She lost 359 to 43 in an epic humiliation.
McCarthy wasn’t ousted on his first go around either. The point is that Johnson made a promise to the GOP and by extension Republican voters, and he broke that promise in exchange for a bribe from Israel. Congress is perhaps the most corrupt institution in America, and at least the GOP is doing something about it.
The Supreme Court, led by the most corrupt Justice ever, Clarence Thomas.
The Supreme Court is a totally reactionary vessel. They can only react to what the other branches of government has done. Because of this, it is mathematically impossible for the Supreme Court to be the most corrupt. They are in fact the least corrupt.
Corruption isn’t not getting what you want. Corruption are individuals rewarding themselves in a criminal fashion like bribery over the needs and wants of their constituents. We have a 35 trillion dollar debt as proof of this.
Just because the court doesn’t originate laws doesn’t mean it’s not subject to corruption. The court makes decisions that have a huge impact on multi-billion dollar industries for example. So there are good reasons for wealthy people to try to influence it. And there is a strong body of evidence that justices like Thomas and Gorsuch have financially benefited. Even Roberts is compromised by his wife’s career. Willy is, as usual, seriously deluded.
Just that it can’t be more corrupt than the executive and legislative branches. There are a limited number of judges. They serve life terms. They’re not subject to re-elections and raising money to campaign for re-election. They’re free to rule in any way they choose for life without consequence. All these things act as barriers to corruption.
But then there's Clarence Thomas, probably the most corrupt Justice ever.
And I just came to America and have never heard of Clarence Thomas. What makes him so corrupt?
but what the fuck. Here's an article the lists most of them. Now don't tell me you don't believe it "because The Nation is left trash." How about, instead of complaining about the source, consider whether its allegations are well founded.
...but he also thinks Newsmax is "right trash."
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/the-newsmax-link-is-bullshit-441163?page=
In fact, willy thinks that all "journalists are idiots." Remember that the next time willy posts a link from a news source.
...but I'm puzzled how this law applies to Supreme Court justices. The Nation article sites the "ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978". The act requires the disclosure of certain gifts to various people who work for the government. The article then goes on to explain that Thomas got all kinds of vacations and what not that he didn't disclose. Now that's one way to interpret it. Another way might be, "Clarence Thomas was hanging out with some friends of his. Some of those friends are very rich and do rich people things, and hang out on their yacht."
Regardless, of how one interprets this, the Nation article then says, "The Ethics in Government Act requires all covered officials, explicitly including Supreme Court justices, to disclose gifts..."
Okay. Well, like I said, I'm no lawyer. But the law covers who has to disclose things. "§ 101. Persons required to file".
101 says, "(a) Within thirty days of assuming the position of an officer or employee described in subsection (f),"
Fuck, this is going to be irritating legal jargon, isn't it?
"(f) The officers and employees referred to in subsections (a), (d), and (e) are—
(1) the President;
(2) the Vice President;
(3) each officer or employee in the executive branch, including a special Government employee as defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code, who occupies a position classified above GS–15 of the General Schedule or, in the case of positions not under the General Schedule, for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS–15 of the General Schedule; each member of a uniformed service whose pay grade is at or in excess of O–7 under section 201 of title 37, United States Code; and each officer or employee in any other position determined by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to be of equal classification;"
I hate lawyers. I so fucking hate lawyers.
"(4) each employee appointed pursuant to section 3105 of title 5, United States Code;"
Ahhhhh!!!
"(5) any employee not described in paragraph (3) who is in a position in the executive branch which is excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character,"
Kill me. Kill me now.
"(6) the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General, each Governor of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service..."
(7) the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and each designated agency ethics official;
(8) any civilian employee not described in paragraph (3), employed in the Executive Office of the President"
Who the fuck writes like this?!?!? Are all lawyers secretly all autistic robots?!?!?
"(9) a Member of Congress as defined under section 109(12);
(10) an officer or employee of the Congress as defined under section 109(13);
(11) a judicial officer as defined under section 109(10); and
(12) a judicial employee as defined under section 109(8)."
um. Where's the mention of Supreme Court judges? Is a "judicial officer" a Supreme Court judge? Oh, fuck, we have to go to section 109(10) to get definitions of people for the people described in section 101. I so fucking hate lawyers. I so so so fucking hate lawyers.
"(10) ‘‘judicial officer’’ means the Chief Justice of the United States, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,"
oh you motherfucker. There you are. Okay, so back to the Nation article.
"The chief justice insisted that the court is not bound by the existing Code of Conduct for United States Judges or other statutes and rules applicable to lower federal judges, so whether the gifts and the failure to disclose them violated anything other than unenforceable norms is said to be unclear."
Well, there is that. So what would happen if Justice Thomas actually was prosecuted for violating this law? Wouldn't the Court just rule that this is the case. That existing Code of Conduct rules can't be applied to Supreme Court justices?
I don't like this, but as far as I can tell, it amounts to going on vacation with others paying the bill. Don't seem a huge deal. But then the Nation links to this article from ProPublica. From the headline..
"Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition."
Jesus. That doesn't sound good.
"Crow paid for private school for a relative Thomas said he was raising “as a son.” “This is way outside the norm,” said a former White House ethics lawyer."
Wait, what?!?! So the kid in question isn't Clarence Thomas's kid? Is it this Crow person's kid?
I have a headache now. Thanks, Nicky.