perfers trailer parks and Walmart parking lots to beaches or ANYTHING? And even worse, WHO thinks that is a convincing lie? All that fancy education doesn't amount to much if you think/believe that does it? Or think/expect people to believe that.
Honestly once I heard that line I understood everything I needed to know about this case lol
Yeah, Walmart parking lots are great for when I was homeless and sleeping out of my car. This dude needs to an hero.
To say he had no idea these things might be a big no no is a little bit hard to believe, he is an attorney with a degree from an Ivy League university. He has pointed out that he received high marks. Did he skip ethics classes?
Any chance of expanding on the Supreme Court extra-curricular shenanigans, like how Chief Justice Roberts' wife is in cahoots with a number of big legal firms that regularly present cases to the supreme court, or how George Mason University's law school has become a darling and sweet deal provider for every conservative justice during the last few years?
IF none of this was technically illegal. Why were there so many efforts to hide all of it.
Also I feel like the conversation with his colleague was more like this.
" So I have a billionaire friend who gives me things and does me financial favors. Should I report that stuff? "
" Oh shit, no you better not. "
Same reason why Bernie hides he is a millionare now. Optics.
if it wasn legal, they would hide it to avoid suspiscion and to not draw attention to just how corrupt they are. of course, no cover can last forever, but at least you get away with it for some time.
"It's all a smear campaign by the Democrats"
But if you're actually an impartial judge, why would they even want to smear you?
Did they try to actively hide it? Or just didn't report?
The former is an action, the latter is an omission.
One is actively trying to save your hide. The other might be just laziness.
Also, just a nitpick because I don't think it applies here: privacy is the kind of thing which isn't supposed to be illegal, but you still don't want people knowing. So please ponder "If you don't have nothing illegal show us everything", again I don't think you are making _that_ straw-man argument, but keep that in mind... especially since privacy is quite the topic nowadays.
Wow. What a great friend Harlan Crowe is. Just giving millions of dollars worth of trips, items, and favours without expecting a single thing in return. What a guy.
didn't you know? Billionaires love throwing away their money on others!
In a sense it could be sincere since Thomas is an insecure, one-operation automaton whose sole occupation is to smash YES on the most conservative option no matter what. So, my thought is that a conservative donor trying to influence him might be the stupidest person alive performing the most redundant bribery in history. I wonder if he also bribes surgeons to was their hands and drive Porsches. But yeah mega corrupt regardless.
I mean, even assuming that Harlan Crowe never asked for anything, you couldn't say that this wouldn't influence Thomas. All those gifts and you wouldn't want to do something for your friend that only you could do?
There's no quid pro Crowe here, definitely not.
"owner"
When you're a supreme court justice they let you do it.
Here in Europe u have justices being forced to step down because they accepted spaghetti, a pen, a hat, a tie… just as a small reality check.
Judges and other public officials in the U.S. as well. It's only the Supreme Court that is above the law. That's what the Constitution says, I'm pretty sure. I've never read it, but that's because I'm a Supreme Court justice.
The difference isn't between American and European judges.
The difference is between Big Important Judges and little-guy functionaries nobody cares about. Europe's politics and judiciary are just as corrupt -- Jesus, I mean, look at FIFA.
Americans: "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
"Justice for money, how much can you pay? We all know it's the American way." -Styx
I really wanna know what they were doing with those 4 things
8:37 “Highlighter” lol editor, I see u 👀
"No one would ever vacation in New Haven, Connecticut."
😂😂😂 I CANNOT.
PROTIP: anyone says something like "I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches" you should investigate them IMMEDIATELY: THEY ARE CLEARLY HIDING SOMETHING!!!
He should get 20 years for that statement alone 😂
That's probably where he meets his cocaine dealer.
@@nathangamble125 Does Thomas really look like he's on cocaine? Xanax, maybe...
😊Crow probably bought him a Walmart
Especially when he has hundreds of pictures from around the world on his social media pages but not one picture from a Walmart parking lot
The only way I can interpret the Court’s reluctance to define and adhere to higher ethical standards is to infer all of them engage in similar, if not worse, behavior that simply hasn’t come to light. I don’t know why I had been so naive as to imagine the Supreme Court was any less corrupt than Congress, but I was. This is deeply depressing. We’re completely on our own and left to exist in whatever space the rich deign to reluctantly provide. Meanwhile, corporate media ensures we train our justifiable anger against each other instead of the ruling class.
Is always good to remember that it was the Citizens united court ruling that determined that money for campaigns was free speech, that tells you all you need to know about the supreme court
You’ve got the right idea but the wrong attitude. What we need to do is organize, whether that be through unionization or political movement, and once we have enough power, force them to comply with the will of the people. It’s not exactly a revolution but it’d be a hell of a lot better than what we’ve got.
You can go read the writings of anarchists from a hundred years ago where they point out that these hierarchical structures do nothing but breed corruption and oppression and they are still right today. Things have not changed as much as we hope.
worse this whole thing and their public refusal makes It seem like they're waving a sign right now that they are buyable
Completely agree with you. I want a full audit of every single one of these justices and accountability for whatever they're hiding.
Love the stock image for New Haven. Hahaha.
He’s pretty well known. And RV people are pretty friendly. Has anyone ever reported to seeing him in Walmart or RV parks?
Just heard an interview on MSNBC where Harlan Crow was asked point blank if he would be friends with Clarence Thomas if he was not a SC Justice and his response was essentially: "I don't know how to answer that." I think this tells us all we need to know.
Yeah, that he probably wouldn't have been put in position to meet him, moron?
It’s so easy to just say yes for the PR. Sheesh imagine the ego
Well for one He would be an entirely different person. If you didn't have the life experiences as you do now? would your friends still be friends with you? If they say yes then they would either be lying or ignorant as you wouldn't be who you are. It a simple question that can't have a simple answer.
@@Wolfstanusf course different life experience makes for a different life and person, but unless you met a friend through work it seems to kind of be easy to answer, at least for me and my friends. They do not really care what job I hold nor I of them. I have had friends that have had job changes and have been friends when they were jobless as they have been with me through job changes and times of no work. My main focus of life is making art and I have friends that knew me before I got good enough for them to care about that any more than they cared about my comic book collection and I have friends that don't even much like most of my art, but none of them are friends with me for what I do with my days and nights except the times we share of life laughter advice and shoulders to bear life's burdens. Every single friend might say they might not know who I might be if I weren't an artist but none would hesitate to say they would be my friend if I never painted again or never had painted or whatever work I did or didn't do as long as I'm not asking them for money they don't care about my job at all
@@Wolfstanus I have a best friend. If someone asked if I would still be friends with her if she were not a Physical Therapist, my answer would obviously be “yes” because her career does not define our friendship.
Now, if you choose to be obtuse and pretend as though you don’t know what this question was asking, that’s on you. This is not the same as asking “if she never attended the same school as you and majored in Physical Therapy, do you think you would have met and become friends?” The original question obviously means that ALL OTHER THINGS REMAINING EQUAL, would you be friends with that person if they did not hold the status/title they hold? Any adult gets this.
It is also exacerbated by his follow-up where he says all relationships are transactional. Which means he views his relationship as transactional and that if he was not getting something from him, they may not be friends. To give this answer in response to someone asking specifically about someone’s TITLE kind of shows that it is his TITLE that he is using. In my example, if I followed the PT question with: “I can’t answer that because all relationships are transactional,” wouldn’t that imply to you that something about my friend’s PT title is what keeps me engaged in our relationship and that if I wasn’t able to capitalize on it in a transactional way, I am not sure the friendship would exist?
C’mon. Use your brain just a bit.
The higher you are in any government position the more accountable and subject to scrutiny you should be, not less. Damned infuriating that the highest levels of our government seem to be able to get away with damn near anything they want and are protected while doing so.
I had no idea you wanted to leverage the show into creating legal services. Wow, that's pretty brilliant. How does a law firm become one that you refer?
2:20 Massive shade towards New Haven🤣
I'm (almost) not sure which is worse, a supreme court justice who's on the take, or one who's too stupid to know what a bribe is.
*trying to convince you he's too stupid, citing the landmark 1991 case Urkel v Winslow and the famous "Did I do that?" defense.
Citizens United make it clear the SC's understanding of corruption goes against common sense.
Great comment… I wish I would’ve posted it!
Are you referring to Sotomayor taking $3 million from a company and not recusing herself from their case?
@@CreaturesOfTheMarshIt's not the burn you think it is. Unlike Republicans, I want all of them thrown out for this. They proved with their little "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong" statement that, with the possible exception of KBJ because she's new enough to the highest court to not know how corrupt it is in person, the whole building is rancid to the core. Eject the full set, right now. You won't call for that, of course, because it's not really about standards, it's empty "whataboutisms" to protect the corruption when it benefits your team.
I worked for over 45 years for the Federal Government, serving as a contracting officer's technical representative for part of that time. I once had to return a piece of paper with art that was sent to me as a sample. I was not even allowed the throw it out. Why? Because my ethics officer said the "de minimus" value of a gift was zero. We could not sit at the same table if the contractor and the Government employees went to lunch at the same restaurant. Appearance as well as details was paramount in our minds. Having arbiters of the law openly flout these standards is, as our mothers would have said, "disappointing."
Damn. I guess only the highest court gets to be corrupt
As attorneys for state board of accountancy, we were not allowed to accept anything from the accountants we regulated, including things like venison, which one board member attempted to gift us for Christmas. lol. We were told we could not accept any gifts above a certain dollar amount I can no longer recall. But it was very small.
As a state Caseworker, I have to disclose every gift I get over $50 from someone who is not an immediate relative. I also have to report being a treasurer for a group at my church that pays for scholarships for students in Africa and school supplies for children in America, even though I don't get paid and we meet maybe once a year.
This type of corruption being at the top is almost more likely than not found further down as well. For example, the police in almost every state having such an incestuous relationship with local DAs and judges has never led anywhere good.
A group of us once went to NASA to install computers as contractors. The work went long into the evening so we order pizza. The NASA workers who were accompanying us insisted to pay their portions. They said they did not want to be fired over some free pizza.
I asked advice from my corrupt colleagues and they said I was a judge so I can do what I want- what makes you think that loads of money will effect my decisions - it’s just crazy
“Corruption in the US government??? NO WAY!!” -literally no one ever.
Jesus, someone said they prefer to holiday in Walmart parking lots and it's taken this long for them to be investigated?
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I mean, you’re not wrong. Seems sussy
😶
Such blatant bs. He’s always been a liar. He cannot be trusted whatsoever yet we have to put up with him making laws that impact all Americans. It’s nauseating.
Especially since he has hundreds of pictures on their social media pages from around the world but not one picture from a Walmart parking lot
He could have gone with "I prefer the local lake beach" or "I prefer a nature park" or "I prefer a remote coast to a tourist white sand beach". But no, he just had to go all in with a walmart parking lot.
Haha.
Yeah, "I prefer the rural parts of America. RV parks and Wal-Mart parking lots.". So funny! He could have gone further to saying he prefers eating Waffle House with his wife instead of fine dining.
Yeah, that struck me as over-the-top BSing.
Bro, people who camp in RV campgrounds would much rather island hop than camp in an RV campground. Those places are redneck hell!
I've seen hundreds of parking lots. Still trying to figure out what is more special or implied more humble about one parking lot over another. Word salad maybe? Ahahaha.
@@jbern2185 At the time it was weird, now it's like; who paid for the RV?
I kept hearing "the delicate light reflecting off of Thomas Crow's cat"
2:20 throwing some shade are we lol
“I didn’t know the law” says a Supreme Court judge.
I have a very difficult time believing that none of the other Justices knew this was going on. Which leads me to wonder how many of the other Justices have enjoyed these same kinds of "perks" and from whom?
Exactly I don’t know why it’s gotten so partisan if there is corruption from either democrat or republican Supreme Court justices there should be consequences
@@ToxicSpider0711 there*
@@Jay_Frank damn man hurting an English majors ego
@@Jay_Frank literally no one cares.
Whole dem was getting free trips and shit from a rep. Can’t even imagine the reps benefits
"The article does not allege that Crow asked for anything in return from Thomas, which would constitute quid pro quo corruption. The news outlet also said Thomas did not respond to a detailed list of questions. Crow said in a statement issued to ProPublica and subsequently obtained by NBC News that he has never sought to influence the justice. The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment." from the article
Almost a he doesn't seem guilty but he could be - quick to crucify him because he's a conservative? Seems that way despite other Justices were mentioned early on in this issue along with him but his name sticks out because he's a conservative appointee. Not really defending him per say because if he is guilty he should be kicked off the bench but let's make sure this is not being cherry picked to satisfy one side of the ideological aisle. Let the bashing begin from the naysayers.
True
Can someone explain like I'm a child, why our legal system is not endowed with powers to immediately arrest and imprison for life, billionaires who engage in this blatant corruption of the democratic process? And if there is no immediate remedy to this situation, why is violence against politicians and those billionaires/justices not warranted? I really don't get it. Either the court system is satisfactory to solving this, or it is not and it is the duty of the people per the constitution "when a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it"
It seems to me the justice system has ultimately failed and is requiring we insist more direct change. Secondly the current system and it's actors will resist this change by force. So.... What is the next step if not force?
It's almost like a group of people with nearly unfettered power have no reason to follow the law, who would've thought?
It's telling that to the conservative justices (including the Chief Justice), the law doesn't bind them, but it does bind their fellow liberal justices (since you can bet they would demand recusal or removal of them should any of them have committed the same actions as Thomas).
Aaaaand that's why judicial impeachment should happen and why I think congress are a bunch of pussies for not doing anything about it
@@AurizenDarkstar That isn't true at all. In reality, all the SC justices respect each other and are mostly friends. Ginsberg and Scalia had polar opposite opinions but were basically best friends. Roberts has been writing since his confirmation about his concern for the public perception of the court and overpoliticization of judicial opinions, which is a major reason he voted with the liberal wing on Obamacare and tried to find middle ground in Dobbs. He has great concern over the perception of the court. The vast majority of the Court's cases are not political and don't typically split the way the politics makes it seem.
@@AurizenDarkstar Random House and Sotomayor? Demand her recusal.
This is why it's unwise to give so much power to a small group of unelected officials.
I used to conduct financial disclosure investigations when I was in the Military and the things Justice Thomas has done is far worse than anything anyone disclosed on their OGE Form 450s. I remember seeing Admirals return command ball caps because they didn't want the perception of favoritism; all federal employees should be held to the same standard and if any Justice doesn't like it, there's the door. You would think the Supreme Court would take actions to remove any doubt regarding the perception of potential corruption, but I guess this is to be expected when you leave anyone to police themselves with no oversight.
Even if it's legal, it's still downright unethical because you have personal stake in this in a form of financial gain (a massive one at that) to the one directly overseeing the judiciary system. The reason why in any legal system today, we don't allow both the judge and jury with personal connection with either the prosecution or defendant to preside over a court case because people are all too well aware that for the longest time it obviously creates an atmosphere of biasness.
@@terrancex339 My main concern is how this will likely erode the legitimacy of the Supreme Court since there's apparently more than one now involved in questionable financial entanglements. What kind of example does that set for the rest of the judicial system when the highest court can't keep it's nose clean and set an example for all other lower courts?
No oversight and no legal recourse beyond the political action of impeachment and removal from office, unlikely in such a climate.
It's the system working as intended. The system exist for the rich to screw over the working class
their are no checks and balances on the supreme court, which is why those who want to abuse power use that route.
Seems a little weird to me that we can't find a few people to fill a supreme court willing to live a life above reproach. How about they just don't receive any gifts over $1000, "close personal friend" or not? You know, like a normal person. Why is it that we feel we need to leave all of these loopholes open?
If you aren't willing to live a life where you aren't allowed to accept extravagant and ethically compromising gifts... Get a different job. Damn, it's hard to believe how out-of-touch our politicians are. It's wild to me that these people have the "right" to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts under the table if they are for food/housing/entertainment. Even if no rulings were ever directly affected by this behavior, it is still completely unacceptable. How do they expect us to trust them with these sorts of shennanigans going on?
Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse. He's a US Supreme Court Justice, not a simple lawyer or a minor magistrate. He has a way higher bar for ethical conduct, and there's been lots of cases on this. Needing to disclose these things should have been done even if it was in caution, that is the behaviour expected of someone in high judicial office not this incident which is really a joke.
As an Australian lawyer, this just proves to me how compromised ethically the legal fraternity has become, not just as an Industry but as a whole. There's been many judges and justices (incl the Australian High Court) that have written about this and I think it applies to both us and the USA.
Frankly, the fact that all the people serving on the Supreme Court signed on to that letter does more to make me question the ethicality of their private dealings than it does to instill confidence in Thomas' behavior. The reason why we got dirt on Thomas instead of a different person is not something I wonder about.
Exactly. It was a huge sign saying "don't investigate us", which is also a huge red flag saying that we should. I can't think of another reason the Democratic justices would stand up for a despicable person like Thomas.
@@travis1240*and Republican justices. Come on now bud this is something we can all get behind. I understand your point but it’s pretty obvious this is systemic. Just don’t want us to get it twisted, everybody likely sucks here.
So far reporting has mostly been on Thomas. But it has also been reported that Sotomayer did not disclose a $3m book deal. She weighed in on a case regarding that publisher as a justice.
So not just Thomas, but it seems to be one of the more egregious cases due to the number, the length of time and the dollar figures.
The entire system of how it functions smells of rot. I'm not American, but it is obvious something needs to change.
@@andrewm8703 No, no, STOP.
The book deal was 100% disclosed.
What the Daily Wire is whining about is her not reclusing herself from a case that didn't even get cert.
@@andrewm8703 Sotomayer DID disclose the book deal -- the $3,000,000 was received as royalties over about 10 years, not all at once, and since it was disclosed the petitioners before the court had the option of asking her to recuse herself but did not. It was also technically legal as, as I said, the payments were royalties and she was not on the board of the organization. (Sort of like she doesn't have to recuse from a case involving Kroger because she shops there). We may want to tighten up the regulations, but as it stands now they were not technically illegal. Gorsuch also did not recuse himself from the same case for the same reason. Again, since these were disclosed transactions, the petitioners were at liberty to request their recusals but did not.
And people wonder why the younger generations have lost all faith in this country. Serious Change is needed and will not happen until something drastic is done.
Younger generations were TAUGHT to lose faith in this country.
@@212caboose No, we were not. We saw with our own eyes what the government is doing, and we're tired of it. We were fed the same American Exceptionalist propaganda in elementary, we just saw the truth past it.
@@212caboose By whom? The corrupt abusing their authority? The megacorps greedily trampling the country in their pursuit of profit? The teachers desperately attempting to cover the gaps in their budget with their own funds for the sake of the children?
@212caboose Not taught. They learned. Now that people know the Supreme Court doesn't enforce ethic violations, people will lose more faith in the Justice system.
@@212caboose When you teach the youth to think critically, they tend to critically think. And that tends to see through corruption pretty fast.
2:20 prime New Haven joke 😂😂
Would you do an update on this? Even this week, propublica has published more revelations in regards to thomas, which makes me curious if anything changed from a legal perspective.
Oh, he didn't know he was supposed to report these things. Interesting. I wonder how many times in his judicial career the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has come up.
The law is just too complicated when it comes to justices applying the rules to themselves
Funny how ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you were a police officer or a judge
We literally have thousands of RUclips video showing police officers violating their constitutional oath on camera and literally nothing happens to them for it
Literally every day we get like a dozen new RUclips video showing police officers violating their constitutional oath and making up fake laws and literally they never ever ever get punished or disciplined for it which means the Constitutional oath is bullshitted means nothing to them
Is there a law that he broke?
@@naughtynat82 Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not a lawyer. Codes of conduct and ethics are seldom codified as law, more's the pity, but I'm pretty sure there's a reason for it. I've only seen the "I didn't know" defense work once and that was in an instance where the investigators genuinely didn't think the person under investigation was smart enough to understand the complexity of what he had done and that it violated the law. Whatever else he may or may not be, Thomas isn't stupid.
Absolutely insane that we give 9 people essentially unlimited power with no real oversight and it's also one of the only seats of government not only not elected by the people, but also a lifetime appointment.
NO government position should EVER be a lifetime appointment.
@@ebdgr Agreed.
The idea behind it is that they'd be independent. The founders possibly didn't foresee the polarized politics that exists in the US and the deliberate election of openly biased supreme court justices.
There should be a balance between independence and ethics oversight. Many examples show that things can go wrong quickly if the judiciary is under government oversight. You just need to look at China, Poland, Hungary, and most developing countries to see why it is a bad idea. However, there are many countries with similar independent high courts without this many scandals like US.
@@frank7353 The majority party appoints the very judges that are meant to oversee and check their power and parties intentionally and openly seek to stack the court in their ideological favour and brazenly utilize procedural gymnastics in order to increase the likelihood that they can do so. Judicial independence is a buzz phrase that politicians and the bulk of voters only truly care about when the other side succeeds in stacking the court in their favour. If you worry about the threat that ethical oversight poses to judicial independence while ignoring that the system is already constructed in such a way that it encourages politicians to pursue judicial partisanship, I would suggest that the ship has already sailed and was launched by the very architects of the system. If we truly care about judicial independence, we need to overhaul the entire system by, at minimum removing politicians from the appointment process and imposing term limits. At this point, ethical oversight is a patch job on a system that is already inherently corruptible.
I couldn’t even receive a bloody coaster from a supplier (touristy souvenir) without disclosing that to my company. A coaster that does not cost more than $10.
The New Haven dig was hilarious.
I got so mad when Paoletta was going on about Thomas's "great financial sacrifice" in relation to his nephew. Excuse me? These people are multi-millionaires. They don't know anything about sacrifice.
Yeah, they get paid very, very well. Its almost sad the money that Clarence is willing to accept given how much he Makes.
He's been an SC justice for over 30 years now too! He is free to retire anytime he wants with a great pension and can go work for the Heritage Foundation with his wife or this billionaire.
But maybe it's more fun to get paid well on the taxpayer money then get paid better from his "friends" to influence laws that benefit his "friends".
"they"sacrifice peasants livelyhoods daily, so they know how it is done .... in theory ^^
"Oh no, my funny stock number went down when I did this specific thing. This is a massive tragedy that I definitely don't have to report under the law that was specifically written to say specifically that I have to report this specific exact thing".
@@thingamabob3902
Yes, but he's got make sure his billionaire friends keep making money. Apparently they aren't willing to sacrifice and Clarence will happily be their corrupt puppet to make sure they don't sacrifice.
@@jbern2185 He actually stated once that the money from being on SCOTUS is not worth being on SCOTUS. He is is there for the bribery and for pushing his Christofascist authoritarianism onto the country.
"I asked a guy who works here and he said it's fine."
-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and also my dad buying anything at Home Depot.
I mean, I'd trust a dad (or grandpa) at home depot more then the supreme court justice /hj
Love this!! 😂
"...Indonesia, upstate New York, and New Haven Connecticut" (shows picture of a landfill)
Editor doing good work there.
It's amazing the friends you get when you become a supreme court justice.
For real. And most of them are also so generous. 😁
Start a successful business and see what happens in your personal life. You will stop associating yourself with people that constantly want something from you and begin forming friendships with peers. Even your previous best friends will be jealous of your success and want something.
@@AnonyMous-jf4lc only if your habit was always to flock together with fellow terrible people, such that you need to overhaul your ‘friend’ group every time you level-up financially
.. and how, mysteriously, they are often people not remotely of your ilk.
Your childhood billionaire friend.
Everywhere I have worked in the federal govt, both military and not, the appearance of a conflict of interest means there is a conflict of interest even if there isn't actually one present. I would have been fired for things far less suspicious than things that Clarence Thomas has demonstrably done.
I work in the state government as a civil engineer in the DOT, as I've gone through ethics classes that are more strict than what SCOTUS is under. I too would have had been fired if some rich person bought real estate for me and I did not disclose it.