Quo Vadis GOP?

[Grey Fox]

Yes.

Disney's clause actually states Chucky 3.

They added a final clause which stipulates that this agreement would last "21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England.

[CountDeMoney]

Truly bizzare on so many levels.

But then this whole case is weird what with republicans accidentally trying to do the right thing and tackle corporations with too much power but for absolutely backwards reasons of the corporation being the one respecting it's workers more than the state....

Fuck that "Republicans trying to do the right thing" bullshit with all that. Florida wouldn't be where it is economically without the Mouse. 

Republicans want to do the right thing and tackle corporations with too much power, then nationalize the energy sector. Fucking with Disney because they're faithful to tolerance, well, they deserve what they get.  You fuck with the Mouse, you get the whiskers.

Long live the King, assholes.

[PJL]

I used to have a concern that corporations would wield too much power. However these days I don't, especially in the last 5-10 years or so. If anything, I am more concerned with them simply rolling over in the face of government even if it is not in their interest.

No, the real danger is from the maverick and politically minded billionaires. Corporations at least have checks and balances, maverick billionaires have a lot more freeway.

[Syt]

Syt, depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go, but Rebekah Jones's fundamental credibility on the whole Covid-19 story has been seriously questioned, and as such I would not fully accept much she has to say without verification.

I had a quick look at her Wiki page and yeah - she seems to be "special" in many ways.

[Syt]

I used to have a concern that corporations would wield too much power. However these days I don't, especially in the last 5-10 years or so. If anything, I am more concerned with them simply rolling over in the face of government even if it is not in their interest.

No, the real danger is from the maverick and politically minded billionaires. Corporations at least have checks and balances, maverick billionaires have a lot more freeway.

No idea what you're talking about. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20230331030508/https://www.businessinsider.com/pronatalism-elon-musk-simone-malcolm-collins-underpopulation-breeding-tech-2022-11

(Using archive.org link to bypass paywall - I think we had the article in the Elon Musk threa, too, though )

[CountDeMoney]

No, the real danger is from the maverick and politically minded billionaires. Corporations at least have checks and balances, maverick billionaires have a lot more freeway.

Problem is, all the mouthbreathers love Bond villains. They're so self-made! So innovative! So mavericky!

[Barrister]

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire
by Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski
April 6, 5 a.m. EDT
Twitter
Facebook
                https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow
           
Copy
Change Appearance
REPUBLISH
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they're published.

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn't necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow's superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow's sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow's apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas' financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

Very interesting story.  More by following the link - just the first few paragraphs copied here.

I know our own PM was seriously criticized for taking private vacations with the Aga Khan and not disclosing them, and I know just because of my job with government I feel bad about someone buying me a coffee - I would never take lavish vacations like this as a gift.

Thoughts?

[CountDeMoney]

Thoughts?

Nobody cares. Nothing will happen.

[crazy canuck]

When I first started practicing there were judicial guidelines in Canada which prohibited judges from taking gifts of any kind.  Then Chief Justice McEachern (of our Court of Appeal) used to end his public speeches by making a joke that he could not personally accept the gift traditionally given to speakers at such events (usually a work of art of some sort) but he would ask the organizers to give the gift to some other worthy cause.

Since then the rules of judicial propriety have tightened.  For example, firms used to always shower the court registry staff with treats during Xmas.  But all that has come to an end. 

It is odd to see the US in this situation.

[CountDeMoney]

It is odd to see the US in this situation.

Not really. The rollback on professional ethics in government has been gaining steam for quite some time, and nobody cares anymore.

[Sheilbh]

Well it's not a surprise is it. In a justice system that had any gesture towards being non-political Thomas would recuse himself from a huge number of cases. Not just this but all the stuff his wife is involved in too.

The Supreme Court is politics by other means and he's a core part of the conservative legal movement's victory in that front.

As with the leaked abortion ruling, far too many will clutch their pearls and worry about declarations/want a legalist solution and the impact on the reputation of the court - when given it's politicised nature what it needs is reform. Term limits, expand the court (it is very small by international comparison) and other steps to bring politics back into the democratic realm and away from the unaccountable, unelected, often groomed by the Federalist society clerics in the court system.

[Barrister]

I wondered about putting the story in the GOP thread, but I see nobody questioned that decision.

[Jacob]

Those who argue that justices can be bought in the US would have a pretty strong argument it seems.

[The Larch]

An exclusive all male retreat, you say? 

[Barrister]

Those who argue that justices can be bought in the US would have a pretty strong argument it seems.

So there's no hint that Justice Thomas (or anyone else) is "bought", or that he makes decisions just because his good friend Harlan Crow tells him to.

It's much more subtle - it's influence.  As a litigant before the USSC you get 30 minutes to make your oral argument.  Harlan Crow can have all weekend to talk with Justice Thomas about anything he wants to talk about.

Plus it's human nature to want to help out your friends.  I'm sure you've told your own friends "no" when they ask you things in the past, but you're more likely to say "yes" to a friend than you are a complete stranger.