It is reported that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted paid luxury trips. Therefore, should congress pass stricter ethic laws for the Supreme Court?

[Adaeva]

Supreme Court Unites Against Senate Democrats – Shuts Down Attempts At Unraveling Court: https://ussanews.com/2023/05/01/scotus-unites-against-senate-democrats-shuts-down-attempts-at-unraveling-court/

Democratic senators urge chief justice to probe Thomas trips: https://apnews.com/article/senate-democrats-supreme-court-gifts-clarence-thomas-7a2c1507b3c64e529a7ecd9ef473ecf6

SEN. CRUZ CALLS OUT UTTER HYPOCRISY OF THE LEFT DURING SCOTUS JUDICIAL ETHICS HEARING: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-calls-out-utter-hypocrisy-of-the-left-during-scotus-judicial-ethics-hearing

[abc3643]

Yes.

In fact, this is an interesting question.

According to constitutional law experts including both conservatives and liberals, Congress cannot force the Supreme Court to establish its own ethics rules, but Congress does have the power to establish ethics rules applicable to all courts. It already does with district and circuit appeals courts.

It's a shame that some GOP members of Congress are attempting to block that. They are thinking this is a political witch hunt since the SCOTUS has a conservative supermajority at the moment thanks to Trump and Mitch McConnell.

But, the situation could easily have been reversed with a liberal supermajority and questions of ethics could still remain. So, ethics standards should be put in place. There WAS a 2021 bill called the Supreme Court Ethics Act, but I do not believe it was passed.

H. R.4766 - Supreme Court Ethics Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4766

I am sure new bills will be introduced in the House.

[Adaeva]

With the Supreme Court unanimously opposed, such a bill will be difficult, but not impossible, to pass, regardless of who has the majority in congress.

[abc3643]

Passing the bill is only difficult because we have a split Congress.
What would be interesting is if someone challenged the law in court and ultimately the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional. That would be an enormous issue and likely would result in the impeachment of any justices who ruled in the majority.

[Adaeva]

In the last 50 years neither party has had a 2/3rds majority in the senate and if the law is considered political without one party having a 2/3rds majority in the senate, there will not any justices impeached and convicted.

[abc3643]

That's probably true. So then the alternative would be ___________________?

(What's the alternative?)

[Adaeva]

The alternative is to do nothing. Justices will be more careful in the future and in a couple of years it will be forgotten.

[abc3643]

The alternative is to have a constitutional amendment regarding some aspect of this problem.
(Lots of possibilities here.)

After that, the alternative is to do nothing until the time is ripe to do something.

But that's all the legal way. There are plenty of illegal ways to make things happen like assassinations.

[ImalwaysrightOK]

No, he's just being targeted by leftists trying to delegitimize conservatives on the court. Sonia Sotomayor did way worse, nobody in the leftist media said anything when she accepted paid trips from someone who actually had a case before her. It's just typical tactics of the left. If they pack the courts, we will pack them more when we regain the Senate.

[ImalwaysrightOK]

Thanks for mh

[RingOfFire]

Thomas broke no laws. If Congress wants to change the laws, change them. That's their job. But they should stop smearing people like Thomas when he did nothing wrong.

The only reason they are attacking Thomas is because the Democrats cannot stand that he is a black man who is a conservative. It infuriates them when black people think for themselves instead of thinking the way the Democrats tell them to think.

[goaded]

He did break the law that said he had to declare real-estate transactions of over $1000.

[RingOfFire]

Oh the crime of the century! His staff that prepares the disclosures made an oversight and left off a $133,000 real estate sale on which Thomas LOST MONEY. LOCK HIM UP!

But Joe Biden the Biden Family Crime Syndicate gets away with treason, taking bribes for selling out America to the Chinese and the Russians and rigging the 2020 elections in conjunction with deep state operatives in the FBI and not a word from the Democrats or their lackeys in the press.

[goaded]

The press is still waiting for evidence. A lot of them are allowing Republicans to make claims on air they have no way of backing up anyway.

Where on earth do you get your "news" from, anyway? There's no way Thomas lost money on the deal, that's ridiculous.

[RingOfFire]

"Where on earth do you get your "news" from, anyway? There's no way Thomas lost money on the deal, that's ridiculous."
===
"No way?" "ridiculous?"

Tell that to the Communist rag that you depend on for your "news."

"According to CNN, Thomas believed he didn’t have to note the real estate deal because he lost money on it, calling it an “oversight” that he didn’t report the transactions in the first place and noting the justice fills out his disclosure forms with the help of aides."

[RingOfFire]

www.forbes.com/.../

[goaded]

So, the person accused of corruption says he's not corrupt. How do you "lose money" on the sale of real estate that's been in your family for generations? (Hint: it's practically impossible.)

[RingOfFire]

Your evidence that what he stated is false?

[goaded]

The fact that Thomas previously reported his 1/3rd share of the houses was worth $15,000, so they were worth $45,000 when there were still three houses. $133,000 is a win. (Besides, he had to report the sale, not the profit.) When it was bought afounr 1960, it probably cost hundreds of dollars.

Was he upset that his mother didn't have to pay her rent to him, or pleased that his mother didn't have to pay rent at all?

[RingOfFire]

That's not evidence its speculation. I get that Democrats (which is now synonymous with Marxists) think that people who don't go along with their agenda should be found guilty until proven innocent. And I get that their racist beliefs think that any black person who dares to differ with their political dictates is to be destroyed. And I get that they can't distinguish reality from fantasy and think that men can be women and women can be men and THEIR choices for Supreme Court Justice can't even define what a woman is. But like it or not, in the real world, speculation and evidence are two different things.

[goaded]

OK, so actual numbers from actual legal documents are speculation? I'm going to ignore the rest of your projection and lies.

[goaded]

It's funny how the right's argument is "that Democratic justice is corrupt too, so we shouldn't do anything about corruption in SCOTUS".

Anti-corruption laws would affect them all.

Of course, Sotomayor declared her interests and Thomas didn't, not even the ones he was legally obliged to. Which makes Thomas a criminal sitting on the highest court in the land. But that's just the same as being paid to give talks.

Oh, God, I just read some of Cruz' page. "Justice Thomas was appointed in 1991. And the time since then, he's taken 109 reported trips, five international trips.".

It's not the reported trips anyone's concerned about, it's the secret ones (every year for 25 years), and the payments to his wife, and the funding for his mother to live rent-free in a neighbourhood gentrified by his billionaire "friend" (who he met after he was confirmed).

[Lliam]

I'm not a particular fan of Thomas, but this is just another underhanded ploy by the hypocritical Democrats. They would love to make vacancy in the Supreme Court that could be filled by a Biden appointee.

[Anonymous]

These are troubling ethical lapses but I’m not sure it’s constitutional for Congress to force that on a separate branch of government. The court needs to right its own ship. Public confidence in it as an institution is rock bottom. Congress does have the option of impeachment and removal of a justice.

[richardcory]

The US system relies on the supreme court being trusted. Now that trust is violated, things get really ugly, because the court gets final say in so many things.

[TotallyAlmost]

This whole thing is a ridiculous charade. They've been after Thomas for decades because they think he's an Uncle Tom. The left needs to go far far away.

[OddBeMe]

Sure. But will the right wing court say it’s unconstitutional?