DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Justice Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose ethics code on Supreme Court

But what's your opinion really Peen. Should Alito and Thomas be allowed to take gifts from anyone.. I mean ANYONE!

I keep hearing about the Biden Bribary case, but NOT A DAMN thing about SCOTUS being Bribed.

No, it's not "despite what was said". It's what was said. Only judges that had a certain agenda would be selected, period.

And while it's great that you wish to claim it was a faulty ruling from the beginning, it withstood challenges for 50 years. So it appears many SCOTUS judges disagree with what is no more than your opinion until judges were hand selected that agree with you.


It appears that for decades the SCOTUS felt it was the right of women, no matter where they lived to have autonomy over their own bodies and a choice whether to have an abortion or not and they felt it was not that right of state or local governments to infringe upon that. You seem to feel that "community standards" should have the right to force their choices on women.

And while on a personal level I am against abortion, I agree that women should not be dictated to by other people in regards to their bodies and choices no matter where they live and the precedent that stood for 50 years was the correct one. It was only changed because we had a POTUS that catered to the right by choosing only judges that agree with controlling the choice of women. Considering Roe stood for 50 years this was nothing more than political. It's not "despite that".

I don't think anybody was bribed. What cases were bought?

Maybe it's what the court went with for 50 years, or went with until an argument was made that convinced them to vacate a previous ruling. None the less, it isn't unprecedented that the high court reversed a previous courts ruling.

https://www.businessinsider.com/scotus-has-overturned-hundreds-of-own-decisions-roe-v-wade-2022-6

Come on man. What do you call it when a man that has business interests coming up before a judge gives that judge gifts and presents worth lots of money? I mean what is your definition of that? "He's just being a nice guy"? "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"?

Clarence Thomas Ruled on Bribery Case While Accepting Vacations

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-ruled-bribery-cases-vacations-republican-donors-1793088

Justice Samuel Alito faces scrutiny over trips with GOP donor, pens defensive op-ed

The report comes amid ongoing discussions centering on the Supreme Court’s policy for gift disclosures and calls from lawmakers for ethics reform on the nation’s highest court.

According to ProPublica’s investigation, Alito in 2008 flew on billionaire Paul Singer’s private jet on a trip that included room and board at Alaska’s pricey King Salmon Lodge. That was paid for by then-owner Robin Arkley II, who is a prolific donor to conservative legal causes, like Singer, according to the report. Singer had connections with corporate entities who later made cases in front of the Supreme Court and won with Alito’s support.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/alito-singer-propublica-oped-00102874

What is unprecedented is that a man running for president told everyone he would only select judges that disagreed with that 50 year precedent in order to make sure to overturn a specific ruling. That makes it more than obvious to anyone willing to admit it that it wasn't about the argument presented to the SCOTUS. It was about their preconceived decision to overturn Roe period. When you know how a judge is going to rule on a specific case before you select them, it's very disingenuous to try and mount the argument that they were influenced by something that happened after they were selected.

I’d like to see SCOTUS have a 15 year single term, without possibility of extension. This might keep the corruption to a minimum.

Or it might create a situation that they would feel the need to do it quicker. You know the old, "I only have 15 years to take advantage of this!"

People are people. They are either corrupt or they aren't. As with every other profession in the world you will have a mix of both. Only a strict code of ethics and an heavy dose of enforcing that code will help circumvent those who are corrupt.

I probably will never agree with you on this because as a nation we are free. Your way, what state you live in determines how free you are. That's setting up America just like Europe. Soon, we'll need papers to cross state lines.

It would be one thing if Republicans would let it be the way you describe, but as an example, look at Ohio. Republicans are messing with what is a majority., In Ohio to change the state Constitution, you need a simple majority. 50%+1.. But now that there is a statewide ballot in November to make abortion what it was under Roe, republicans suddenly decide to throw up roadblocks. They wanna make a majority 60%.

So, right now, it's expected that 58% of ohio will vote to make the Roe thing real again. But republicans don't want that so they rush to change it. Just like they've Gerrymandered damn near every district.

Bottom line, Republicans want to tell people how they should think. If they'd let the voting happen, then that might make what your saying reasonable.. Sort of.

Even when they do, if they don’t like the outcome, they work to overturn the results or delay the implementation of that law. It took nearly three years after Mass. voted for recreational MJ to open a dispensary in Mass. Even a simple thing as flipping a coin with a goper is a heads they win, tails you lose situation.

True,

ProPublica report offers broadest look yet at Clarence Thomas’ luxury travel bankrolled by wealthy friends and reveals private jet and helicopter rides and VIP sporting event tickets

The lifestyle Justice Clarence Thomas has enjoyed over the last three decades bankrolled by gifts and hospitality from his wealthy friends is more extensive than previously known, according to a new ProPublica report, and has included numerous flights on private planes, skybox tickets to sporting events, stays at luxury resorts, and a standing invitation to play at a high-end private golf club in Florida.

The new report is the broadest look yet at how Thomas’ social circle has funded – with limited disclosure to the public – a regular stream of extravagant excursions and events since he became a Supreme Court justice. These costly trips and travel perks often went unreported on the justice’s financial disclosure forms, ProPublica said in its investigation.

Thomas is already under intense scrutiny for gifts he received from Harlan Crow, a GOP megadonor who treated Thomas and his wife to extravagant vacations, paid for the tuition of a Thomas family member and entered into an unusual real estate transaction related to the home of Thomas’ mother. In April, Thomas released a statement defending his friendship with Crow. “As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas wrote.

The latest investigation unearths a pattern of gifts to Thomas from Crow and three other billionaires who have been major contributors to Republican causes: David Sokol, the former heir apparent of Berkshire Hathaway; the late H. Wayne Huizenga, who made his vast fortune in his ownership of Blockbuster, Waste Management Inc. and other major companies; and Paul “Tony” Novelly, who formerly owned an oil company.

ProPublica interviewed more than 100 people, including staff that would have worked some of the trips that Thomas took. It also reviewed records obtained from the US Marshals Service, tax court filings, and personal photographs.

Sokol acknowledged in a statement to ProPublica that he hosted the Thomases. “We have never once discussed any pending court matter,” Sokol said. “Our conversations have always revolved around helping young people, sports, and family matters.”

“As to the use of private aviation,” he added, “I believe that given security concerns all of the Supreme Court justices should either fly privately or on governmental aircraft.”

Both the lack of transparency about his financial relationships with Republican megadonors, and the jet-setting lifestyle he’s enjoyed because of those friendships, put Thomas out of step with how lower court judges and other government officials approach their ethical obligations, legal experts told ProPublica.

While several other Supreme Court justices have been accused of bending or breaking ethical rules when it comes to accepting and disclosing gifts, ProPublica’s reporting shows that Thomas especially has operated under a different set of ethical norms than federal judges on lower courts – and even the courts’ counterparts serving in other branches of government, which are covered by the same financial disclosure law that applies to the judiciary.

Jeremy Fogel, a former judge who for years reviewed lower court judges’ financial disclosures, told ProPublica the amount of undisclosed gifts Thomas received is unlike anything he’s ever seen.

“In my career I don’t remember ever seeing this degree of largesse given to anybody,” said Fogel. “I think it’s unprecedented.”

The new revelations also raise questions about whether Thomas broke the law with his failure to report at least some of the gifts and hospitality he received. Ethics experts who spoke to ProPublica said some of the hospitality he received, like when his friends hosted him at their personal homes, may not have required disclosure, but that other types of gifts, such as the costly tickets he received to major sporting events, should have been reported.

The conduct and financial relationships of other Supreme Court justices have been questioned for ethical reasons, but those allegations have so far not matched the lavishness of the hospitality that Thomas has received, nor has any other justice been accused of such an extensive pattern of failing to disclose such transactions.

None of the Thomas benefactors highlighted in the new report appear to have had direct business in front of the Supreme Court, ProPublica said. However, their donations to political causes on the right put them in sync with the justice’s far-right jurisprudence, and the friendships that were the source of the gifts and hospitality confirmed by ProPublica all seem to have begun after Thomas joined the most powerful court in the country. The three new billionaires that ProPublica is throwing into the mix with the new investigation share a connection to Thomas via the Horatio Alger Association, an exclusive organization that fundraises for student scholarships and mentorships; Thomas’ involvement in the group was the subject of a New York Times report last month.

Though the total value of the recently revealed gifts is unclear, ProPublica estimated that they are likely in the millions of dollars.

The new reporting comes as Democrats in Congress, propelled by the apparent ethical lapses of Thomas and other justices, have made the lack of a firm ethics code for the justices a major focus. The Supreme Court follows some of the financial disclosure rules mandated for lower courts judges, but in a statement earlier this year, the justices indicated that they believed they were doing so voluntarily. The justices are also not subject to other procedures used in lower courts to address potential conflicts of interest.

Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the court – as well as many Republicans on the Hill – have signaled that they believe that the justices can be trusted to police themselves on ethical issues. Roberts has also hinted that the court may take additional steps to firm up its ethics practices, however public comments from other justices, and particularly from Justice Samuel Alito, suggest there’s resistance in the court to succumbing to the current pressure for ethics reform.

The report is the latest in a series of investigations into the failure of justices, and Thomas in particular, to report on annual financial disclosure forms the gifts and hospitality they have received. The initial rounds of ProPublica reporting focused on Thomas’ relationship with Crow, a billionaire real estate titan who has donated to millions to Republican-aligned causes, and whose gifts and hospitality towards the justice went unreported, with a few exceptions, on Thomas’ financial disclosure forms.

Thomas intends to amend his financial disclosure forms, a source close to the justice previously told CNN, to at least reflect Crow’s 2014 purchase of Thomas’ mother’s home. ProPublica previously reported that the deal allowed her to continue to live on the property at least through 2020, while Crow paid for renovations to the home.

Thomas has also recently been scrutinized for an undisclosed loan he received, reported by The New York Times last week, from a wealthy friend to pay for a $267,230 RV he purchased in 1999. The friend, Anthony Welters, who has been a major Democratic fundraiser and whose wife served as an ambassador in the Obama administration, told the Times the loan had been “satisfied” but declined to detail on what terms.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/poli...hospitality-propublica-report/index.html

I don't really care if a SCOTUS judge is appointed by a Republican or a Democrat as it pertains to this. It's bad enough we have lobbyists dictating government policy in this country through the legislatures. Something has to be done to stop influence peddling of the highest court in the land by billionaires.

Clarence Thomas accepted previously undisclosed luxury vacations with rich friends that likely cost millions: report

https://www.businessinsider.com/cla...OhzSSSrlYQW0DXDUiOw9oV5EtOAagreevz_9F9qE

I agree that Congress shouldn't be imposing any sort of ethical standards on the SC both from a checks and balances standpoint and also because they have no leg to stand on when talking ethics.

That said, Supreme Court needs to get their house in order. The day is coming that this crap isn't going to fly anymore.

90 percent of the laws exist because someone did something stupid, and it was decided there should be a law against that.

The Supreme court has a 5 year old in its ranks...

Jc

Getting real sick and tired of SC judges acting like they are immune from criticism. They can be trash talked just like anybody else.

Bottom line:

Congress should never have control over the SC.

It's not about controlling the SC.

A few of them are running amuck! There is a complete lack of common sense. Thomas and Alito taking large sums of money or gifts or vacations etc suggests impropriety.

I'm not saying there is, but it looks like there could be and appearances do matter in this case.

So controlling how they rule on things is not what this is about. How they conduct themselves is.

Exactly. And when you throw ethics out the window, corruption follows.

Then who should be able to set some standard of ethics and enforce them upon the SCOTUS? Are they above being held to any standard by anyone? I agree that congress shouldn't have "control" over the SCOTUS, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

Goper’s don’t want the justices leaning right to be held to any ethics. Wait until the left has a majority on the SC. Ethics will then be thrown back through the window directed at the SC justices leaning left by congress. Mark it down.

No, we already know the left has no ethics!!!

This is how you tell us that you haven't been paying attention to the time period of 2016 until now without telling us you haven't been paying attention to the time period of 2016 until now.

I get screwed by comparison to all three branches. At my job, I am not allowed to purchase stocks for companies whose business affairs I could impact. Congress is off the hook on that one. I cannot even come close to removing classified files from their contained setting. The Executive branch (which I technically work for) has apparently disregarded that. As an attorney, I am not allowed to do nearly anything that is happening in the Judicial branch right now.

Screwed on all three fronts.

Better your fronts than your backs I suppose. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Justices should have controls and ethics should be required. They should police themselves, and should be held responsible for doing so, and also addressing recusal, to avoid impropriety and conflict of interest which naturally follow the Alito and Thomas stories we have seen. I am OK with some system of term limits. This disregard for these types of "gifts" that should have been reported and rejected if they might appear as bribes, should have consequences attached. Maybe some decisions overturned, or I could see another court, or even this one, assigning suspensions if protocol disregarded. No votes under suspension. Repeat offenders could have longer suspensions or terms shortened.
The problem seems to be arrogant disregard and misuse of their unique position; they should be self-policing and providing internal ethical direction and conduct, it is expected of the court, but that hasn't been enough. Perhaps Congress should require they create the guardrails and the SC adherence to same. How special is allowable? At least two seem to be intentionally gaming this negligence.

Yeah Utah lol, they have a different standard than any state in the US. And why do top Republican leaders want to make abortion illegal nationwide? Nevermind I know. Letting states decide is just the stepping stone to a National ban.

And how many justices on the left are taking bribes? Wanna share your vast knowledge?

While your at it, please name the congresspersons on the left that engaged in an insurrection.

The left has a few but not one running for prez. The big difference is the right protects, covers the lies, and embraces their deplorable candidates while the left doesn’t.

This is tantamount to the mafia not liking RICO laws. Why would corrupt justices like Thomas and Alito want to have actual anti-corruption guidelines they MUST follow? Thomas would be out of freebies. Congress can fix it, or POTUS can. But either way, these republican justices have proven that they can’t be trusted to police themselves.

Clarence Thomas officially discloses private trips on GOP donor Harlan Crow’s plane

Justice Clarence Thomas disclosed Thursday that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow paid for private jet trips for Thomas in 2022 to attend a speech in Texas and a vacation at Crow’s luxurious New York estate, as ethics questions continue to rock the Supreme Court.

In one instance, Thomas said he took the private transportation in May because of “increased security risk” following the leak of the Dobbs opinion overturning Roe v. Wade that had occurred a few days earlier.

Newly released financial disclosure forms Thursday also amend prior reports to include information that had been “inadvertently omitted” from past forms including a real estate deal between Thomas and Crow back in 2014.

Thomas made the disclosures after receiving an extension to file the yearly reports that were originally due in May 2023. Justice Samuel Alito released his financial disclosures Thursday as well.

The filing comes as Thomas has been under fire from critics who say he has skirted ethics laws for years by failing to properly disclose luxury trips, real estate transactions and other gifts bankrolled by wealthy friends.

A lawyer for Thomas released a statement and executive summary and said that there had been “no willful ethics transgressions” and that prior reporting errors were “strictly inadvertent.” The lawyer also refuted what he called a “partisan freezing frenzy” against the justice that he said amounted to “political blood sport.”

ProPublica was the first to report Thomas’ long-time friendship with Crow and the extent of their travel over the years. In a statement after the ProPublica report, Thomas acknowledged the friendship but stressed that Crow did not have business before the court. He said that he had not disclosed the years of travel because he was advised at the time that he did not have to report it. In the statement, he noted however, that the Judicial Conference had recently changed the rules. “It is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future,” Thomas wrote.

The new change, which applies to activity covered by the 2023 report, makes clear that travel by private jets as well as stays in commercial properties are no longer considered a part of a hospitality exception.

Additional disclosures from Thomas includes real estate deal

Thomas also disclosed Thursday that he had “inadvertently omitted” other information in past reports including a life insurance policy for his spouse, conservative activist Virginia Thomas that had a cash value under $100,000 and a bank account valued at under $70,000 in 2018.

In addition, he said that he should have disclosed a 2014 private real estate deal between Crow, Thomas and members of Thomas’ family.

It involved the sale of three Georgia properties including the home where Thomas’ mother currently lives. The deal was not listed on his financial disclosure forms.

A source close to Thomas told CNN in April that Thomas initially believed he didn’t have to disclose because he lost money on the deal. The real estate deal was first reported by ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization.

The three properties in Savannah, Georgia, were owned by Thomas, his mother, Leola Williams, and his late brother’s family.

As a part of the negotiated sale price, Williams, who was 85 at the time of the deal, was given an occupancy agreement to be able to live in the home for the rest of her life, the source said. She lives rent free but is responsible for paying the property taxes and insurance.

Section VII of the financial disclosure form clearly indicates, however, that a “transaction” needs to be listed irrespective if there was a loss.

Crow-paid travel

As for the travel that Crow paid for in 2022, it included a private jet for Thomas who gave a talk at the Old Parkland Conference sponsored by the Hoover Institution, the Manhattan Institute and the American Enterprise Institute. The event – an assembly of scholars and lawyers – was billed as a gathering to explore alternative solutions to the economic and social advancement of Black Americans. The conference was held at a building owned by Crow Holdings.

According to the disclosure, the event Thomas flew down to be the key note speaker in February, but returned via private jet “due to an unexpected ice storm.”

The talk was rescheduled in May and Thomas rode round trip on Crow’s plane. In the financial disclosure form Thomas notes that “because of increased security risk following the Dobbs opinion leak, the May flights were by private plane for official travel as filer’s security detail recommended noncommerical travel whenever possible.”

In addition, in July, Thomas traveled to Crow’s private Adirondack resort for vacation.

An attorney for Thomas, Elliot S. Berke, released a statement Thursday saying that Thomas “has always strived for full transparency and adherence to the law.” He noted that after new guidance was issued by the Judicial Conference in March, Thomas received an extension.

He also referenced ethics complaints that have been filed against Thomas by “left wing” organizations . “We look forward to answering any additional questions or addressing any remaining issues,” he said for “sensationalized allegations.”

The new reports are likely to fuel key Senate Democrats who are pushing for legislation that would implement a series of ethics and transparency reforms at the Supreme Court including a code of ethics directed at the justices themselves. Although the justices have discussed amongst themselves whether they should commit to an ethics code aimed specifically at the high court, they have yet to come to a consensus.

Justice Elena Kagan confirmed in an appearance in late July that the justices have been discussing possible reforms, although they have not yet reached an agreement on whether to move forward with a formal code.

For his part, Alito told The Wall Street Journal in July that Congress should stop trying to impose ethics rules on the high court.

“No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period,” Alito said in the interview.

As things stand, public approval ratings of the court have held steady at historic lows.

Alito acknowledges paid trip to Rome

Alito also released his 2022 financial disclosure forms on Thursday after receiving an extension from the May 15 deadline.

Alito’s 13-page report confirms reporting by CNN earlier this year that a trip the justice took to Rome in 2022 to give a keynote speech to Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Initiative was paid for by the conservative group. The initiative’s legal clinic has filed a series of “friend-of-the-court” briefs in religious liberty cases before the Supreme Court since its founding in 2020.

Though the report doesn’t detail how much the trip to Rome cost, it notes that the law school covered Alito’s transportation, lodging and meals so he could speak at the Religious Liberty Summit.

The forms also note that Alito was paid to teach courses at two law schools: Regent University School of Law and Duke Law School. For the Regent gig, the justice was paid $9,000, according to the disclosure, while Duke paid him $20,250 for a pair of teaching jobs. The school also covered Alito’s lodging and meals.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/thomas-alito-supreme-court-disclosures/index.html

This helps explain why Alito doesn't want any oversight.

And now Alito seems to pretend this BS makes some kind of sense......

Alito: Recusing from cases involving former employees, colleagues, and long-time acquaintances would 'distort' the Supreme Court's work

In an official court statement published Friday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito declined to recuse himself from an upcoming case after he met with a lawyer involved in it for hours as part of a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Attached to the Supreme Court's list of orders and rehearings, Alito wrote that there was "no valid reason for my recusal" in the upcoming Moore v. United States case. He said that if Supreme Court justices recused themselves every time a case arose before the court alongside an attorney who's a longtime acquaintance, former clerk, or former colleague, "we would regularly have less than a full bench, and the Court's work would be substantially disrupted and distorted."

Alito continued, noting that that several of the high court's justices — both conservative and liberal — have also frequently participated in interviews with reporters from various news outlets, despite those very same outlets occasionally bringing cases before the court.

Alito's formal statement comes months after Alito met with a Wall Street Journal reporter and attorney David Rivkin Jr. on two separate occasions for interviews that resulted in two intricate op-eds pushing back against allegations of ethical impropriety in the high court and detailing the consequences of the court overturning Roe v. Wade's abortion protections in 2022.

In one of the pieces, Alito said that Congress had absolutely no authority to even attempt to put ethical guideposts in place for the Supreme Court, defying the often-mentioned checks-and-balances system as part of the US government's three coequal branches.

"I know this is a controversial view, but I'm willing to say it," Alito said. "No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period."

While it's usually not controversial for a politician or judge to speak to a reporter, Alito has faced rampant criticism from Democratic detractors in recent months for the two Wall Street Journal op-eds given that one of its authors, Rivkin, represents one of the parties in the case and was even listed on its original writ of certiorari in February.

Following the release of the two opinion pieces, a group of Democratic senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Chief Justice John Roberts a letter asking him to push Alito to recuse himself from the Moore v. United States case. They claimed that helping Alito "air his personal grievances" in two separate interviews with Rivkin, "could cast doubt on Justice Alito's ability to fairly discharge his duties in a case in which Mr. Rivkin represents one of the parties."

https://www.businessinsider.com/ali...4b8fXU2gz-ujnjcPNvV7INVNrQqxNK87ZexuSGTs

So according to him conflict of interests is no longer a thing. Houston we have a problem...

Setting a precedent for liberal justices as well. But when the shoe is on the other foot those precedents set by conservative justices are quickly reversed.

Again Goper’s flip the coin. Tails they win, heads we loose.

Congress doesn't.

Just like Trump not wanting Fani Willis to handle his case in Georgia. Just like Trump not wanting Jack Smith handling his cases in Florida or DC.

These two justices don't want to be investigated. If they were.. it would be found they are corrupt. I'm convinced of that because there are simply too damn many people that still love America and truly love Democracy.

Then please tell us who does? Are you suggesting that there's only one branch of our government that has no oversight nor checks and balances?

Oh, I can't wait for this answer!

Only according to Crow’s lawyer.

In 2023, ProPublica reported that Crow had given lavish gifts to Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas over a period of 20 years. The gifts include a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. Crow gave Thomas a portrait of the justice and his wife, according to the painter, Sharif Tarabay. Tax filings show that Crow's foundation also gave $105,000 to the Yale Law School, Thomas's alma mater, for the "Justice Thomas Portrait Fund". Justice Thomas has accepted numerous week-long luxury trips, including island-hopping on Crow's superyacht, international and domestic private jet travel, and private resort stays.[24]

On April 13, 2023, ProPublica reported that Crow had quietly paid Thomas for property occupied by Thomas's mother's home, despite law requiring disclosure of property sales by public officials.[25] Crow said he bought the property with the intent of later turning the home into a public museum dedicated to Thomas. The property included two vacant lots.[26] Soon after the purchase, an architecture firm received permits to begin $36,000 of improvements, while Thomas's mother continues to live there.[27][28]

Allegations have risen that Crow has been "subsidizing the lifestyle of Thomas and his wife" as Thomas continued to support conservative causes on the Supreme Court.[25]

Under rules that went into effect on March 14, 2023, justices must disclose many forms of gifts they receive; but exceptions exist if a gift of food, lodging, or entertainment is deemed "personal in nature" and the hospitality has been directly offered by an individual who has a personal relationship to the government official in question.[29] The new rules do however require disclosure of stays at commercial properties as well as private jet travel.[30]

Legal experts cited by ProPublica say that Thomas did not disclose the gifts, violating a financial disclosure law and ethical norms for judges.[24][31] According to Crow, he has "never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue".[6] Democratic lawmakers reacted to the revelations by demanding Thomas's resignation and calling for an investigation.[30]

In a May 2023 letter Crow's lawyer said that the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Dick Durbin, did not have "the authority to investigate Mr. Crow's personal friendship with Justice Thomas."[32]

Thomas secretly attended Koch donor events: ProPublica

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas attended at least two donor events for the Koch network, according to a ProPublica report published Friday.

Thomas in 2018 went to a private dinner for donors at the group’s annual summit in California and was brought in to speak with the hopes that the access would encourage donations, according to the report.

Charles and David Koch over the years built an influence network that poured millions into conservative and libertarian causes. David Koch died in 2019.

Thomas did not disclose the trip to the summit on his annual financial disclosure, though ProPublica did not identify who paid for the private jet flight.

A Koch network spokesperson told the outlet that the network, known as Stand Together, did not pay for the flight. The spokesperson also attacked the report as “advocacy journalism intended to discredit and undermine the Supreme Court.”

“There is a long tradition of public officials, including Supreme Court Justices, sharing their experiences, ideas, and judicial philosophy with members of the public at dinners and other events,” the spokesperson said in a statement to ProPublica. “All of the sitting Justices and many who came before them have contributed to the national dialogue in speeches, book tours, and social gatherings. Our events are no different. To claim otherwise is false.”

The Los Angeles Times reported in 2011 that a court spokeswoman acknowledged that Thomas had “dropped by” a private meeting held by the Koch brothers after a summit invitation surfaced that indicated Thomas was previously featured at the event.

The Hill has reached out to Stand Together and Thomas, through a court spokesperson, for comment.

The Supreme Court has a narrow definition of banned fundraising that only applies to events that raise more money than expenses incurred, or where guests are actually asked to contribute funds.

ProPublica earlier this year detailed years of undisclosed luxury trips that Thomas had accepted from GOP megadonor and real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

Thomas defended himself by saying he sought guidance and was told the trips fell under a personal hospitality exception and did not need to be disclosed. The guidance for the exception has since been clarified to indicate it does not apply to private jet flights or stays at commercial properties.

The ethics controversies surrounding Thomas and other justices have fueled a push for the Supreme Court to adopt a binding code of ethics. But Republicans have opposed the push, portraying it as an attempt to tear down the court’s conservative majority, giving the bill slim odds of passage.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...GpF_0-Ke6Kfh_1eLanUXV8RHIHK_iUbH-48c2dhA