Well, well, well ... who's in the headlines again?

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — All or most of a $267,000 loan obtained by Supreme CourtJustice Clarence Thomas to buy a high-end motorcoach appears to have been forgiven, raising tax and ethics questions, according to a new report by Senate Democrats.

Anthony “Tony” Welters, a longtime friend of Thomas who made the loan in 1999, forgave the debt after nine years of what he called interest-only payments, says the report, which was released Wednesday by Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee.

The loan’s existence was first reported during the summer by the New York Times. Committee Democrats undertook their inquiry following the Times’ story.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court...ce35d5063f

Part-time judge, professional prostitute.

(October 26, 2023 at 10:23 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, well, well ... who's in the headlines again?

Quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — All or most of a $267,000 loan obtained by Supreme CourtJustice Clarence Thomas to buy a high-end motorcoach appears to have been forgiven, raising tax and ethics questions, according to a new report by Senate Democrats.

Anthony “Tony” Welters, a longtime friend of Thomas who made the loan in 1999, forgave the debt after nine years of what he called interest-only payments, says the report, which was released Wednesday by Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee.

The loan’s existence was first reported during the summer by the New York Times. Committee Democrats undertook their inquiry following the Times’ story.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court...ce35d5063f

Part-time judge, professional prostitute.

Oh come now prostitute have far higher standards then Clarence Thomas.I think most of them would turn down a guy with a place called the Garden Of Evil

Quote:The Supreme Court indicated Monday it will adopt a code of conduct amid heightened scrutiny over the high court’s standards when it comes to undisclosed gifts and trips.

In a statement released alongside the 15-page code, the justices said the court’s rules and principles are, for the most part, “not new.” However, “codification” of existing principles is meant to clear up concerns about the justices operating without oversight.

“The absence of a Code … has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,” the statement reads. “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”

The Supreme Court’s ethics came under fire after a series of reports detailed various undisclosed luxury trips, gifts and questionable extrajudicial activities involving multiple justices. Those revelations increased interest in congressional oversight into the justices’ behavior.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...sed-gifts/

Yes, and the cops should be in charge of investigating police brutality.

I keep misreading this as 'The Scrotum Chronicles' and then realize I'm still not technically wrong.

The written standards may be read here.

(November 13, 2023 at 4:47 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The written standards may be read here.

Does it seems strange to anyone else that they got to write their own ethics code?

I notice, and find it interesting, that they use 'should' and not 'shall'.

(November 13, 2023 at 6:10 pm)brewer Wrote: I notice, and find it interesting, that they use 'should' and not 'shall'.

I noticed that as well. Telling.

Q: What’s the difference between a US Supreme Court justice and a prostitute?

A: There are some things a prostitute WON’T do for money.

Boru

Good news: The SCOTUS has apparently adopted an official Code of Ethics.

Bad news: There's no outside enforcement of this Code, and it's apparently a codification of principles that they've long held for governing their conduct, and we all know how well that's been going so far.

So, evidently, the only thing that's changed is that the next scandal the SCOTUS gets into, the critics can point to actual ethical guidelines they're supposed to follow, but still have little reason to believe they'll actually do anything about it.

It's almost as if the judiciary is hopelessly corrupt.