Alito used the Wall St. Journal as his personal advocate page. He wrote an op-ed, took part in an extended suck-up piece, and his chambers from what I can tell repeatedly leaked information to them.
I was somewhat appreciative that Thomas didn't go quite that far. But, hiring someone to put forth a statement on his behalf, filled with aggrieved language, repeatedly taking shots at the "leftwing" and such, is beyond the pale. The guy can't help himself.
That ridiculous suck-up letter signed by his clerks wasn't enough. The new statement starts with similar "how dare you challenge such a sainted public servant" language.
How this Berke chap thought that his grossly politicized screed is in some way helpful to Thomas' artful dodges rather escapes me. It has the tenor of one swatting away annoying flies, buzzing about the head of his utterly blameless client...oh, wait, that client has yet more "amending" to submit? Well, fancy that! Perhaps Thomas may want to add John Lauro to his team, giving his excuses some needed "gravitas". Grifters will grift, shamelessly and hypocritically so.
I'm not sure why you say there are legitimate "questions" about whether Thomas broke the law. There is a law about what needs to be reported. Thomas didn't report things that needed to be reported. Why is there a question? The fact that the law has no teeth has little bearing on whether it is broken or not. The fact that he claims to have taken advice that "misinterprets" the law just says something about someone whose job it is to interpret laws by looking, inter alia, at the laws' plain language--as he constantly claims he does.
Primarily because it actually is in dispute, as even Dahlia and Mark's piece acknowledged.
But, also because it wasn't essential to my argument — and, in fact, the next sentence makes clear that my argument is that you do *not* need to think that what he did is illegal to agree with everything I'm going to discuss here.
I agree with everything you then discussed. And although Dahlia's article mentions an expert who some how thinks that law might not apply, her link is to an expert (in ethics, not law) who is decidedly wishy washy. Because the law has no teeth, no penalty, the focus is on the lack of an ethics rule that reflects it. As it should be. I doubt violating a law prohibiting failure to report transportation is going to make a dent on the "good behavior" that keeps Thomas in office.
What power do they really have to put the screws on them?
An ethics bill will be filibustered and/or not even brought up for a vote in the House. Thomas would claim privilege (his friends already are, which will lead to extended litigation if the past is any guide).
The Senate Dems can have more hearings and investigations, probably, though Senator Whitehouse already has led some efforts there and who even is paying attention when he talks about it?
A 51 vote Senate (with Manchin and Sinema rounding out the majority & one or more senators not available for extended periods) and a Republican House realistically leads to limited power. It is not just that those "feckless Dems" are not doing anything.
I don't think that's in the statute, though it's been a while since I read the whole thing. What the statute IS full of is when "transportation" is in fact non-reportable. And it doesn't include going off to visit a "friend."
As a Jewish person, what’s happening on Twitter is alarming, to say the least. If he does indeed sue the ADL for defamation I think I’m going to have to leave, but I don’t want to leave b/c I feel the need to know what’s out there that can hurt me.
Alito used the Wall St. Journal as his personal advocate page. He wrote an op-ed, took part in an extended suck-up piece, and his chambers from what I can tell repeatedly leaked information to them.
I was somewhat appreciative that Thomas didn't go quite that far. But, hiring someone to put forth a statement on his behalf, filled with aggrieved language, repeatedly taking shots at the "leftwing" and such, is beyond the pale. The guy can't help himself.
That ridiculous suck-up letter signed by his clerks wasn't enough. The new statement starts with similar "how dare you challenge such a sainted public servant" language.
How this Berke chap thought that his grossly politicized screed is in some way helpful to Thomas' artful dodges rather escapes me. It has the tenor of one swatting away annoying flies, buzzing about the head of his utterly blameless client...oh, wait, that client has yet more "amending" to submit? Well, fancy that! Perhaps Thomas may want to add John Lauro to his team, giving his excuses some needed "gravitas". Grifters will grift, shamelessly and hypocritically so.
I'm not sure why you say there are legitimate "questions" about whether Thomas broke the law. There is a law about what needs to be reported. Thomas didn't report things that needed to be reported. Why is there a question? The fact that the law has no teeth has little bearing on whether it is broken or not. The fact that he claims to have taken advice that "misinterprets" the law just says something about someone whose job it is to interpret laws by looking, inter alia, at the laws' plain language--as he constantly claims he does.
Primarily because it actually is in dispute, as even Dahlia and Mark's piece acknowledged.
But, also because it wasn't essential to my argument — and, in fact, the next sentence makes clear that my argument is that you do *not* need to think that what he did is illegal to agree with everything I'm going to discuss here.
I agree with everything you then discussed. And although Dahlia's article mentions an expert who some how thinks that law might not apply, her link is to an expert (in ethics, not law) who is decidedly wishy washy. Because the law has no teeth, no penalty, the focus is on the lack of an ethics rule that reflects it. As it should be. I doubt violating a law prohibiting failure to report transportation is going to make a dent on the "good behavior" that keeps Thomas in office.
Certainly not as long as the Democrats are too feckless to use what power they have to put the screws on these monsters.
What power do they really have to put the screws on them?
An ethics bill will be filibustered and/or not even brought up for a vote in the House. Thomas would claim privilege (his friends already are, which will lead to extended litigation if the past is any guide).
The Senate Dems can have more hearings and investigations, probably, though Senator Whitehouse already has led some efforts there and who even is paying attention when he talks about it?
A 51 vote Senate (with Manchin and Sinema rounding out the majority & one or more senators not available for extended periods) and a Republican House realistically leads to limited power. It is not just that those "feckless Dems" are not doing anything.
As I understand it, at least technically, at some point there is some financial penalty associated with not meeting the obligations.
I don't think that's in the statute, though it's been a while since I read the whole thing. What the statute IS full of is when "transportation" is in fact non-reportable. And it doesn't include going off to visit a "friend."
As a Jewish person, what’s happening on Twitter is alarming, to say the least. If he does indeed sue the ADL for defamation I think I’m going to have to leave, but I don’t want to leave b/c I feel the need to know what’s out there that can hurt me.