Hacker News Reader

Comment by TechBro8615 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

How is noting that Justice Thomas took bribes from a conservative billionaire "politicizing" the Court? In any other branch of government and any other court with the federal judicial branch, he would at minimum be required to disclose those gifts. In most positions, he would be removed from service for receiving them.

How is noting that Justice Thomas is married to a conservative activist "politicizing" the Court?

I'm not arguing Justices's spouses shouldn't work. But, conflicts of interest should be disclosed and the Justice should be required to recuse themselves when potential conflicts arise. And Thomas sitting on cases that involve issues in which his wife is active or receiving payments for services is a MASSIVE conflict.

Of the Justices, Thomas and his wife are unique in the level of potential conflicts.

Other spouses: Jackson - surgeon

Barrett - white collar defense lawyer

Kavanaugh - town manager (Chevy Chase, MD)

Gorsuch - home maker?

Kagan - single/unmarried

Sotomayor - divorced

Alito - former law librarian

Roberts - recruiter for law firm

>In any other branch of government and any other court with the federal judicial branch, he would at minimum be required to disclose those gifts.

I believe that SCOTUS justices are also required to do these disclosures, FTA:

>His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

If you have any evidence that Justice Thomas has changed any of his judicial decisions based on the opinions of his wife or fishing buddy, then you can present it at an impeachment hearing, assuming you can get enough of the house to agree to hold one. That's the constitutional mechanism for ensuring accountability of the judiciary. By design, it's not easy to remove him from the court at the whims of this year's congressional makeup. But it's possible.

It's also not clear why you're listing the positions of the spouses of the justices. Is the Supreme Court the Supreme Clergy now? Are you implying that justices can't be married? Should we be interrogating their spouses as part of their confirmation hearings? Do you want to subpoena Mrs Alito for her texts to see what she says about gun regulation after school shootings?

If Alito’s wife is getting paid millions of dollars to advance positions that Alito is ruling on, then yes. This isn’t that hard.

That would be a conflict of interest if the wife was the judge, but she's not.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that a husband and wife are the same person.

Noticing Clarence's corrupt behavior is not politicizing anything. "Please stop noticing that a SCOTUS justice fails to recuse himself regarding an insurrection his wife assisted with."

Politicize it? His wife was messaging the chief of staff trying to pressure him to overthrow the election.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/read-clarence-thomas...

> Do not concede. It takes time for the army who is gathering for his back.

> Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.

> His wife was messaging the chief of staff trying to pressure him to overthrow the election.

Exactly! Husbands are responsible for the actions of their wives, so he should be impeached for them; especially since it will help us flip the court.

You've constructed a strawman, and, congratulations, you have won an imaginary argument.

Do you disagree that judges are responsible for recusing themselves from cases they have a personal interest in?

> Please don't politicize the judicial branch.

I think this article makes very clear that that boat has sailed.

The suggestion you've made boils down to: Ignore examples of corruption to avoid the spread of corruption.

I don't think it works that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com