#senate judiciary committee | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

republicansaredomesticterrorists · 11 days

Text

These rotten motherf—kers need to be jailed!

😡🤬☠️

111 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 9 months

Text

By Steven Lubet

In an unprecedented move, the Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced a bill requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct and to create a mechanism for investigating alleged violations of the code and other laws.

It is no secret that the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act was prompted in part by investigations into several Justices’ deficient financial disclosures, receipt of extravagant gifts, questionable transactions and misuse of staff. The full court has consistently resisted adopting such an ethics code, but certain Justices’ justifications for their questionable conduct only hurt their cause.

Their excuses were all remarkably flimsy, almost beyond belief.

Justice Clarence Thomas began the round of rationalizations when Pro Publica reported that he had enjoyed decades of lavish vacations at the expense of billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow — including cruises in Indonesia and the Greek Islands on Crow’s superyacht — none of which were included as gifts on Thomas’s financial disclosure forms as required by the Ethics in Government Act.

In a one-paragraph statement, Thomas opaquely claimed that he had sought guidance early in his tenure on the court from unnamed “colleagues and others in the judiciary,” who advised him that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends” was not reportable.

Thomas has never revealed the identities of his alleged ethics advisors, but it is notable that no Justice or Judge has stepped forward to take responsibility for his decidedly lax interpretation of the disclosure rules. Whoever may have mentored Thomas, it is highly unlikely, to put it mildly, that any federal judge in the early 1990s would have understood “this sort of personal hospitality” to cover the omission of 20 years of luxury vacations at a private Adirondacks resort, a Texas ranch and California’s Bohemian Grove, ferried on a private jet (not to mention payment of private school tuition for the Justice’s nephew and the purchase of his mother’s home).

As excuses go, “somebody once told me it was okay” is about a step above “the dog ate my homework,” but it is still better than Thomas’s earlier excuse for not disclosing years of his wife’s employment when Virginia Thomas was paid $686,589 by the conservative Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College.

Upon amending 20 years of his financial reports, Thomas gave the far-fetched explanation that he had “inadvertently omitted” the information “due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” It takes almost preternatural shamelessness for a Supreme Court Justice — whose job calls for parsing the most complex legislation — to insist that he misunderstood the plain meaning of “spouse’s employment” for 20 reporting years.

If Thomas’s excuses for nondisclosure were sketchy, at least he didn’t become visibly angry when he was caught. Not so Justice Samuel Alito, who made an irate preemptive strike via the Wall Street Journal editorial page when he learned that Pro Publica was about to publicize his own nondisclosures.

The Pro Publica reporters contacted Alito for comment before going live with their article about an Alaska vacation financed by prominent Republican donors. Rather than answer their questions, however, Alito took advantage of his contacts at the Wall Street Journal to get a jump on the story. He published his response several hours before Pro Publica’s post, in which he called the yet unseen article misleading and false.

There was no disputing the facts. In 2008, Alito enjoyed a three-day, all-expenses junket at a remote Alaska fishing camp owned by a wealthy conservative activist named Robin Arkley II which was apparently arranged by Federalist Society official Leonard Leo. Another guest was the billionaire Paul Singer, who flew the Justice to Alaska on his private jet. No details about the trip were listed as gifts on Alito’s disclosure forms.

Unlike Thomas, Alito claimed no preexisting friendships with his benefactors, which did not stop him from playing the “personal hospitality” card. Although the statutory disclosure exception clearly applies only to “food, lodging, or entertainment,” and not to transportation, Alito defended his nondisclosure by cobbling together several unrelated statutes in a tortured attempt to show that private jet flights constitute “hospitality facilities.”

The Justice seemed to argue that the trip had no value because he sat in “what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat,” imposing no “extra cost” for Singer. One might expect an avowed textualist to pay more attention to the statutory definition of “gift,” which includes, for example, “free attendance at an event,” which also costs nothing to the host.

The most recent revelations involve Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s use of court staff to bolster her book sales at speaking engagements. That would have violated the lower federal courts’ Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which prohibits the substantial use of “chambers, resources or staff” to engage in otherwise permitted financial activities — if the Supreme Court had ever adopted its own version of the code.

Sotomayor’s excuse was that her “chambers staff” was only recommending “the number of books based on the size of the audience so as not to disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event.” In other words, the Justice admitted assigning a judicial assistant to keep track of book purchases relative to audience sizes, in order to maximize her potential sales.

The three Justices’ hollow rationalizations display a patronizing expectation that the public will ultimately buy whatever they say, no matter how implausible.

But to paraphrase the late Justice Robert Jackson: Supreme Court Justices do not get the last word because they are infallible; they only believe themselves infallible because they get the last word. When it comes to judicial ethics, that has to change.

76 notes · View notes

looseygoosey66 · 10 months

Text

On a sillier note, today is also the anniversary (29 years) of Stoney & Jeff testifying before Congress regarding Ticketmaster. The sass and snark is strong & I love it. June 30 1994

Stone is not amused 🤨

#stone gossard #pearl jam #jeff ament #senate judiciary committee #Ticketmaster #anti trust #monopoly

32 notes · View notes

kp777 · 2 years

Link

By Julia Shapero

Axios

July 11, 2022

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called on the Senate on Monday to say whether Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath about their views on Roe v. Wade.

The big picture: Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both said during their Senate confirmation hearings that they viewed Roe v. Wade as settled precedent. The justices' statements have since come under increased scrutiny after they joined the majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade last month.

Driving the news: Ocasio-Cortez, along with Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), asked the Senate to issue a finding on whether Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Multiple Supreme Court Justices misled the American people during their confirmation hearings about their views on Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood," they said in the letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. "At least two of them, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, directly lied to Senators."

"We respect the right of individual Justices to have their own views on various constitutional issues," they added. "But we cannot have a system where Justices lie about their views in order to get confirmed. That makes a mockery of the confirmation power, and of the separation of powers."

Background: Ocasio-Cortez has expressed her concerns about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh multiple times since the Roe ruling.

The congresswoman told "Meet the Press" in late June that impeachment should be "very seriously considered" if the justices lied during their confirmation hearings.

She also sarcastically tweeted "[t]he least they could do is let him eat cake" on Friday after Kavanaugh was forced out of a restaurant by abortion rights protesters.

#u.s. supreme court #lying under oath #neil gorsuch #brett kavanaugh #u.s. senate #senate judiciary committee

39 notes · View notes

gwydionmisha · 1 year

Link

#Merrick Garland #Senate Judiciary Committee #News

10 notes · View notes

timothy-kang · 3 months

Text

News/Chew Shou Zi—1 Feb. 2024

On January 31, Chew Shou Zi, the Singaporean CEO of TikTok, attended a hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington. The hearing was centered around two main issues. The first issue was related to the adequacy of child protection measures in th

On January 31, Chew Shou Zi, the Singaporean CEO of TikTok, attended a hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington. The hearing was centered around two main issues. The first issue was related to the adequacy of child protection measures in the platform due to the presence of child sexual abuse material. Additionally, it was noted that Hong Kong and Tibet were less mentioned on TikTok…

youtube

View On WordPress

#America #Chew Shou Zi #Cruz #hearing #Hong Kong and Tibet #Senate Judiciary Committee #Singaporean #TikTok #Youtube

0 notes

ebuddynews · 2 years

Text

Twitter Whistleblower Going To Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee On September

Twitter Whistleblower Going To Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee On September In a Musk-Twitter trial, Twitter whistleblower Zatko is to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming September month. #Twitter #elonmusk #MuskTwittercase #socialnetwork #Twitterwhistleblower #TwitterInc #PeiterZatko #Zatko #elonmusktwitter #SenateJudiciaryCommittee #Senate #JudiciaryCommittee #September

According to a statement from the committee, Twitter whistleblower Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, when the Media reported its revelation first, will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the following, i.e., on September 13. He will discuss his allegations about Twitter. The discussion will include claims that the company suffers from serious security and privacy vulnerabilities that could…

View On WordPress

#Elon Musk #Elon Musk news #Senate Judiciary Committee #Twitter #Twitter News #Twitter Whistleblower #US Senate

0 notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has for more than a decade claimed on mandatory financial disclosure forms that he received significant income from a defunct real estate firm, Ginger, Ltd., Partnership, that has been shuttered since 2006.

This news comes only 10 days after ProPublica reported that the justice has received — but failed to disclose — hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of gifted vacations from conservative billionaire and Nazi enthusiast Harlan Crow. The billionaire also owns the home where Thomas’ mother lives, which Crow purchased from Thomas and members of his family before embarking on major renovations to the property. Thomas failed to disclose the sale of the home on financial forms, leaving blank the field for reporting the identity of a buyer in any private transactions above $1,000, including real estate. The revelations have led some to question whether Thomas was intentionally hiding his financial relationship with Crow.

On Sunday, The Washington Post revealed that in addition to not disclosing luxurious vacations and the real estate deal involving Crow, Thomas also erroneously reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in rental income from property that his wife Ginni Thomas’ parents developed in Nebraska. In financial disclosures, Thomas reported the rental income as coming from a real estate firm called “Ginger, Ltd., Partnership.” But that firm has not existed since March 2006 when it was dissolved and its leases for upwards of 200 residential lots were transferred to Ginger Holdings, LLC. Ginni Thomas’ sister, Joanne K. Elliot, is listed as manager of the Ginger Holdings, LLC, but Ginni is not listed in the LLC’s state incorporation records.

The recent news surrounding Thomas’ financial disclosures has spurred Democrats to call on the policymaking body for the federal courts, the Judicial Conference, to refer Thomas to the attorney general’s office to investigate whether the justice ran afoul of federal ethics law. In a letter signed by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Democrats accused Thomas of an “apparent pattern of noncompliance with disclosure requirements” and noted that in 2011, Thomas admitted he had not correctly disclosed his wife’s income for a number of years. Thomas claimed at the time that his failure to disclose was due to a “a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” But Democrats pointed out that Thomas had “accurately fil[ed] disclosure forms regarding his spouse’s employment for as many as 10 years beginning in 1987.”

Responding to the allegations that he did not report the vacations funded by Crow, Thomas said he was not aware he had to disclose “this sort of personal hospitality” but said he would follow the Judicial Conference’s guidelines moving forward.

All of these irregularities in the Justice’s financial disclosures, combined with his wife’s close involvement in Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election have led many to question Thomas’ dedication to ethics.

“Any presumption in favor of Thomas’s integrity and commitment to comply with the law is gone. His assurances and promises cannot be trusted. Is there more? What’s the whole story? The nation needs to know,” Stephen Gillers, a New York University legal ethics expert, told the Post.

#us politics #news #rolling stone #rolling stone magazine #2023 #justice clarence thomas #scotus #us supreme court #Ginger Ltd. Partnership #ProPublica #The Washington Post #harlan crow #ginni thomas #Ginger Holdings LLC #Joanne K. Elliot #Judicial Conference #Senate Judiciary Committee #house judiciary committee #Stephen Gillers

35 notes · View notes

looseygoosey66 · 10 months

Text

Another clip since Tumblr apparently decided 2 videos on the same post would be too easy 🤷 June 30 1994

#stone gossard #pearl jam #jeff ament #senate judiciary committee #Ticketmaster #anti trust #monopoly #smartass #MTV News

10 notes · View notes

kp777 · 9 months

Text

by Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski

ProPublica

July 12, 2023

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have sent letters to two wealthy businessmen and a major political activist requesting more information about undisclosed gifts to Supreme Court justices. The letters, sent Tuesday by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the committee chair, seek more details about an undisclosed 2008 luxury fishing vacation Justice Samuel Alito took that was reported last month by ProPublica. The letters went to three people: hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer; mortgage company owner Robin Arkley II; and Leonard Leo, a longtime leader at the Federalist Society, the powerful conservative legal group. All three men played a role in paying for or organizing Alito’s 2008 vacation, but the letters go beyond that trip. The senators requested Leo and the businessmen provide a full accounting of all transportation, lodging and gifts worth more than $415 they’ve ever provided to any Supreme Court justice. “To date, Chief Justice Roberts has barely acknowledged, much less investigated or sought to fix, the ethics crises swirling around our highest Court,” Durbin and Whitehouse said in a joint statement. “If the Court won’t investigate or act, Congress must.” The senators’ committee has announced it plans to vote on July 20 on a bill that would tighten Supreme Court ethics rules.