Sheldon Whitehouse Profile picture
May 21 9 tweets 2 min read Read on X
The Alito “insurrection flag” incident is bad enough (even Republicans have spoken out, which re: our captured Court is rare to see).

Worse, it’s not an isolated incident over at the Roberts Court.

🧵
Last year, Alito gave an “interview” on WSJ ed page where he (a) opined on a matter likely to come before the Court, (b) on a matter in active dispute, (c) with a lawyer on one side of that dispute (d) while Alito and a friend had direct personal interest in the outcome.
(The dispute was over the ability of Congress to investigate and subpoena a friend of Alito’s for information about undisclosed billionaire gifts to the justice, and billionaire donors’ lawyers quickly quoted Alito’s comments. Self-help.)
Then there’s Thomas, repeatedly participating in cases related to January 6 attack despite his wife’s involvement both as participant and witness, in apparent violation of a recusal law Congress passed that explicitly applies to justices.
Thomas also failed to disclose forgiveness of a debt, which by law is reportable income under ethics and tax laws. Perhaps he also failed to pay required taxes and violated false statement laws (compare criminal cases for other government officials who violated disclosure laws).
(There’s a whole array of donations in the billionaire gifts program that supports Thomas and his family which also implicate ethics and income and gift tax laws.)
There’s a common thread here: no investigation. No interviews, no statements, no reports, no nothing. No one ever asks justices what the facts are. Justices speak in right-wing media or leak through sources, but no official statements where you tell the truth or face penalties.
That is unique throughout government, and it violates very basic tenets of rule of law, not least the ancient principle: nemo judex in sua causa (you don’t judge in your own case).

This cannot stand, particularly at our Supreme Court, for Pete’s sake.
My Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act offers real solutions to this mess.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sheldon Whitehouse

Sheldon Whitehouse Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SenWhitehouse

May 17
So the Alito Family flies a “Stop-the-Steal”-signifying, upside-down United States flag at their house, and he says nothing when insurrection-related cases start to come before the Supreme Court.

In fiction, they’d say that it “jumped the shark.” But it happened.

🧵
This is not just bad taste; it flat-out breaks the Court’s rule against political displays, and it suggests predisposition in those cases, which in turn suggests recusal is in order.
Then Alito blames it on his wife’s anger at a neighbor’s allegedly inappropriate behavior.

First off, not so great putting your wife under the bus.

Second, judges are supposed to exhibit judicial temperament (except, remember Kavanaugh’s meltdown?).
Read 13 tweets
May 15
Midst all the mischief at the United States Supreme Court, it’s almost gone unnoticed how many of its key decisions are being manipulated with fake facts, outside the established traditions of American judicial fact-finding.

🧵
Justifiable attention has gone to justices accepting large gratuities from billionaires with interests before the Court, and to the Court’s refusal to adopt a meaningful ethics code.
But not enough attention has been given to the Court’s repeated violation of established fact-finding rules to accomplish the billionaires’ right-wing agenda.
Read 19 tweets
May 13
Let’s see how Supreme Court justices caught receiving unreported gifts fare, compared to executive and legislative officials.

Short answer: very different — justices aren’t even subject to basic fact-finding. Highest court; lowest standard.

🧵
Recap: Round One of yacht/jet travel gifts from Harlan Crow to Clarence Thomas went to Judicial Conference, which should refer credible questions of ”willfulness” to Attorney General.
Makes sense: AG has investigative resources, judicial back-scratching less likely, AG can see if other crimes implicated. Result then: no referral, no public report.
Read 20 tweets
Apr 26
Well, the FedSoc justices pretty much disgraced themselves and their fake pet theories in yesterday’s oral argument on presidential immunity.🧵
Remember when they were “minimalists”? Yesterday they embarked on a long policy peregrination so as to make what Gorsuch called a “ruling for the ages.” (He actually said that.) Behind the stunning pomposity, it’s miles from “minimalist.”
Remember when they were “constitutionalists”? The constitution says they’ve got to stick to the “case or controversy” before them, and yet they went on their wild hypothetical wanderings. Some “constitutionalists.”
Read 13 tweets
Apr 15
More from Miami on the Florida property insurance market’s dangers.
miamiherald.com/news/politics-…
There’s considerable reason to believe that Florida is the leading edge of a general coastal property insurance problem nationwide, and considerable reason to believe that the coastal-risk insurance problem has an emerging wildfire-risk insurance twin out West.
For both coastal and wildfire risk, the trajectory is the same: insurance unaffordability, then uninsurability, then unmortgageability, leading to asset value crash, which could cascade out through the general economy.
Read 9 tweets
Mar 26
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, its board of directors, and its climate obstruction — quite a tale: 🧵
eenews.net/articles/clima…
“For years, the [Chamber] disputed the reality of human-caused climate change and has more recently opposed meaningful efforts to address the problem.” 

“When asked for comment, the Chamber argued it’s following the wishes of corporate donors.”
So it would seem logical for Chamber board members to ask the obvious question:  “what donors?  and how much did they give you?” 
 
Is it not a massive governance failure to serve on the board of an organization without questioning where it gets its money?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(