SCOTUS

Ugh.
User avatar
Shirley
Contributor
Posts: 16562
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:29 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Shirley »

jfish26 wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:35 am
Shirley wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:21 am
jfish26 wrote:"...Eastman will look for an offramp soon now.
Dammit fish, I already had this Q'd up, but didn't want to make one post after another in the same thread so soon:



Not to mention, one can only imagine the stories Eastman could tell about Ginny Thomas' involvement in the coup attempt if he decides to flip...

Image
Right. And when you start tugging on Ginni's finances...it's foreseeable that we might have to deal with something significantly more stark than private jet flights and rare spotted owl hunting excursions.
WTF are you talking about?

Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’s wife, urged ‘no mention of Ginni’

Leonard Leo told GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill nonprofit, then use money to pay spouse of Supreme Court justice

Conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo arranged for the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work just over a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing paperwork, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

In January 2012, Leo instructed the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use that money to pay Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the documents show. The same year, the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in a landmark voting rights case.

Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25K,” the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

[...]
“The Electoral College is DEI for rural white folks.”
Derek Cressman
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18665
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jfish26 »

Shirley wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:45 am
jfish26 wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:35 am
Shirley wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2023 9:21 am

Dammit fish, I already had this Q'd up, but didn't want to make one post after another in the same thread so soon:



Not to mention, one can only imagine the stories Eastman could tell about Ginny Thomas' involvement in the coup attempt if he decides to flip...

Image
Right. And when you start tugging on Ginni's finances...it's foreseeable that we might have to deal with something significantly more stark than private jet flights and rare spotted owl hunting excursions.
WTF are you talking about?

Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’s wife, urged ‘no mention of Ginni’

Leonard Leo told GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill nonprofit, then use money to pay spouse of Supreme Court justice

Conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo arranged for the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work just over a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing paperwork, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

In January 2012, Leo instructed the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use that money to pay Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the documents show. The same year, the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in a landmark voting rights case.

Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25K,” the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

[...]
We're at such an inflection point in our country's history. Either (1) we'll do the hard work that will go into restoring confidence in the rule of law and the democratic process, or (2) we'll accept a transition into what amounts to an oligarchy.
User avatar
KUTradition
Contributor
Posts: 13892
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by KUTradition »

so, how about this 18-year term limit?
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
Sparko
Contributor
Posts: 17332
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:01 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Sparko »

Clarence and Ginni got a "loan" for a $276,000 luxury RV they never paid back. Or reported.
User avatar
Shirley
Contributor
Posts: 16562
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:29 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Shirley »

Sparko wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2023 5:26 pm Clarence and Ginni got a "loan" for a $276,000 luxury RV they never paid back. Or reported.
Is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a tax cheat? His lawyer insists not. The available evidence suggests this is a fair question.

“The loan was never forgiven,” attorney Elliot Berke said in a statement about a $267,000 loan from Thomas’s friend Anthony Welters that enabled the justice and his wife to buy a luxury motor home. “Any suggestion to the contrary is false. The Thomases made all payments to Mr. Welters on a regular basis until the terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.”

​This is hard to square with the information laid out in a Senate Finance Committee report on the transaction — and difficult to credit in the absence of supporting information beyond Berke’s conclusory assertion.

Thomas — with his multiple failures to disclose his wife’s employment, his receipt of free private plane travel and tuition payments made on behalf of his grandnephew — has forfeited the benefit of the doubt. If Thomas, as Berke asserts, indeed “satisfied in full” the terms of his loan agreement, then let’s see “the agreement.” Let’s see the canceled checks.

​Three cheers here for congressional oversight and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The work by the majority staff of that panel builds on an August New York Times article that outlined how the Thomases were able to purchase the motor coach with underwriting from Welters, a longtime friend from their days together as congressional aides. Welters’s help was critical because traditional lenders are reluctant to provide financing for high-end recreational vehicles.

Welters confirmed making the loan in 1999 but wouldn’t provide details about its terms (including the total dollar value or the interest rate charged) beyond asserting that “the loan was satisfied,” a fuzzy phrase that raised more questions than it answered.

The finance committee investigation filled in important blanks — and underscored the reasons for skepticism about the transaction and Thomas’s compliance with both tax law and financial disclosure rules...

Its analysis detailed that the agreed-on interest rate — 7.5 percent — appears to be fair and was based on market rates at the time, even if the interest-only arrangement is unusual. The report was not dispositive about the amounts the Thomases paid to Welters; Welters could provide only one canceled check, for $20,000. According to the report, a handwritten 2008 note by Welters “states that Thomas has been paying Welters interest only on Thomas’s bus for many years.”

Most significant, there seems to be no record that the Thomases ever repaid any of the loan principal.

“Welters’ note indicates that after Thomas’s upcoming payment, Welters would no longer seek further payments from Justice Thomas on the loan because, according to Welters’ note, Welters believed that Thomas had paid interest greater than the purchase price of the bus, and that Welters did not feel it was appropriate to continue to accept payments even though he had the right to them,” the report states.

Even then, the math doesn’t quite add up: The interest payments wouldn’t have exceeded the purchase price.

Here’s where taxes enter the equation: If the loan was forgiven, that would be, in IRS-speak, a “taxable event.” The forgiven amount would constitute income to the Thomases, and they would then owe taxes on it. Did he?

...This is the last thing an already beleaguered court needs. Thomas, who has done incalculable damage to the institution, should make all his agreements with Welters and any canceled checks fulfilling the loan’s terms public. The Senate should keep pressing to obtain information, including from the justice himself. Berke claims that the loan was “never forgiven,” but that appears inconsistent with the Welters’s note reviewed by the committee. He should be pressed to elaborate.

“The committee’s investigation is clear: The person who loaned Justice Thomas $267,000 provided numerous documents indicating that a substantial portion of that debt was never repaid,” Wyden said in a statement to me. “If Justice Thomas disputes that conclusion, he has an obligation to provide proof to the committee. Carefully worded statements from high-priced lawyers are not a substitute for facts.”

The puzzle here is that there doesn’t seem to be any ethical problem with the underlying loan. Welters and Thomas are friends of long standing. Welters doesn’t have business before the court. The interest rate was appropriate. So why not repay the loan — or, if not, pay the taxes due on the benefit thereof?


A man entrusted with interpreting the nation’s tax laws should be capable of following them, and we are entitled to know whether he has complied with that duty.
“The Electoral College is DEI for rural white folks.”
Derek Cressman
User avatar
Shirley
Contributor
Posts: 16562
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:29 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Shirley »

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) joins MSNBC's Chris Hayes to discuss the joint announcement with Chair Dick Durbin regarding a vote to authorize issuing subpoenas to Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo, and Robin Arkley II as part of the Judiciary Committee’s Supreme Court ethics investigation.

Public reporting has revealed that some Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have for decades been receiving lavish gifts from right-wing billionaires with business before the Court.


Sen. Whitehouse Joins Chris Hayes to Announce Subpoenas in the Supreme Court Ethics Investigation
“The Electoral College is DEI for rural white folks.”
Derek Cressman
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18665
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jfish26 »

Shirley wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2023 5:41 pm
Sparko wrote: Thu Oct 26, 2023 5:26 pm Clarence and Ginni got a "loan" for a $276,000 luxury RV they never paid back. Or reported.
Is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a tax cheat? His lawyer insists not. The available evidence suggests this is a fair question.

“The loan was never forgiven,” attorney Elliot Berke said in a statement about a $267,000 loan from Thomas’s friend Anthony Welters that enabled the justice and his wife to buy a luxury motor home. “Any suggestion to the contrary is false. The Thomases made all payments to Mr. Welters on a regular basis until the terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.”

​This is hard to square with the information laid out in a Senate Finance Committee report on the transaction — and difficult to credit in the absence of supporting information beyond Berke’s conclusory assertion.

Thomas — with his multiple failures to disclose his wife’s employment, his receipt of free private plane travel and tuition payments made on behalf of his grandnephew — has forfeited the benefit of the doubt. If Thomas, as Berke asserts, indeed “satisfied in full” the terms of his loan agreement, then let’s see “the agreement.” Let’s see the canceled checks.

​Three cheers here for congressional oversight and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The work by the majority staff of that panel builds on an August New York Times article that outlined how the Thomases were able to purchase the motor coach with underwriting from Welters, a longtime friend from their days together as congressional aides. Welters’s help was critical because traditional lenders are reluctant to provide financing for high-end recreational vehicles.

Welters confirmed making the loan in 1999 but wouldn’t provide details about its terms (including the total dollar value or the interest rate charged) beyond asserting that “the loan was satisfied,” a fuzzy phrase that raised more questions than it answered.

The finance committee investigation filled in important blanks — and underscored the reasons for skepticism about the transaction and Thomas’s compliance with both tax law and financial disclosure rules...

Its analysis detailed that the agreed-on interest rate — 7.5 percent — appears to be fair and was based on market rates at the time, even if the interest-only arrangement is unusual. The report was not dispositive about the amounts the Thomases paid to Welters; Welters could provide only one canceled check, for $20,000. According to the report, a handwritten 2008 note by Welters “states that Thomas has been paying Welters interest only on Thomas’s bus for many years.”

Most significant, there seems to be no record that the Thomases ever repaid any of the loan principal.

“Welters’ note indicates that after Thomas’s upcoming payment, Welters would no longer seek further payments from Justice Thomas on the loan because, according to Welters’ note, Welters believed that Thomas had paid interest greater than the purchase price of the bus, and that Welters did not feel it was appropriate to continue to accept payments even though he had the right to them,” the report states.

Even then, the math doesn’t quite add up: The interest payments wouldn’t have exceeded the purchase price.

Here’s where taxes enter the equation: If the loan was forgiven, that would be, in IRS-speak, a “taxable event.” The forgiven amount would constitute income to the Thomases, and they would then owe taxes on it. Did he?

...This is the last thing an already beleaguered court needs. Thomas, who has done incalculable damage to the institution, should make all his agreements with Welters and any canceled checks fulfilling the loan’s terms public. The Senate should keep pressing to obtain information, including from the justice himself. Berke claims that the loan was “never forgiven,” but that appears inconsistent with the Welters’s note reviewed by the committee. He should be pressed to elaborate.

“The committee’s investigation is clear: The person who loaned Justice Thomas $267,000 provided numerous documents indicating that a substantial portion of that debt was never repaid,” Wyden said in a statement to me. “If Justice Thomas disputes that conclusion, he has an obligation to provide proof to the committee. Carefully worded statements from high-priced lawyers are not a substitute for facts.”

The puzzle here is that there doesn’t seem to be any ethical problem with the underlying loan. Welters and Thomas are friends of long standing. Welters doesn’t have business before the court. The interest rate was appropriate. So why not repay the loan — or, if not, pay the taxes due on the benefit thereof?


A man entrusted with interpreting the nation’s tax laws should be capable of following them, and we are entitled to know whether he has complied with that duty.
Just so we're on the same page here: while it is often true that tax things are highly technical and opaque, and come across as tricks and traps and gotchas...this isn't one of them.

This particular issue is VERY straightforward.

To the extent a loan is forgiven - the person who lends you $300,000 says "nah fam, don't worry about paying it back" - the IRS treats that as if the person simply gave you $300,000. Because that's what happened.

That is taxable income to the recipient, full stop.

So it has nothing to do with disclosure, or ethics rules, or whether the person was or was not a true friend, or whether or not the person did or didn't have direct or indirect business in front of the court, blah blah blah.

It's a failure to report and pay taxes on taxable income.
Sparko
Contributor
Posts: 17332
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:01 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Sparko »

But is it cost effective to have an internal revenue service hassling jobs creators for a few billion dollars? Bygones and all. Now for the begones who are not rich, they should scrutinize everything. Unless a Speaker of the House pretends to be poor. That last example is a bygones thing.
User avatar
Shirley
Contributor
Posts: 16562
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:29 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Shirley »

“The Electoral College is DEI for rural white folks.”
Derek Cressman
RainbowsandUnicorns
Contributor
Posts: 12488
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2021 8:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by RainbowsandUnicorns »

R.I.P. Sandy.
Riggins should hoist one in your honor today.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/john-r ... -loosen-up
Gutter wrote: Fri Nov 8th 2:16pm
New President - New Gutter. I am going to pledge my allegiance to Donald J. Trump and for the next 4 years I am going to be an even bigger asshole than I already am.
User avatar
zsn
Contributor
Posts: 3808
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: SCOTUS

Post by zsn »

I thought she had passed away years ago - I heard a tribute on NPR already in progress when I got in the car this morning and thought why is that story running now!
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18665
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jfish26 »

I don't know what else we need to see. The Supreme Court, arguably the most powerful and least accountable branch of our government, is compromised.

There are good arguments to be made for and against justices being paid something like market rate, but I would think we can all agree that there is no good argument for a system where they make (officially) well below market rate, but we look the other way as they make up the difference on what amounts to a black market.

A “Delicate Matter”: Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ars-scotus
In early January 2000, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was at a five-star beach resort in Sea Island, Georgia, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation, according to friends. He had recently started raising his young grandnephew, and Thomas’ wife was soliciting advice on how to handle the new expenses. The month before, the justice had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to buy a high-end RV.

At the resort, Thomas gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative conference. He found himself seated next to a Republican member of Congress on the flight home. The two men talked, and the lawmaker left the conversation worried that Thomas might resign.

Congress should give Supreme Court justices a pay raise, Thomas told him. If lawmakers didn’t act, “one or more justices will leave soon” — maybe in the next year.

[...]

Congress never lifted the ban on speaking fees or gave the justices a major raise. But in the years that followed, as ProPublica has reported, Thomas accepted a stream of gifts from friends and acquaintances that appears to be unparalleled in the modern history of the Supreme Court. Some defrayed living expenses large and small — private school tuition, vehicle batteries, tires. Other gifts from a coterie of ultrarich men supplemented his lifestyle, such as free international vacations on the private jet and superyacht of Dallas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow.

[...]

Public records suggest a degree of financial strain. Throughout the first decade of his tenure, the couple regularly borrowed more money, including a $100,000 credit line on their house and a consumer loan of up to $50,000. Around January 1998, Thomas’ life changed when he took in his 6-year-old grandnephew, becoming his legal guardian and raising him as a son. The Thomases sent the child to a series of private schools.

In early January 2000, Thomas took the trip to the Georgia beach resort. Thomas was there to deliver a keynote speech at Awakening, a “conservative thought weekend” featuring golf, shooting lessons and aromatherapy along with panel discussions with businessmen and elected officials. (A founder and organizer of the annual event, Ernest Taylor, told ProPublica that Thomas’ trip was paid for by the organization. Thomas reported 11 free trips that year on his annual financial disclosure, mostly to colleges and universities, but did not disclose attending the conservative conference, an apparent violation of federal disclosure law.)

On a commercial flight back from Awakening, Thomas brought up the prospect of justices resigning to Stearns, the Republican lawmaker. Worried, Stearns wrote a letter to Thomas after the flight promising “to look into a bill to raise the salaries of members of The Supreme Court.”

“As we agreed, it is worth a lot to Americans to have the constitution properly interpreted,” Stearns wrote. “We must have the proper incentives here, too.”

Stearns’ office soon sought help from a lobbying firm working on the issue, and he delivered a speech on the House floor about judges’ salaries getting eroded by inflation. Thomas’ warning about resignations was relayed at a meeting of the heads of several judges’ associations. L. Ralph Mecham, then the judiciary’s top administrative official, fired off the memo describing Thomas’ complaints to Rehnquist, his boss.

“I understand that Justice Thomas clearly told him that in his view departures would occur within the next year or so,” Mecham wrote of Thomas’ conversation with Stearns. Mecham worried that “from a tactical point of view,” congressional Democrats might oppose a raise if they sensed “the apparent purpose is to keep Justices [Antonin] Scalia and Thomas on the Court.” (Scalia had nine children and was also one of the less wealthy justices. Scalia, Mecham and Rehnquist have since died.)

It’s not clear if Rehnquist ever responded. Several months later, Rehnquist focused his annual year-end report on what he called “the most pressing issue facing the Judiciary: the need to increase judicial salaries.”

[...]

During his second decade on the court, Thomas’ financial situation appears to have markedly improved. In 2003, he received the first payments of a $1.5 million advance for his memoir, a record-breaking sum for justices at the time. Ginni Thomas, who had been a congressional staffer, was by then working at the Heritage Foundation and was paid a salary in the low six figures.

Thomas also received dozens of expensive gifts throughout the 2000s, sometimes coming from people he’d met only shortly before. Thomas met Earl Dixon, the owner of a Florida pest control company, while getting his RV serviced outside Tampa in 2001, according to the Thomas biography “Supreme Discomfort.” The next year, Dixon gave Thomas $5,000 to put toward his grandnephew’s tuition. Thomas reported the payment in his annual disclosure filing.

Larger gifts went undisclosed. Crow paid for two years of private high school, which tuition rates indicate would’ve cost roughly $100,000. In 2008, another wealthy friend forgave “a substantial amount, or even all” of the principal on the loan Thomas had used to buy the quarter-million dollar RV, according to a recent Senate inquiry prompted by The New York Times’ reporting. Much of the Thomases’ leisure time was also paid for by a small set of billionaire businessmen, who brought the justice and his family on free vacations around the world. (Thomas has said he did not need to disclose the gifts of travel and his lawyer has disputed the Senate findings about the RV.)

By 2019, the justices’ pay hadn’t changed beyond keeping up with inflation. But Thomas’ views had apparently transformed from two decades before. That June, during a public appearance, Thomas was asked about salaries at the court. “Oh goodness, I think it’s plenty,” Thomas responded. “My wife and I are doing fine. We don’t live extravagantly, but we are fine.”

A few weeks later, Thomas boarded Crow’s private jet to head to Indonesia. He and his wife were off on vacation, an island cruise on Crow’s 162-foot yacht.
User avatar
KUTradition
Contributor
Posts: 13892
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by KUTradition »

“make up the difference”?

are there federal judges that make more, or are you suggesting they should be making what private lawyers bring in?
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18665
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jfish26 »

KUTradition wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:29 am “make up the difference”?

are there federal judges that make more, or are you suggesting they should be making what private lawyers bring in?
I meant the difference between private practice income and a Supreme Court justice salary.

I think there are good arguments in favor of (1) Supreme Court justices not making more than any other federal employee, and (2) Supreme Court justices making market-competitive salaries from the federal government.

I do not think there is a good argument in favor of splitting the baby as it's been split.
User avatar
KUTradition
Contributor
Posts: 13892
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by KUTradition »

jfish26 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:34 am
KUTradition wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:29 am “make up the difference”?

are there federal judges that make more, or are you suggesting they should be making what private lawyers bring in?
I meant the difference between private practice income and a Supreme Court justice salary.

I think there are good arguments in favor of (1) Supreme Court justices not making more than any other federal employee, and (2) Supreme Court justices making market-competitive salaries from the federal government.

I do not think there is a good argument in favor of splitting the baby as it's been split.
gotcha

i guess i don’t necessarily disagree, but i would hope that such a change would go hand-in-hand with more stringent oversight to prevent to sort of nonsense that seems apparent with thomas
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
jfish26
Contributor
Posts: 18665
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jfish26 »

KUTradition wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:38 am
jfish26 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:34 am
KUTradition wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:29 am “make up the difference”?

are there federal judges that make more, or are you suggesting they should be making what private lawyers bring in?
I meant the difference between private practice income and a Supreme Court justice salary.

I think there are good arguments in favor of (1) Supreme Court justices not making more than any other federal employee, and (2) Supreme Court justices making market-competitive salaries from the federal government.

I do not think there is a good argument in favor of splitting the baby as it's been split.
gotcha

i guess i don’t necessarily disagree, but i would hope that such a change would go hand-in-hand with more stringent oversight to prevent to sort of nonsense that seems apparent with thomas
That's exactly what I mean.

I hesitate to do this, but...fuck it:

I get the argument for "pure amateurism" here. Make the salary match the President's, 4* generals', whatever, and strictly monitor and enforce prohibitions on outside income. Make it something people do not and cannot do for the money. Make it so, if you want money/lifestyle, you need to look elsewhere.

I ALSO get the argument for running the government like a business here, and paying what the market says talent like this should get. Recognize that there is so much at stake with these nine jobs, and that we WANT to attract top-of-industry talent to them, and make it so that talent has no incentive to seek "shadow" income. Make the salary competitive what what rainmakers at the top firms make (and strictly monitor and enforce prohibitions on outside income).

What I would hope nobody finds acceptable is the present state of things, where we're basically in 2000s and 2010s college basketball world, where everyone involved KNOWS the talent is not being paid what the market would bear, and everyone involved looks the other way as the talent supplements its above-board income with black market income.
japhy
Contributor
Posts: 4736
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:04 pm
Location: The Tartarian Empire

Re: SCOTUS

Post by japhy »

KUTradition wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:38 am
jfish26 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:34 am
KUTradition wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:29 am “make up the difference”?

are there federal judges that make more, or are you suggesting they should be making what private lawyers bring in?
I meant the difference between private practice income and a Supreme Court justice salary.

I think there are good arguments in favor of (1) Supreme Court justices not making more than any other federal employee, and (2) Supreme Court justices making market-competitive salaries from the federal government.

I do not think there is a good argument in favor of splitting the baby as it's been split.
gotcha

i guess i don’t necessarily disagree, but i would hope that such a change would go hand-in-hand with more stringent oversight to prevent to sort of nonsense that seems apparent with thomas
And a change in their generous pension and benefits plan to adjust for their increased salary. Double their pay, but after they retire they get SS and medicare like the rest of us.

Or if they can't get by on their meager $255K annual salary + benefits maybe they should do what most of us do and get other jobs and live within their means?
Nero is an angler in the lake of darkness
User avatar
KUTradition
Contributor
Posts: 13892
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by KUTradition »

japhy wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:55 am
KUTradition wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:38 am
jfish26 wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:34 am

I meant the difference between private practice income and a Supreme Court justice salary.

I think there are good arguments in favor of (1) Supreme Court justices not making more than any other federal employee, and (2) Supreme Court justices making market-competitive salaries from the federal government.

I do not think there is a good argument in favor of splitting the baby as it's been split.
gotcha

i guess i don’t necessarily disagree, but i would hope that such a change would go hand-in-hand with more stringent oversight to prevent to sort of nonsense that seems apparent with thomas
And a change in their generous pension and benefits plan to adjust for their increased salary. Double their pay, but after they retire they get SS and medicare like the rest of us.

Or if they can't get by on their meager $255K annual salary + benefits maybe they should do what most of us do and get other jobs and live within their means?
yes
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
User avatar
Shirley
Contributor
Posts: 16562
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:29 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Shirley »

The best Supreme Court republican benefactors can buy:

Nov 30, 2023 Senate Judiciary Republicans walked out of the committee to boycott a vote authorizing subpoenas for information from conservative activists and donors about their ties to conservative Supreme Court justices.

The panel voted 11-0 to authorize subpoenas for conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo and Texas billionaire Harlan Crow on their close personal and financial relationships with some justices, with no Republicans left in the room besides ranking member Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Graham exited once the vote was underway and did not vote...
“The Electoral College is DEI for rural white folks.”
Derek Cressman
japhy
Contributor
Posts: 4736
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:04 pm
Location: The Tartarian Empire

Re: SCOTUS

Post by japhy »

While I get it, $255K is not a market rate salary for someone with a law degree who has the responsibility that SCOTUS has. At the same time the SCOTUS does not have the day to day pressure/stress of the financial responsibility of keeping a business afloat like a law partner. And I don't know if there are firms that give their retiring partners a pension equal to their highest salary for life, and the medical benefits for life that SCOTUS gets.

It's a pretty secure financial future in very insecure world. It's the trade off they signed up for, they wanted the job. If more money was that important to Clarence, he should have pursued a career that paid more rather than bend the rules and grift for the extra money he wanted.
Nero is an angler in the lake of darkness
Post Reply