Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party. The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice. Vasisht’s Venmo account – which was public prior to requesting comment for this article and is no longer – show that he received seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously served as Thomas legal clerks. The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment is listed as either “Christmas party”, “Thomas Christmas Party”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials. However, it remains unclear what the funds were for. The lawyers who made the Venmo transactions were: Patrick Strawbridge, a partner at Consovoy McCarthy who recently successfully argued that affirmative action violated the US constitution; Kate Todd, who served as White House deputy counsel under Donald Trump at the time of the payment and is now a managing party of Ellis George Cipollone’s law office; Elbert Lin, the former solicitor general of West Virginia who played a key role in a supreme court case that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; and Brian Schmalzbach, a partner at McGuire Woods who has argued multiple cases before the supreme court. Other lawyers who made payments include Manuel Valle, a graduate of Hillsdale College and the University of Chicago Law School who clerked for Thomas last year and is currently working as a managing associate at Sidley, and Liam Hardy, who was working at the Department of Justice’s office of legal counsel at the time the payment was made and now serves as an appeals court judge for the armed forces. Will Consovoy, who died earlier this year, also made a payment. Consovoy clerked for Thomas during the 2008-09 term and was considered a rising star in conservative legal circles. After his death, the New York Times reported that Consovoy had come away from his time working for Thomas “with the conviction that the court was poised to tilt further to the right – and that constitutional rulings that had once been considered out of reach by conservatives, on issues like voting rights, abortion and affirmative action, would suddenly be within grasp”. None of the lawyers who made payments responded to emailed questions from the Guardian. https://amp.theguardian.com/technol...Ngtm-LVTOjJAfkv3ANLu7DQQfDXaZx7FiKh8Nl-_N1fAI
GOP has weaponized the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas has been a sleazebag for decades. Lock him up and his QAnon wife.
A few things come to mind. This is why voting matters. Why on earth are these idiots still receiving (probably) bribes *IN THEIR OWN NAME*? Has no one ever heard of money laundering?? Nothing, absolutely nothing, will be done to him about this or any of the other shit he's done.
Problem is, the same kind of shitty people will just have more incentive to be concerned about setting themselves up for life while they are in there. And the good ones will be forced out regardless... So it's more opportunity for big money to worm its way in.
The point I am trying to make is that if supreme court judges become political pawns (as we currently see), term limits will directly ensure that the voting decisions are not set in stone for decades and can be rectified in time. The issue we have is that we have a guy that was confirmed during George H.W. Bush's administration 32 years ago who gives no fucks about anything at this point - since no-one can do anything to him,
I agree. I just get hung up on term limits because there seem to be so few good politicians and judges. It would suck to lose the good ones only to have their place filled by more grifters.
The same argument can be applied to presidents. Term limits make sense for government appointments. There should be no issue for say, 16-20 years for supreme court judges. FWIW - I am not opposed to term-limits in the congress / senate as well. We have it for the presidency, should apply in other areas as well. At least in congress / senate we have to re-elect them every X years, I guess that even a reconfirmation by the senate every 16-20 years for supreme court judges would be better than what we have right now.
Ive been for term limits for congress and justices. Im also for a constant part balanced Supreme Court.
All valid points. I'm generally opposed to term limits, except for president. I think president is just such a unique and powerful position that nobody should be in that position for more than a decade. The rest, I worry about flushing out the good ones. There are more grifters than good ones. I think it's far more important to change the system and limit the influence of money. Lobbying should be illegal, or at least 100% offset by public funding to the opposition.
I think that with very little exceptions - there is a shelf life for everything - so I think that even good people will lose some of their edge as the years pile on. We see it, frankly, in all walks of life. So, I am really more worried about being stuck with the bad ones for a long long time than losing the exceptional good ones that remain very good for a very long time. It is clear that RBG lived by a certain code, so she did not really think, I assume, about the political ramifications of her replacement. Realistically, she would have done better for the causes she believed in if she resigned at an earlier time to ensure an easier replacement for an administration that was more aligned with her views. So, even the good ones might stay too long for their own causes good, as an example.
