IN DEFENSE OF JUSTICE THOMAS

E

Earl

Well-known member
IN DEFENSE OF JUSTICE THOMAS https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ice-thomas.php Power Line blog ...

In 1997, Justice Thomas and his wife brought their great nephew to live with them. They agreed to take in this young child much as Justice Thomas’s grandparents had done for him and his brother in 1955. ... Justice Thomas and his wife made immeasurable personal and financial sacrifices and poured every ounce of their lives and hearts into giving their great nephew a chance to succeed. In the summer of 2006, the Thomases were struggling to find a school where they could send their great nephew. In discussing these challenges with their dear friends, Harlan and Kathy Crow, Harlan recommended that the Thomases consider one more option: sending their great nephew to Randolph Macon Academy. Harlan had attended Randolph Macon, and he thought the school would be a good fit. Harlan had financially supported Randolph Macon since the 1980s, and funded scholarships for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Harlan offered to pay the first year of Justice Thomas’s great nephew’s tuition in 2006, and that payment went directly to the school. Harlan Crow’s Office confirmed that he did not pay the great nephew’s tuition for any other year at Randolph Macon. ...

Harlan Crow’s tuition payments made directly to these schools on behalf of Justice Thomas’s great nephew did not constitute a report-able gift. Justice Thomas was not required to disclose the tuition payments made directly to Randolph Macon and the Georgia school on behalf of his great nephew because the definition of a “dependent child” under the Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. 13101 (2)) does not include a “great nephew.” It is limited to a “son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter.” ... neither Harlan Crow, nor his company, had any business before the Supreme Court. For Fair Use reasons, I did not quote to part of the article that mentions a single year that the great nephew spent at a school in GA, the tuition paid by Crow directly to the school. So this kerfuffle has to do with two years of tuition paid by Crow (out of 12 or 13 years), when he had no business before the USSC, that by the Ethics in Government Act was not report-able.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/in-defense-of-justice-thomas.php
 
A single year that the great nephew spent at a school in GA, the tuition paid by Crow directly to the school. So this kerfuffle has to do with two years of tuition paid by Crow (out of 12 or 13 years), when he had no business before the USSC, that by the Ethics in Government Act was not report-able.

Progs' attempt to Himalayanize a mole hill lacks an actual mole hill. Unsurprisingly.
 
The deep racist hatred the far left Democratic Socialists have toward Thomas is visually obvious to the most casual observer.
 
Earl said:
The deep racist hatred the far left Democratic Socialists have toward Thomas is visually obvious to the most casual observer.
Click to expand...
Just another reason to pity them... and be incredibly glad we are blessed not to be them... what an awful way to live life...
 
I have to disagree with you on this Earl. The proposition that a sitting Supreme Court Justice lacked influence connections and money to the point that he couldn't provide adequate education for a child is laughable. This is clearly an ethics breach and Thomas needs to resign. To be fair he isn't the only one who should resign.

As for Crow, he may not have had a case in front of the Court at that time but did the Court hear cases he may have had an interest in? At that time or afterwards?
 
Guille said:
I have to disagree with you on this Earl. The proposition that a sitting Supreme Court Justice lacked influence connections and money to the point that he couldn't provide adequate education for a child is laughable. This is clearly an ethics breach and Thomas needs to resign. To be fair he isn't the only one who should resign.

As for Crow, he may not have had a case in front of the Court at that time but did the Court hear cases he may have had an interest in? At that time or afterwards?
Click to expand...

We do not know the financial condition of Justice Thomas at that time. We do not know if the Court heard cases that Crow may have had an interest in.

Since we do not know these things, Justice Thomas should not be hung.

This is what he should be judged on:

"Harlan Crow’s tuition payments made directly to these schools on behalf of Justice Thomas’s great nephew did not constitute a report-able gift. Justice Thomas was not required to disclose the tuition payments made directly to Randolph Macon and the Georgia school on behalf of his great nephew because the definition of a “dependent child” under the Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. 13101 (2)) does not include a “great nephew.” It is limited to a “son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter.” ... neither Harlan Crow, nor his company, had any business before the Supreme Court. For Fair Use reasons, I did not quote to part of the article that mentions a single year that the great nephew spent at a school in GA, the tuition paid by Crow directly to the school. So this kerfuffle has to do with two years of tuition paid by Crow (out of 12 or 13 years).

This is not enough to remove Justice Thomas from the Supreme Court. Not even close.
 
The truly heinous crimes have been committed by the women on the Court who always vote against the Constitution.
 
Thomas is destroying the esteem of the court all by himself. This is serious. He has taken tons of money from benefactors and omitted reporting it. Is not just that he took the money, but he covered it up. If it were no big deal he would have reported.
His wife also was fed money by far rights. She is a deep-state Trumpian organizer.
Thomas was always a bad choice. He did not ask a question in the court for over a decade. Many lawyers did not know what his voice sounded like. Him resigning would be the first positive act he did since getting seated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top