Quote (Handcuffs @ Apr 14 2023 10:53am)
The 'filing violation', as I understand it, is the result of Watergate-era filing requirements requiring reporting of real estate transactions that are > $1,000. Which, the purchase of Thomas' home for $133,000 certainly supersedes and meets reporting requirements. Thomas' mother continues to live in that home and Crow subsequently paid for $40,000 in renovations and bought out the neighboring properties because Thomas' mother disliked how loud her neighbors were (Neither have commented whether Thomas' mom pays any rent either). Crow says that he did so to preserve the posterity of Thomas' legacy with hopes to turn the home into a museum/memorial site in the future. Oddly, many everyday federal employees are not allowed to accept any gifts over $20 due to concerns of images of impropriety, and yet the Supreme Court has far fewer official ethical guidelines and methods of accountability.
Now people have been going through Thomas' ruling record and have found that two groups that Crow either supported or was on the board of, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Center for the Community Interest (CCI), both have perfect records w/ Thomas in that he sided with their position in every case. There's no indication that any direct bribing or even discussion of the cases took place, but it makes sense why people would be concerned about the 'closeness' of the connection Thomas has to Crow even as legitimate friends. I would love a crystal ball to see a timeline in which a more liberal judge was at the center of this controversy for the same level of connection to Soros. Right-wingers would absolutely be losing their shit.
the common response is "thomas can't be bribed, we know what he'll say before the case even comes up".
whereas if you asked if they think a liberal judges mind is set before hearing a case, they say "of course", and follow it up with "that's terrible, they need to react only to the facts in the case otherwise they're biased".