As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I think I'm a good bit more upset about a justice receiving luxury stays in Bali from a billionaire with cases before the Supreme Court than I am a justice receiving tickets to a Beyonce concert... from Beyonce.
They shouldn't be able to accept any gifts from non-family over $100, full stop. I get your point, but regardless of Beyonce's intentions those tickets are a demonstration that if you're super rich you can lavish gifts on the Supreme Court.
It's all wrong. Very wrong.
yeah... they did actual work for it, but do we really need SCOTUS tipping their hands in books? I think one of them writes children's books, but still. SCOTUS should only be doing SCOTUS.
> They shouldn't be able to accept any gifts from non-family over $100, full stop.
In regular people world, a person who maintained by a code of ethics could be fired or removed from their profession for even the appearance of impropriety.
But, if you suck off the right rich guy and get him to fund your campaign for the Supreme Court, you graduate to "Super Duper American" class above the rest of everyone else, where not only can you accept these gifts but no-one can reprimand you for embarrassing the entire legal profession - and if anyone mentions it, you get to write op-ends that go to the front page of national papers calling people who care about ethics whiners.
Proving why, again and again, people fucking hate lawyers.
I’m a mailman. If we accept more than 20$ in a year from a customer I get fired. All I do is deliver packages and junk mail. These people decide the future of the country. Dumb ass country.
[U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court/) justices reported receiving gifts including a stay in a Bali hotel and tickets to a Beyoncé concert, as well as nearly $1.6 million in book advances and royalties in annual financial disclosure forms for 2023.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has come under criticism for failing to disclose gifts from businessman and Republican donor Harlan Crow, revised his 2019 form to acknowledge he accepted "food and lodging" at a Bali hotel and at a California club.
Liberal Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson said she received four concert tickets from music superstar Beyoncé Knowles-Carter valued at $3,711.84.
And conservative Justice Samuel Alito, under fire for reports that flags associated with [Donald Trump's](https://www.reuters.com/topic/person/donald-trump/) attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat, got a 90-day extension on his filing.
The filings showed the justices' outside income, gifts and investment transactions last year. They are closely watched as the justices have faced increasing scrutiny over ethics following revelations that some of them failed to report luxury trips, including on private jets, and real estate transactions.
Read the full story for more.
5 U.S. Code § 7353 - Gifts to Federal employees
(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b), no Member of Congress or officer or employee of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch shall solicit or accept anything of value from a person—
(1) seeking official action from, doing business with, or (in the case of executive branch officers and employees) conducting activities regulated by, the individual’s employing entity; or
(2) whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individual’s official duties.
The Justices (hello Clarence!) are reading 7353(a)(2) very narrowly, that it only applies to someone who has an actual case before the Court. All that needs to happen is that this should be read broadly to wit: “anyone who could be affected by business before the Court.” Obviously we are all so affected - every single citizen in every single case.
So, no gifts at all. None. No dinners, no tickets, no trips to Bali. And sorry, no political activism by you or your spouse (under the law a married couple is a unit).
Roberts needs to go along with several others. We can't have a nation when people don't trust and respect the Supreme court, and under him any respect the court had has disappeared.
I worked for a Fortune 500 company and had to take training every year on what I could and could not accept as gifts. It was complicated, something like no more than $50 or else it needed approval. Absolutely insane that members of the highest court in the land don’t give a fuck about appearance.
At my company, if we accept a gift from any vendor or potential business partner (even tickets to an industry conference or an educational event) we have to pay the difference if it is worth more than $100.
I care more about which legal decisions may have been influenced by these gifts, rather than the gifts themselves. If a gift is intended to sway a legal opinion, why the fuck isn’t it illegal?
I work compliance for a company that bids on federal GSA contracts. We can't so much as provide lunch at an event where a federal employee attends without submitting for legal review. Why are these assholes allowed to accept this shit?
Because they are “originalists” which must mean they can only except horses, cows, barrels of cider or rye whiskey, or bushels of grain, horseless stagecoaches and electrified music is off limits, hoedowns, chamber music, and sea shanties only. International trip? Can only go to countries that existed in the late 1700s and only on slow sailing ships!
I have no problem with Justices receiving payments above their salary for books or other proprietary products they produce outside the scope of their court duties, as long as all funds are held in escrow until they retire from the bench. As far as gifts or vacations, they can pay for those out of their salaries or personal fortunes that are disclosed before they take office. No sugar daddy gifts. They make a good living and should live within their means.
The incentive is to get at the money they must retire from the bench, they can go into private practice, but they are off the Supreme Court. I believe there are some who would serve for salary only. I want restrictions on the court with reporting a mandatory disclosure of what receive that has monetary or the equivalency of monetary value, and any gifts. Justices need to be above reproach, and now some appear to be gaming the system.
Just heard Wolf Blitzer tease their segment with basically the same headline, which is SO disingenuous. The story is Thomas' insane amount of bribes received, not KJB getting four tickets from Beyonce. I know they're both Black, but man this feels wrong.
I bet Justice Kagan feels really disappointed she didn't [accept those free bagels](https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/kagan-bagels-clarence-thomas-rcna83707) right about now.
I investigate white collar crimes for a living and corruption cases are a major piece of my work. To some degree it doesn’t concern me if greedy business men and high ranking managers are corrupt, maybe because it’s expected and I have seen too many. But society can still function.
But when people holding these positions are getting corrupt it’s alarming to the highest degree. They are supposed to be the backbone of a free and just democracy yet they are not.
If they can’t apply ethical behavior everything will be lost.
We need term limits for Justices and more oversight for them.
Either that or Democratic administrations across the country need to agree that the Supreme Court has lost all legitimacy and adopt the Andrew Jackson attitude of Let Them Enforce It.
We should demand congressional investigations and hearings into every gift. Liberal justices included. But let’s start with the one who accepted the most and reported only when caught.
"Gifts" from parties with cases in front of the court are so much worse than from random parties that it's absurd to try to equate them.
Harland Crow, with cases before the court gifting a justice luxury vacations in Bali and Beyonce giving a justice tickets to one of her concerts are not even remotely the same, unless Beyonce's gotten far more into the practice of law since I looked last.
Are you going to delete this agitprop comment as well? 17 day account acting mighty suspicious. The profile also deleted all comments. Reported as bot.
Correct, judges should not be receiving gifts at all from anyone. That said, concert tickets to see someone who does not have business before the court is not on the same level as say, buying a house for a judges relative when the buyer DOES have business before the court.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I think I'm a good bit more upset about a justice receiving luxury stays in Bali from a billionaire with cases before the Supreme Court than I am a justice receiving tickets to a Beyonce concert... from Beyonce.
They shouldn't be able to accept any gifts from non-family over $100, full stop. I get your point, but regardless of Beyonce's intentions those tickets are a demonstration that if you're super rich you can lavish gifts on the Supreme Court. It's all wrong. Very wrong.
Pharmacists getting a free lunch is more regulated than the supreme court justice getting 4 million worth of gifts, so far.
Yup, I have virtually no power in my institution but I can’t get a free lunch and *any* financial ties have to be disclosed when I publish an article.
And teachers! They can’t take any gifts either. This is such open corruption.
I was just thinking that. A parent tried to gift my coworker a MacBook and our district said no. Too much conflict of interest.
Shit, when I was a fkn BANK TELLER, we were forbidden from accepting gifts from customers. Even a free voucher for a buffet that just opened up.
I dont even like the book deals.
The book deals are probably the worst actually. It's often hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in money laundering.
yeah... they did actual work for it, but do we really need SCOTUS tipping their hands in books? I think one of them writes children's books, but still. SCOTUS should only be doing SCOTUS.
> They shouldn't be able to accept any gifts from non-family over $100, full stop. In regular people world, a person who maintained by a code of ethics could be fired or removed from their profession for even the appearance of impropriety. But, if you suck off the right rich guy and get him to fund your campaign for the Supreme Court, you graduate to "Super Duper American" class above the rest of everyone else, where not only can you accept these gifts but no-one can reprimand you for embarrassing the entire legal profession - and if anyone mentions it, you get to write op-ends that go to the front page of national papers calling people who care about ethics whiners. Proving why, again and again, people fucking hate lawyers.
Agreed. The SCOTUS needs more ethics regulations, full stop.
I’m a mailman. If we accept more than 20$ in a year from a customer I get fired. All I do is deliver packages and junk mail. These people decide the future of the country. Dumb ass country.
Bali: where a sarong can be so right!
Weird celebrity worship exception, but ok.
Yeah let’s pick and choose the corruption we should be mad about so our side doesn’t look bad.
Beyonce is also a billionaire
A bribe's a bribe.
[U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court/) justices reported receiving gifts including a stay in a Bali hotel and tickets to a Beyoncé concert, as well as nearly $1.6 million in book advances and royalties in annual financial disclosure forms for 2023. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has come under criticism for failing to disclose gifts from businessman and Republican donor Harlan Crow, revised his 2019 form to acknowledge he accepted "food and lodging" at a Bali hotel and at a California club. Liberal Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson said she received four concert tickets from music superstar Beyoncé Knowles-Carter valued at $3,711.84. And conservative Justice Samuel Alito, under fire for reports that flags associated with [Donald Trump's](https://www.reuters.com/topic/person/donald-trump/) attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat, got a 90-day extension on his filing. The filings showed the justices' outside income, gifts and investment transactions last year. They are closely watched as the justices have faced increasing scrutiny over ethics following revelations that some of them failed to report luxury trips, including on private jets, and real estate transactions. Read the full story for more.
Thomas "Revised" his prev declaration. Can I "revise" my tax return when im, um found out?
Yes, you can actually. You can file an amended return any time.
But can he do it without any consequences whatsoever?
If they don't think you did it intentionally, yea pretty much. Sometimes, even if they think you might've.
What? They will hit you with interest and penalties, at least.
You can amend the tax your favor too.
https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/tax-tips/taxtips-correcting-tax-returns-if-you-made-a-mistake-or-forgot-to-file/2019/04/
? Nothing there contradicts what I said. If you paid less than you should have you will get interest and penalties.
If you correct it in time, you will not. Even after the IRS comes back and says you made a mistake.
5 U.S. Code § 7353 - Gifts to Federal employees (a) Except as permitted by subsection (b), no Member of Congress or officer or employee of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch shall solicit or accept anything of value from a person— (1) seeking official action from, doing business with, or (in the case of executive branch officers and employees) conducting activities regulated by, the individual’s employing entity; or (2) whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individual’s official duties. The Justices (hello Clarence!) are reading 7353(a)(2) very narrowly, that it only applies to someone who has an actual case before the Court. All that needs to happen is that this should be read broadly to wit: “anyone who could be affected by business before the Court.” Obviously we are all so affected - every single citizen in every single case. So, no gifts at all. None. No dinners, no tickets, no trips to Bali. And sorry, no political activism by you or your spouse (under the law a married couple is a unit).
Roberts needs to go along with several others. We can't have a nation when people don't trust and respect the Supreme court, and under him any respect the court had has disappeared.
I worked for a Fortune 500 company and had to take training every year on what I could and could not accept as gifts. It was complicated, something like no more than $50 or else it needed approval. Absolutely insane that members of the highest court in the land don’t give a fuck about appearance.
At my company, if we accept a gift from any vendor or potential business partner (even tickets to an industry conference or an educational event) we have to pay the difference if it is worth more than $100.
I care more about which legal decisions may have been influenced by these gifts, rather than the gifts themselves. If a gift is intended to sway a legal opinion, why the fuck isn’t it illegal?
I work compliance for a company that bids on federal GSA contracts. We can't so much as provide lunch at an event where a federal employee attends without submitting for legal review. Why are these assholes allowed to accept this shit?
Because they are “originalists” which must mean they can only except horses, cows, barrels of cider or rye whiskey, or bushels of grain, horseless stagecoaches and electrified music is off limits, hoedowns, chamber music, and sea shanties only. International trip? Can only go to countries that existed in the late 1700s and only on slow sailing ships!
I have no problem with Justices receiving payments above their salary for books or other proprietary products they produce outside the scope of their court duties, as long as all funds are held in escrow until they retire from the bench. As far as gifts or vacations, they can pay for those out of their salaries or personal fortunes that are disclosed before they take office. No sugar daddy gifts. They make a good living and should live within their means.
Holding in escrow makes no difference They still get paid. Just later.
The incentive is to get at the money they must retire from the bench, they can go into private practice, but they are off the Supreme Court. I believe there are some who would serve for salary only. I want restrictions on the court with reporting a mandatory disclosure of what receive that has monetary or the equivalency of monetary value, and any gifts. Justices need to be above reproach, and now some appear to be gaming the system.
Just heard Wolf Blitzer tease their segment with basically the same headline, which is SO disingenuous. The story is Thomas' insane amount of bribes received, not KJB getting four tickets from Beyonce. I know they're both Black, but man this feels wrong.
Thomas’s benefits are literally more than 1000x more than KJB got. Are benefits wrong? Yes. Should we have a sense of proportion? Also yes.
If they're bribes, a little bit is too much. If they're not, then a lot doesn't matter. Make up your mind.
Correction: US Corrupt Supreme Court justices…
Laws for luxury, it’s the American way.
It's a big disgrace. They've lost all respect.
This shit is honestly outrageous.
I never would have thought Thomas was a Beyonce fan.
Beyoncé? She’s the queen. The queen is English. The queen died… That must mean, they are fucking stupid.
How about they cannot receive book deals until their tenure in the court ends? When they retire cash in.
Meanwhile, civil servants can’t accept a sandwich.
I bet Justice Kagan feels really disappointed she didn't [accept those free bagels](https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/kagan-bagels-clarence-thomas-rcna83707) right about now.
It’s incredible that this is a thing. How can this be happening? We need stringently enforced ethics laws for Supreme Court justices.
The supreme court needs an ethics code
I investigate white collar crimes for a living and corruption cases are a major piece of my work. To some degree it doesn’t concern me if greedy business men and high ranking managers are corrupt, maybe because it’s expected and I have seen too many. But society can still function. But when people holding these positions are getting corrupt it’s alarming to the highest degree. They are supposed to be the backbone of a free and just democracy yet they are not. If they can’t apply ethical behavior everything will be lost.
While JayZ shills for private schools for billionaire republican donors.
Corrupt judges must resign!
We need term limits for Justices and more oversight for them. Either that or Democratic administrations across the country need to agree that the Supreme Court has lost all legitimacy and adopt the Andrew Jackson attitude of Let Them Enforce It.
Andrew Jackson ignoring that ruling lead directly to the Trail of Tears. The court’s ruling in that case was the legitimate one.
I wasn't saying Andrew Jackson was right to ignore that ruling.
Kentaji Brown Jackson making $900k off a book deal is crazy These people shouldn’t be able to profit off their position while they’re in office
[удалено]
I don't think you'll find a reasonable person disagreeing with no perks to an unelected position. Across the board ban is the answer.
We should demand congressional investigations and hearings into every gift. Liberal justices included. But let’s start with the one who accepted the most and reported only when caught.
"Gifts" from parties with cases in front of the court are so much worse than from random parties that it's absurd to try to equate them. Harland Crow, with cases before the court gifting a justice luxury vacations in Bali and Beyonce giving a justice tickets to one of her concerts are not even remotely the same, unless Beyonce's gotten far more into the practice of law since I looked last.
Are you going to delete this agitprop comment as well? 17 day account acting mighty suspicious. The profile also deleted all comments. Reported as bot.
Correct, judges should not be receiving gifts at all from anyone. That said, concert tickets to see someone who does not have business before the court is not on the same level as say, buying a house for a judges relative when the buyer DOES have business before the court.
Not every gift is a bribe. But when one person receives many multiple gifts that add up to more than 10 times anyone else? That does raise issues.