"Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t see how Thomas can be trusted to rule impartially in the CFPB case on matters that would financially benefit his billionaire benefactors, and by extension, himself." Reich, you're not old fashioned. Thomas can't be trusted to rule impartially!
He can't. He had attended a fundraiser at a Coke Industry that he is going to hear about the Chevron case. Coke and the American for Prosperity wants overturned. It has been waiting for awhile to get it done.
One of the parties has to file a motion, develop a record, give Thomas an opportunity to be heard to address the allegations.
Actualy the standard is supposed to be "appearance of impropriety." 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.....
I think the last time this was addrssed was in the famous "duck hunt" case. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 124 S. Ct. 1391 (2004) (Scalia, J., mem.). Scalia refused to recuse. "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned." He also said, "Social contacts with high-level executive officials (including Cabinet members) have never been thought improper for judges who may have before them cases in which those people are involved in their official capacity, as opposed to their personal capacity."
Scalia misstated the law. The standard is NOT subjective. A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States owes the litigants, and the public, a greater respect for the law of the United States.
Your first paragraph is the most reasonable and lawful comment I have read.
Ironically Robert Reich writes about how we are a nation of laws and have a right to be heard in a court of law to address our (mine) injustices and even for Clarence Thomas this must be so.
Too much of what I am hearing about Clarence Thomas in this thread is the antithesis of our country’s standard.
I am caught in a situation where whatever slander is said about me, but not to me directly, does not allow me a day in court. Instead leaving it to the public to judge without representation.
There is nothing I nor my husband has done warranting government surveillance of 24/7 for two decades. I am absolutely astonished at the number of people who have allowed rampant slander to rule their judging and voting in this situation. I see it in the time stamps here and hear it by innuendo on the news. I have yet to have anyone explain how this is a moral way to handle the sickness that inspired it.
When Diane Feinstein died, Robert, you immediately posted a 9:00. I don’t recall you ever helping me get representation to confront my accusers.
Yes to clarify my response - he has a direct conflict of interest in my opinion, but as others have written as asides to the question posed by Robert, the extent to which he has been accused of stepping over a line by accepting ‘gifts’ as a Supreme Court Justice, he should be allowed his day in court.
Has old "rock and a hard place" Clarence been advised by his attorneys to be cautious about recusing for legal reasons? I.e., recusing in this case would be admitting his unreported relationships with the Kochs.
Exactly. In my opinion Robert Hunter is Biden’s alter ego. What money Hunter has accrued is now part of the Biden family wealth. Biden has been all too clever to not allow himself to be linked to Hunter just physically being there by his side.
Go to the Democrats website for donations that can be linked to cor prey tions. Just trying to riff off of a misspelling Jenny made earlier of (corporations)
I disagree. This not a political issue, this is a moral issue. No Supreme Judge immaterial of personal political beliefs, should be associated with any political fund raising in any form whatsoever. In fact, applies to any judge.
Was it always like this? Or is it that information is not easily hidden these days.
Think it always been like this. One of the benefits of the internet is that alot of stink is more visible to more people. So in alot of ways things look worse but it's a new opportunity for more accountability. That's the optimistic view and I'm going with it this hour.
there is no way he’ll resign. He’s gotten away with this corruption for his entire career- he’s got no reason to worry because there have been no consequences. ... he isn’t the only one, it’s the culture of our supreme court- all part of the slow coup.
The whole situation is really frustrating. Payday lending should be illegal, wealthy people don’t borrow money at those rates. Thomas needs to be impeached.
The reason payday lending exists is because banks won't lend to "risky" poor people. Outlawing payday lending would force desperate folks to borrow from loan sharks--- much worse. I think the answer is to force banks to provide the same services to poor people that they provide to the wealthy and middle class, even though they won't make a huge profit from lending to the poor! Agree that Thomas should be impeached!
Sen. Bernie Sanders has long said that the U.S. Postal Service should establish a bank, which would be non-profit but which would still help improve its bottom line, and would be available to poor people.
Yes!!! We should do that! The federal government should offer a bank account for poor people. They should be able to apply for a mortgage or a loan the same way wealthy people can. It can be optional, but will guarantee quick access to snap benefits and tax refunds. Should offer direct deposit, and a savings program.
Payday lenders ARE loan sharks. I had a friend whose husband was partner in a payday loan company. I didn't argue about it with her, but could tell she felt somewhat guilty because of all the rationalizations she put out there (unrequested). His business didn't last very long, I think because there was ongoing controversy about payday lenders in my state and the complaints were vocal. He decided to get into vending machines.
Payday lenders should be free to charge whatever they want. They should be required to give this information PRIOR to giving a loan. We don't need government control over what are private transactions.
Disagree. Desperate folks are vulnerable. And desperate. When you are desperate . . . say, needing to feed your kids because your child support didn't land . . . you often make bad decisions. Desperate folks are often forced to live in the moment to survive. That's the pitfall of predatory capitalism.
So if I wanted to sell my child as a slave as long as I set the price before hand then that would be okay by you because that would be a private transaction. Well it is nice to know which way your moral compass points.
Outlawing payday lending would actually encourage banks to get into the short term lending because they don't want to leave money on the table. Look at Leo's investments in loan shark lending. Banks are in payday lending up to their necks and they love the profit margins. Where do you think the payday lenders buy their money not at WaWa.
They made the CFPB office didn’t they? So they wouldn’t be burdened with the minutia of the industry. It is a government agency. It’s ridiculous to expect Congress to arbitrate all the blood sucking by the money lending industry. They are not helping consumers but making victims out of them.
Congress can't even tie it's shoelaces. We need an independent agency.
"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector."
Why is the government responsible? Shouldn't consumers be responsible for their own actions and decisions? Do we really want government control and regulation over all that we do? Keep the government out.
I don't think that you understand what the government is or the role that they were set up to play by the folk who fought for a radical new thing called democracy. The government is responsible because you are responsible and you are the government. it is not a separate thing that you can rail against.
It's the role of Congress, not corrupt and ignorant judges, to create the CFPB and to decide its functions and funding. The court's even deciding this case is way out of its lane and unconstitutional. But I guess you just love having the powerful prey on the powerless unimpeded, with corrupt and ignorant judges giving them the green light to do this.
Thomas is as corrupt a person as Trump. Both should have max sentences. They don’t belong in American civil society, but think it would be ok if they share a cell.
Perhaps there’d be a bit of poetry both directions, given the shared ‘proclivities’ noted elsewhere. Would like to think the arc of Justice finally bends for Anita too.
Clarence Thomas and a couple of others on the Supreme Court are so compromised (by clearly reported evidence, not just by their proclivities) that they need to be removed. Any decision these individuals participate in is tainted. Thank you, Robert Reich, for continuing to speak out.
He and his buddy Alito should have to resign. Roberts not so pure either. His wife is a lawyer who earns 10M a year working for law firms that have appeared before SCOTUS.
We are at a crossroads in our country. As citizens we have a choice to make. Rule by fear and coercion by those who seek power or choose our democracy. We can’t have both. Thomas is a disgrace as is Justice Alito.
Impeach. Vote out those who will not heed what most rationale Americans want for our nation. Aren’t we all weary of the insanity?
I'd love for you to start a website where people across the country can list their industry, title, and the details of the most minor conflict capable of getting them fired/disbarred/arrested or simply viewed as having lost all credibility and impartiality. We can call it something like WishIWereSCOTUS.com
Thomas may be the most corrupt Judge on the Court. More corrupt than the other four conservative Judges. Biden needs to expand the Court by four asap. Four liberal judges @the age of forty will be a step in the left direction.
I suspect that Biden won’t make any controversial moves like that until after he wins the next election. Second terms are when things really start to happen.
I don’t see how Justice Thomas can be trusted PERIOD!
"Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t see how Thomas can be trusted to rule impartially in the CFPB case on matters that would financially benefit his billionaire benefactors, and by extension, himself." Reich, you're not old fashioned. Thomas can't be trusted to rule impartially!
He can't. He had attended a fundraiser at a Coke Industry that he is going to hear about the Chevron case. Coke and the American for Prosperity wants overturned. It has been waiting for awhile to get it done.
One of the parties has to file a motion, develop a record, give Thomas an opportunity to be heard to address the allegations.
Actualy the standard is supposed to be "appearance of impropriety." 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.....
I think the last time this was addrssed was in the famous "duck hunt" case. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 124 S. Ct. 1391 (2004) (Scalia, J., mem.). Scalia refused to recuse. "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned." He also said, "Social contacts with high-level executive officials (including Cabinet members) have never been thought improper for judges who may have before them cases in which those people are involved in their official capacity, as opposed to their personal capacity."
Scalia misstated the law. The standard is NOT subjective. A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States owes the litigants, and the public, a greater respect for the law of the United States.
Your first paragraph is the most reasonable and lawful comment I have read.
Ironically Robert Reich writes about how we are a nation of laws and have a right to be heard in a court of law to address our (mine) injustices and even for Clarence Thomas this must be so.
Too much of what I am hearing about Clarence Thomas in this thread is the antithesis of our country’s standard.
I am caught in a situation where whatever slander is said about me, but not to me directly, does not allow me a day in court. Instead leaving it to the public to judge without representation.
There is nothing I nor my husband has done warranting government surveillance of 24/7 for two decades. I am absolutely astonished at the number of people who have allowed rampant slander to rule their judging and voting in this situation. I see it in the time stamps here and hear it by innuendo on the news. I have yet to have anyone explain how this is a moral way to handle the sickness that inspired it.
When Diane Feinstein died, Robert, you immediately posted a 9:00. I don’t recall you ever helping me get representation to confront my accusers.
Yes to clarify my response - he has a direct conflict of interest in my opinion, but as others have written as asides to the question posed by Robert, the extent to which he has been accused of stepping over a line by accepting ‘gifts’ as a Supreme Court Justice, he should be allowed his day in court.
Has old "rock and a hard place" Clarence been advised by his attorneys to be cautious about recusing for legal reasons? I.e., recusing in this case would be admitting his unreported relationships with the Kochs.
And remember, he was a gift to the country from male supremacist Biden. Biden should immediately correct this grievous error by any means possible.
Greg - there you go again. Reminding us of painful historical inconvenient truths. Dunno what we're gonna do with you. 🥺
Don’t answer it or JennyStokes. It makings it’s troll rounds.
Yes.
Biden is responsible for the 'debacle' with Anita Harris.
But Biden IS exactly the same as Repubs! Owned and run by moneyed corprations.
Which corporations?
DO you really think Biden is NOT run by money?
Look it up for yourself.
Who runs the DNC?
You talk about democracy but who tells YOU who is going to run in the Dem. party?
Why is it not the people who choose who runs?
Please tell me your question is rhetorical and you are simply fishing for answers.
It has everything to do with the exercise of Justice by the Supreme Court - think Citizens United.
Exactly. In my opinion Robert Hunter is Biden’s alter ego. What money Hunter has accrued is now part of the Biden family wealth. Biden has been all too clever to not allow himself to be linked to Hunter just physically being there by his side.
Go to the Democrats website for donations that can be linked to cor prey tions. Just trying to riff off of a misspelling Jenny made earlier of (corporations)
I seem to recall Arlen Specter had a more prominent role in that debacle.
I agreed with you, right up to the point you turned your comment into an ad.
Don’t do that.
Huh? What ad? What did I miss?
“Come buy this tee shirt!”
The court needs balance,it's tipped the wrong way!
I disagree. This not a political issue, this is a moral issue. No Supreme Judge immaterial of personal political beliefs, should be associated with any political fund raising in any form whatsoever. In fact, applies to any judge.
Was it always like this? Or is it that information is not easily hidden these days.
Think it always been like this. One of the benefits of the internet is that alot of stink is more visible to more people. So in alot of ways things look worse but it's a new opportunity for more accountability. That's the optimistic view and I'm going with it this hour.
Agreed
there is no way he’ll resign. He’s gotten away with this corruption for his entire career- he’s got no reason to worry because there have been no consequences. ... he isn’t the only one, it’s the culture of our supreme court- all part of the slow coup.
Congress impeach him? Are you joking?
I see JennyStokes is making it’s usual troll circuit.
Yeah, the Whatabout Brigade is on the street.
Maybe after 2024 elections 🤞
Rubbish. Biden is as much of a 'crook' as anyone.
As much as someone who is facing nearly 100 indictments? Really?
Well said!
Not talking about Biden. We’re talking about Thomas getting impeached
You may not be, but Jenny Stokes is.
And in a very obviously lying way.
Well it is official Trump is a rapist and a fraud and that is fact and not opinion. Your comment is opinion not fact.
The whole situation is really frustrating. Payday lending should be illegal, wealthy people don’t borrow money at those rates. Thomas needs to be impeached.
The reason payday lending exists is because banks won't lend to "risky" poor people. Outlawing payday lending would force desperate folks to borrow from loan sharks--- much worse. I think the answer is to force banks to provide the same services to poor people that they provide to the wealthy and middle class, even though they won't make a huge profit from lending to the poor! Agree that Thomas should be impeached!
Sen. Bernie Sanders has long said that the U.S. Postal Service should establish a bank, which would be non-profit but which would still help improve its bottom line, and would be available to poor people.
Japan has a very big postal bank , partially owned by the government. My understanding is that it is very successful enterprise.
Portugal as well.
Yes!!! We should do that! The federal government should offer a bank account for poor people. They should be able to apply for a mortgage or a loan the same way wealthy people can. It can be optional, but will guarantee quick access to snap benefits and tax refunds. Should offer direct deposit, and a savings program.
At the current time, the post office can’t even get the mail delivered. 🙁
But sometimes mine gets delivered to one street over with my same street number as theirs. Does that count?
We had this in Britain.................where did it go?
And for those who no longer trust the banks or who no longer want to support in anyway those who would destroy democracy and this country.
Payday lenders ARE loan sharks. I had a friend whose husband was partner in a payday loan company. I didn't argue about it with her, but could tell she felt somewhat guilty because of all the rationalizations she put out there (unrequested). His business didn't last very long, I think because there was ongoing controversy about payday lenders in my state and the complaints were vocal. He decided to get into vending machines.
“Payday lenders ARE loan sharks.”
💯👍
Preying on another’s misfortunes shows bad character
Payday lenders should be free to charge whatever they want. They should be required to give this information PRIOR to giving a loan. We don't need government control over what are private transactions.
Disagree. Desperate folks are vulnerable. And desperate. When you are desperate . . . say, needing to feed your kids because your child support didn't land . . . you often make bad decisions. Desperate folks are often forced to live in the moment to survive. That's the pitfall of predatory capitalism.
This is the best analogy I’ve heard.
Desperation can turn an honest person into a thief, I’ve seen it.
All Capitalism becomes predatory with no guard rails.
So if I wanted to sell my child as a slave as long as I set the price before hand then that would be okay by you because that would be a private transaction. Well it is nice to know which way your moral compass points.
How does that relate to banking and lending money?
I borrowed from pawn shops to pay my rent in 1970’s; their interest rate & terms were far below the payday lenders.
Shirley: Very Interest-ing. Thx for the info.
There is hardly a difference between payday lenders and loan sharks. Payday lenders are loan sharks.
Outlawing payday lending would actually encourage banks to get into the short term lending because they don't want to leave money on the table. Look at Leo's investments in loan shark lending. Banks are in payday lending up to their necks and they love the profit margins. Where do you think the payday lenders buy their money not at WaWa.
They made the CFPB office didn’t they? So they wouldn’t be burdened with the minutia of the industry. It is a government agency. It’s ridiculous to expect Congress to arbitrate all the blood sucking by the money lending industry. They are not helping consumers but making victims out of them.
Congress can't even tie it's shoelaces. We need an independent agency.
"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector."
Why is the government responsible? Shouldn't consumers be responsible for their own actions and decisions? Do we really want government control and regulation over all that we do? Keep the government out.
I don't think that you understand what the government is or the role that they were set up to play by the folk who fought for a radical new thing called democracy. The government is responsible because you are responsible and you are the government. it is not a separate thing that you can rail against.
Bring in Ralph Nader.
It’s not accountable to Congress, but Congress is able to abolish it.
Interesting logic you got there. Shows the same level of maturity in reasoning as your alias.
It's the role of Congress, not corrupt and ignorant judges, to create the CFPB and to decide its functions and funding. The court's even deciding this case is way out of its lane and unconstitutional. But I guess you just love having the powerful prey on the powerless unimpeded, with corrupt and ignorant judges giving them the green light to do this.
Thomas must not only recuse himself in this case, he must resign!
And if he won’t, he must be removed for his unethical behavior and incompetence.
Bingo!
Thomas is as corrupt a person as Trump. Both should have max sentences. They don’t belong in American civil society, but think it would be ok if they share a cell.
Hey Mark: Given Trump's antipathy toward those of darker pigmentation - sharing a cell would indeed be fitting punishment.
Perhaps there’d be a bit of poetry both directions, given the shared ‘proclivities’ noted elsewhere. Would like to think the arc of Justice finally bends for Anita too.
Yeah really. But examples of arcs bending toward justice seem lately to be in short supply. Will keep my eyes open just in case.
Ah so, I made a mistake in capitalizing justice- I was referring to bending over in a cell. Apologies. 😏
It would be simpler to compose a short list of cases for which Clarence is not conflicted.
So true
Clarence Thomas and a couple of others on the Supreme Court are so compromised (by clearly reported evidence, not just by their proclivities) that they need to be removed. Any decision these individuals participate in is tainted. Thank you, Robert Reich, for continuing to speak out.
With Supreme Court Justices like this, who needs foreign enemies?
Absolutely agree Robert! Thomas should also be held accountable by Congress and the Senate and removed from the bench. He's so corrupt he stinks.
He and his buddy Alito should have to resign. Roberts not so pure either. His wife is a lawyer who earns 10M a year working for law firms that have appeared before SCOTUS.
We are at a crossroads in our country. As citizens we have a choice to make. Rule by fear and coercion by those who seek power or choose our democracy. We can’t have both. Thomas is a disgrace as is Justice Alito.
Impeach. Vote out those who will not heed what most rationale Americans want for our nation. Aren’t we all weary of the insanity?
Yes. There is no point, pointing this out again and again.
How are you going to do this?
I'd love for you to start a website where people across the country can list their industry, title, and the details of the most minor conflict capable of getting them fired/disbarred/arrested or simply viewed as having lost all credibility and impartiality. We can call it something like WishIWereSCOTUS.com
I agree with this article and the comments of others. Thomas is corrupt and should be impeached.
Thomas may be the most corrupt Judge on the Court. More corrupt than the other four conservative Judges. Biden needs to expand the Court by four asap. Four liberal judges @the age of forty will be a step in the left direction.
And rotating, term-limited judges would help.
I suspect that Biden won’t make any controversial moves like that until after he wins the next election. Second terms are when things really start to happen.
OH. Why can't he do this now. He is President and running a 'sick' war. He is a 'moneyed backed' President!
What do you mean?
The war never needed to happen!
Biden should try. Would we get more liars on the court if the republicans would even approve them?
Wow! A daytime post, thank you Robert. Now the first opportunity at comments is not left only to the night owls.
Or to the waaaaaaaay early morning risers out here!
I was concerned Robert was ill until I saw it come in during morning coffee.
I hope that means that Professor Reich got some good sleep last night!
I think he needs to be removed because trust is nonexistent.
Ginny.
The Q-Clued ninny? What would the Chief Multi-Pronger done without her on Over Enthused Tourists Day . .#Maybe Jack Knows . .
Yeah, thinking it is getting clear how control flows from Koch to Ginny to proclivities...
Hmmm Ginny's proclivities - for mature audiences only?