Would you kindly clarify your point? A supreme court justice is not a state or local official (as I understand the terms), so the ruling won't protect him.
Which is why his disclosure of them was non-existent.
As a judge it's part of his responsibilities to know. "Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts":
* https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/c...
Overview:
* https://www.brookings.edu/articles/justice-thomas-gift-repor...
Circuit judges, DAs, all kinds of folks lower on the ladder than him could tell you unequivocally they are. Far less counts.
Anyone in corporate America who’s done anti-corruption training could tell you. Millions and millions of people.
He had a staff he could ask to check for him if he were actually uncertain (and there’s zero chance he was sure they weren’t gifts). A staff he doesn’t even pay for. If he wasn’t sure and didn’t do that, guess what? He really knew the answer.
He didn’t “believe” they weren’t gifts.
I may not accept gifts from anyone that I (or my spouse) have business with, or might have business with, as part of my job. The dollar threshold used to be $10. They raised it a few years ago to $25. So now I can accept a coffee mug from SpaceX, but probably not a polo shirt.
If I have any questions, there is an ethics office that I can (must) talk to about whatever situation arises.
This setup is pretty common for people who are paid by the government, and it was instated for very good reasons that we’re all aware of.
I have nothing but contempt for this behavior on the part of Clarence Thomas. He is so far over the line. It’s outrageous.
Friends giving gifts is usually fine and a positive aspect of friendship. But, in the case of Supreme Court justices, we've decided they need to record and publish these gifts. That way, Congress and the public can decide if their rulings were affected by "gifts." For example, South Korea's Supreme Court flew Ruth Bader Ginsberg over for $8000. That was probably more of a "professional networking and learning" gift. But if somebody with a connection to South Korea's government had a case before the court, then we could've pressured RBG to sit that case out.
> 1. Home Hospitality. Gifts of hospitality including food, drink or occasional lodging that an official receives in an individual’s home when the individual or a member of their family is present. (Regulation 18942(a)(7).) Such hospitality provided by a lobbyist is a gift unless the home hospitality is related to another purpose unconnected with the lobbyist’s professional activities. Generally, this means functions like children’s birthday parties, soccer team parties, neighborhood barbeques, etc., where other guests attend who are not part of the lobbying process. (Regulation 18942.2.)
or if the friend were not present, it may fall under this one...
> 6. Long-Time Friend. Benefits received from a long-time personal friend where the gift is unrelated to the official’s duties. The exception does not apply if the individual providing the benefit to the official is involved in some manner with business before the official. (Regulation 18942(a)(18)(C).) This exception does not apply if the person providing the benefit to the official is an individual who otherwise has business before the official as set forth in Regulation 18942(a)(18)(D).
Note that long-time friend is more restrictive than home hospitality while a family member is present. I would interpret this to mean that if your family friend has business related to your official position, you wouldn't need to report the stay if they were there, but if you stayed at their ranch while they weren't there, you would. Either way, if they had business with your position, I'd avoid the stay --- but my spouse was in a very limited scope office, so other than neighbors, nobody we knew had any reason to be involved in official business.
[1] https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/gi...
> The high court has long held that criminal laws restricting “illegal gratuities” to federal officials require proof that the gifts were given for a specific “official act,” not just because of the official’s position.
If you were in the spotlight for your alleged corruption at the federal level, I would have a hard time considering you an objective judge of corruption at other levels of government.
Not here, but six Supreme Court Justices have done exactly that.
Justices are in the spotlight for improper and unreported gifts.
Anyone that's been in a large Corp knows a bit of bribing because of the yearly training you have to take.
The fact they brushed it off as nothing to worry about and now start to make changes that loose regulations is very concerning. Even if these changes don't affect them directly.
I'd like to think that that is so blatant that it might finally come with consequences.
I'd like to think that, but I don't.