Time to impeach scotus judge Clarence thomas

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

That was it.

Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme Court since 1991 about 33 years, his net worth is 4 million. Sonia Sotomayor has been on the Court since 2009 fifteen years. Her net worth is 5 million almost four million of that from book deals peddled to libraries and Colleges by her staff, lol. Clarence Thomas is the oldest Judge on the Supreme Court and hardly the wealthiest. But to the Leftist he's corrupt and criminal he should be impeached because he failed to disclose a flight on a private plane, lol.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I think this is what you are talking about.


https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...29762cb8338c02

Repeated violations of disclosure rules regarding gifts like the statute in post #65 can get a Supreme Court Justice impeached.

What Sotomayor did with her books is totally different. There isn't an offical code of conduct for the Supreme Court. From your link:

In her case, the documents reveal repeated examples of taxpayer-funded court staff performing tasks for the justice’s book ventures, which workers in other branches of government are barred from doing. But when it comes to promoting her literary career, Sotomayor is free to do what other government officials cannot because the Supreme Court does not have a formal code of conduct, leaving the nine justices to largely write and enforce their own rules.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Clarence Thomas has been on the Supreme Court since 1991 about 33 years, his net worth is 4 million. Sonia Sotomayor has been on the Court since 2009 fifteen years. Her net worth is 5 million almost four million of that from book deals peddled to libraries and Colleges by her staff, lol. Clarence Thomas is the oldest Judge on the Supreme Court and hardly the wealthiest. But to the Leftist he's corrupt and criminal he should be impeached because he failed to disclose a flight on a private plane, lol.

The net worth of Thomas would probably less than 4 million if he paid for all the trips he took on the Harlan Crew's private jet. It was more than one flight. LOL. The disclosure rules for gifts were put in place for a reason. Thomas is in clear violation of them. There aren't any statutes that covers what Sotomayor was doing with her books. There is no official code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Repeated violations of disclosure rules regarding gifts like the statute in post #65 can get a Supreme Court Justice impeached.

What Sotomayor did with her books is totally different. There isn't an offical code of conduct for the Supreme Court. From your link:

In her case, the documents reveal repeated examples of taxpayer-funded court staff performing tasks for the justice’s book ventures, which workers in other branches of government are barred from doing. But when it comes to promoting her literary career, Sotomayor is free to do what other government officials cannot because the Supreme Court does not have a formal code of conduct, leaving the nine justices to largely write and enforce their own rules.

Yeah, I know the reasons for disclosure. But you're putting Clarence Thomas in the realm of a criminal and he isn't. If Harlan Crow has benefited in some way from Thomas's influence then there might be a valid reason for impeachment. The only thing Clarence Thomas may end up having to do is amend his Gift Disclosure statements. wringing your hands for his impeachment without truly understanding the procedure is rather immature.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Yeah, I know the reasons for disclosure.

You should know the reasons for disclosure, I gave you the link two different times.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You should know the reasons for disclosure, I gave you the link two different times.

I already knew. I didn't need your link. He won't be impeached trust me.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I already knew. I didn't need your link.

You had the link which had the statute number, but you asked for the statute number in post #63 anyway?

https://eccie.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1063535404