In a new letter, Democratic senators press the associate justice on whether he’s paid off the loan for that famous R.V.—and whether he may have ducked federal tax obligations.
The only thing Congress is needed for is to impeach and remove him. And since we know the chances of that happening are exactly zero, that makes them completely useless.
SC judges aren’t immune to the law. The DOJ absolutely can investigate, arrest, and charge him just like they can any other citizen. Now, I’m not saying they will; I’m just saying they can. And if they had anything resembling balls, they would, and then Congress can then decide if they want a Supreme Court judge making rulings from inside a jail cell.
But this is the Merrick Garland DOJ, which means he’s too afraid to mention Thomas’ name, let alone investigate him. And we all know Congress ain’t doing squat.
DOJ may not be able to do anything about Justices taking money from plaintiffs or other ethics violations, but they can certainly enforce the tax code.
That’s the part I’m interested in, I’df there’s really a tax issue. Maybe he really didn’t understand justices had to have ethics and morals, avoid corruption and conflicts of interest, and were just there to solicit gifts from plaintiffs, but how can he explain away if he didn’t pay taxes?
I thought they voted that the scotus is not beholden to the same federal laws as other judges or other federal employees. At this point the only people who can hold them accountable is congress.
The judicial ethics code is self imposed by the Judicial Conference of the US (created by Congress), which does not impose those rules upon the Supreme Court. I do not know whether they have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court up until this scandal, had refused to implement their own ethics policy. And the one that they recently adopted is weak, both in terms of requirements and enforcement.
OK, I guess what I was thinking was their ethics policy which I recall being laughably weak basically saying if you are naughty nothing will happen. Thanks for clearing that up
I don’t think the DOJ can take on SCOTUS. For that you need Congress
The only thing Congress is needed for is to impeach and remove him. And since we know the chances of that happening are exactly zero, that makes them completely useless.
SC judges aren’t immune to the law. The DOJ absolutely can investigate, arrest, and charge him just like they can any other citizen. Now, I’m not saying they will; I’m just saying they can. And if they had anything resembling balls, they would, and then Congress can then decide if they want a Supreme Court judge making rulings from inside a jail cell.
But this is the Merrick Garland DOJ, which means he’s too afraid to mention Thomas’ name, let alone investigate him. And we all know Congress ain’t doing squat.
DOJ may not be able to do anything about Justices taking money from plaintiffs or other ethics violations, but they can certainly enforce the tax code.
They have to get a referral from the IRS.
Source?
That’s the part I’m interested in, I’df there’s really a tax issue. Maybe he really didn’t understand justices had to have ethics and morals, avoid corruption and conflicts of interest, and were just there to solicit gifts from plaintiffs, but how can he explain away if he didn’t pay taxes?
At the same time, Thomas is beholden to the same Federal Corruption laws that any other federal employee is.
I thought they voted that the scotus is not beholden to the same federal laws as other judges or other federal employees. At this point the only people who can hold them accountable is congress.
Everyone has to follow the tax code.
The judicial ethics code is self imposed by the Judicial Conference of the US (created by Congress), which does not impose those rules upon the Supreme Court. I do not know whether they have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court up until this scandal, had refused to implement their own ethics policy. And the one that they recently adopted is weak, both in terms of requirements and enforcement.
OK, I guess what I was thinking was their ethics policy which I recall being laughably weak basically saying if you are naughty nothing will happen. Thanks for clearing that up