Why is this news
Clarence Thomas threatened to quit if he didn’t get a raise, then billionaires gave him and his white bitch gifts and money
- Thread starter Maxxam
- Start date
He's the real life uncle ruckus.
Though the justices are not subject to a binding federal code of conduct (such as those regulating all other federal judges’ acceptance of gifts or restricting Department of Justice employees from accepting gifts from a single source in excess of $20 or $50 in a single year), they are bound by what we old-timers at DOJ called “the Watergate forms.” The latter are financial disclosure forms, mandated post-Watergate, that supervisory, high-level and/or Senate confirmed federal employees from the three branches (congressional, executive, and judiciary) must complete every year.
The words of the 1978 Watergate disclosure statute are clear and require disclosure of benefits to the federal employee, the federal employee’s dependents, as well as the employee’s spouse. In fact, the ethics statute was amended after the 2013 case of U.S. v. Windsor that recognized marriage equality in federal law, to make clear that federal employees must also disclose benefits provided to same-sex spouses.
In addition to what has already been mentioned, he wrote the decision for this case. Black folks often don't have good representation and sometimes evidence of our innocence is withheld on purpose. Now if you are convicted and sentenced to death row, evidence of innocence is not enough to get you a new trial.
The Supreme Court Just Said That Evidence of Innocence Is Not Enough
The Washington PostLast December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, a case that could mean life or death for Barry Jones, who sits on death row in Arizona for the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s 4-year-old daughter, Rachel.In 2018, a federal court...
However, it doesn't state what the penalties are if you don't disclose them.Though the justices are not subject to a binding federal code of conduct (such as those regulating all other federal judges’ acceptance of gifts or restricting Department of Justice employees from accepting gifts from a single source in excess of $20 or $50 in a single year), they are bound by what we old-timers at DOJ called “the Watergate forms.” The latter are financial disclosure forms, mandated post-Watergate, that supervisory, high-level and/or Senate confirmed federal employees from the three branches (congressional, executive, and judiciary) must complete every year.
The words of the 1978 Watergate disclosure statute are clear and require disclosure of benefits to the federal employee, the federal employee’s dependents, as well as the employee’s spouse. In fact, the ethics statute was amended after the 2013 case of U.S. v. Windsor that recognized marriage equality in federal law, to make clear that federal employees must also disclose benefits provided to same-sex spouses.
At least not for SCOTUS.
First, the statutes apply to members of Congress and “officer[s and] employee” of all three branches; they do not exclude supreme court justices. Second, the Conference’s financial reporting regulations include the justices by defining them as covered “judicial officer.”
Enforcement mechanisms in the 1978 Ethics in Government Act come into play for individuals who “willfully failed to file a report or . . . willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported” under the Act. The relevant provisions authorize the Justice Department to bring civil actions against such a person. They also direct various agencies, including the Judicial Conference, to report such individuals to the department if they have “reasonable cause to believe” the individuals willfully falsified or failed to file required reports.
Wow. Ok.In addition to what has already been mentioned, he wrote the decision for this case. Black folks often don't have good representation and sometimes evidence of our innocence is withheld on purpose. Now if you are convicted and sentenced to death row, evidence of innocence is not enough to get you a new trial.
The Supreme Court Just Said That Evidence of Innocence Is Not Enough
The Washington PostLast December, the Supreme Court gathered to hear oral arguments in Shinn v. Ramirez, a case that could mean life or death for Barry Jones, who sits on death row in Arizona for the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s 4-year-old daughter, Rachel.In 2018, a federal court...news.yahoo.com
What do you assholes think lifetime appointment means?
Similar threads
