Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 6 2023 11:35am)
so a really cursory look at the relevant facts, rules and law says nobody is accused of trying to influence Thomas's opinions which of course would be pointless because I can tell you exactly how he'll rule on every case before he even hears it, and that supreme court judges aren't required to disclose any 'personal hospitality' received as gifts and that includes travel, food, lodging, etc expenses like this story. Or should I say, this non-story
propublica is example #1 in why not a single red cent of government funding should go to these PBS/NPR/etc affiliated organizations as long as they insist on being partisan propaganda machines. Just try to watch Brooks and black-Shields with a straight face and pretend its an honest political debate between left and right. If they want to air mr rogers neighborhoods and do public interest stories about nature go right ahead. If they want to run series like their january 6th doxxtravaganza and 'documenting hate', they should be entirely decoupled from PBS and cut off public funds, let them do it as a private entity, run all these hatchet jobs they want
Rules, legal or moral, aren't made for the individual. i agree that Thomas personally may be above influence, but a rule shouldn't be ignored because the person is stubborn.
large scale political donors, left right or center, shouldn't be gifting luxury trips to supreme court justices. that seems like a simple rule. whether they're friends or the justice is made of stone shouldn't be taken into account. there's a very small number of people in the SCOTUS and a part of taking that job is to avoid potential influence, at least from a moral standpoint.
that said if there's no law that applies he should be fine and the story boils down to just mudslinging.