Below is my column in The Hill on the controversy this month over extrajudicial comments made by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. These are only the latest such comments by justices that became distractions during the discussion of pending cases before the Court.
Here is the column:
This month, the crowd at the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture was electrified as a speaker called on the lawyers in the audience to “fight this fight” and declared, “We can’t lose the battles we are facing.”
What was particularly thrilling was that the declaration of an “act of solidarity” was not coming from a Democratic member of Congress or an MSNBC host, but from Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
There was a day when such a speech would have been scandalous for a sitting justice of the Supreme Court. For much of the court’s history, justices avoided public speaking beyond the perfunctory commencement speech or circuit judicial conference. The tradition was that justices would limit comments on major issues to their written opinions, so as to avoid any question of partisanship or bias against litigants. It was considered a cost of being one of nine.
That tradition, however, was shattered in the 20th century by what I once called the “rise of the celebrity justice.” Despite my respect for them, I was critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who seemed to relish appearances before ideologically supportive groups, discussing not only issues that might come before the court, but also making comments in books and speeches on political issues.
The troubling trend has created the impression of justices maintaining constituencies on the left and the right. The adoration and attention can have a corrosive effect on a jurist caught up in the moment. Previously, Sotomayor was criticized when she directly called for political action from young law students to defend abortion rights.
Sotomayor acknowledged, “I am pointing out to that when I shouldn’t because they tell me I shouldn’t.” However, she criticized a recent decision of the court from which she had dissented and chastised her conservative colleagues who “have opted to bury their heads in the sand.” She added, “You know, I can’t change Texas’ law but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.”
Sotomayor’s latest comments came shortly before the hearing in the birthright citizenship case, where the court has been asked to rein in district courts imposing national or universal injunctions against the Trump administration. Sotomayor’s sharp questioning of the solicitor general drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked if the other justices could be allowed to hear the counsel’s answers.
The hearing also highlighted the public comments of another justice on the very matter before the Court. In 2022, when President Biden faced a fraction of the injunctions imposed against Trump, Justice Elena Kagan publicly condemned the use of universal injunctions in an interview at Northwestern University School of Law. She lashed out at the obvious “forum shopping” to get before favorable courts and said “It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.” She added, “You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right.”
Now, in the Trump administration, Kagan has a case that can right that wrong by requiring parties to certify a national class action if they want a national injunction. However, Kagan raised some eyebrows by quickly stating that “this case is very different” and then suggesting that there was a need for national injunctions against Trump.
As Solicitor General John Sauer tried to distinguish between the procedural question before the Court from the merits (which have not been fully briefed), Kagan and Sotomayor insisted that the unconstitutionality was clear. Kagan snapped “Every court is ruling against you.”
Kagan’s rationale was as disturbing as her apparent reversal. The merits of the birthright citizenship order are still being briefed in lower courts. Moreover, district courts have reasonably concluded that they are bound by prior Supreme Court decisions. The administration believes that those cases are wrong or wrongly interpreted. Most of us expected the Administration to lose in the lower courts before the issue can be raised with the Supreme Court.
And frankly, it will likely lose on the merits there as well. However, that was not the issue before the justices this week. The issue was whether, as a constitutional matter, district courts can bind an entire nation in resolving a case or must confine relief to the parties before it.
The Trump administration is not arguing that courts can never issue universal injunctions. Rather, it is arguing that one must establish a national class action in order to demand a national injunction from a district court. The process under Rule 23 of the federal rules includes tests for determining whether parties in a given case truly represent the interests of other similarly situated individuals.
Kagan and her liberal colleagues insisted that, even though they were not looking at the merits of the birthright citizenship case, they could take a “peek” at what Trump was trying to do. Kagan suggested that Trump’s birthright citizenship order was clearly unconstitutional and thus may warrant a national injunction even if other controversies might not.
Some of us believe that a court’s authority to issue injunctions should not change based on justices taking a peek ahead at the ultimate merits in a case. Kagan’s comments raised questions of whether an injunction “can’t be right” if a greater percentage of courts disagreed on the merits.
Putting aside how the Supreme Court will rule in the case (which is unclear), the controversy leading into the argument over Kagan’s earlier comments shows the perils of such public speeches. Kagan raised interesting concerns over ending such injunctions, but those points became enmeshed with her prior public positions. Her effort to distinguish the case led to claims that she was spinning a case to conform with her public commentary.
Sotomayor and Kagan have made many speeches that have uplifting messages for law students and lawyers alike, including some of the comments in these events. They are both worthy role models for all lawyers. However, these public comments are not a model for jurists, in my view. The controversies this week are only the latest examples of the costs to the court itself in justices holding forth on political subjects or issues that may come before them.
During the week of these controversies, another figure, retired Justice David Souter, passed away. One of the things I most respected in Souter was not only his modesty and civility but his reticence in making public comments. He spoke through his opinions and left the rest for others to debate.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
Here is a brief video with some history on the constitutional phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
https://www.prageru.com/video/what-is-birthright-citizenship?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_13555466&recent=
There never was “a problem of freed slaves in limbo.” As the video truthfully states, freed slaves could not become citizens per immigration law. The Naturalization Act of 1802—the immigration law of the American Founders—was in full force and effect, and it denied them any opportunity to be “admitted to become citizens.” By law, the freed slaves must have been compassionately repatriated on January 1, 1863.
Actually, the whole thing is moot because secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional. In fact, many states had secession codified in the documents they submitted for the ratification of the Constitution.
EXAMPLE: If you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you may be summoned to jury duty.
We need to go back to the original Democrat Party law of Dred Scott. Simply treat the illegal aliens as property. Once illegal aliens are identified, they should become the sole property of the first person who discovers them, consistent with the legal principle that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” The Democrats know best. Reinstate Dred Scott.
These are no longer ‘judges’. They are party players serving their own interests or beliefs, or opinions, and that is death to a fair and equal court. It is indeed, sad, and i don’t know what we do. Who knew the celebrity virus would infect even this. Thus far, the 21st century is anything but a leap forward.
Obama was probably the first ‘celebrity’ POTUS, and the damage it has wrought to human beings is incalculable. These are just people that sit down to poo just like anyone does; there is nothing particularly special about them, on a very human level. That was sort of the point of our founding documents. Very few of these people are upholding that in 2025.
Communist Political Officers
They consider themselves models of philanthropy, as Karl Marx put it, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Of course, this is anathema, high criminal, and may not be done per the Constitution.
The Founders gave Americans one thing: Freedom.
Supreme Court allows Trump to strip protections from some Venezuelans; deportations could follow
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to deportation.
The court’s order, with only one noted dissent, puts on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for the Venezuelans that would have otherwise expired last month.
The status allows people already in the United States to live and work legally because their native countries are deemed unsafe for return due to natural disaster or civil strife.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-venezuelans-deportation-trump-5589f17e0ecd5d33bfb220e15720f88d
It’s just a very, very bad circumstance created by Mayorkas as he said, the border is secure and your immigration law is broken. He left out that he’d broken it. It was simple to merely overwhelm the system. That’s his strategy.
The legislature no longer writes law. Any head of a department does that now.
It’s actually a criminal offense. Nothing will happen but chaos. The laws are still there broken by the lawless Mayorkas.
Personally, he shouldn’t do that for many reasons but he did.
I only read part of today’s Turley swill because it was so disgusting. Let’s see now, Turley only has problems with non-MAGA SCOTUS justices–for comments made about Trump trying to eliminate the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture, and for Kagan’s position on Trump’s attempt to dismantle democracy by means of the unprecedented number Executive Orders by which he is trying to rule this country by eliminating the role of Congress in lawmaking.
However, Turley doesn’t seem to have any problem with the massive amount of “gifts” Clarence Thomas has accepted. Excerpted from CNBC, 6/7/24:
“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted millions of dollars’ worth of gifts over two decades on the bench, according to a new data analysis.
The figure sets Thomas far apart from his current colleagues, according to the nonprofit Fix the Court.
The analysis provides fodder for Supreme Court critics who have called for reforms in the wake of a series of politically incendiary rulings and ongoing ethics scandals.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted millions of dollars’ worth of gifts over the past two decades on the bench, a total nearly 10 times the value of all gifts received by his fellow justices during the same time, according to a new analysis.
Thomas received 103 gifts with a total value of more than $2.4 million between 2004 and 2023, the judicial reform group Fix the Court said in a report Thursday.
In contrast, Thomas’ fellow justices over the same period accepted a total of just 93 gifts worth a combined value of only about $248,000, according to the nonprofit group.
Thomas’ fellow conservative justice Samuel Alito accounted for the lion’s share of that value. Fix the Court’s analysis found that Alito accepted 16 gifts worth a combined $170,095.”
Thomas also refused to recuse himself from cases involving the insurrection, in which his wife had direct involvement– From “Huff Post” 3/30/2022: “Thomas is currently under fire for failing to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection after text messages from his wife, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows revealed her active participation in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Initially, Meadows voluntarily disclosed the messages to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Later, on Dec. 7, 2021, he stopped cooperating with the committee and claimed executive privilege to prevent further disclosures.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against assertions of executive privilege by ex-President Donald Trump and his ex-aides, including Meadows. Thomas cast the lone vote of dissent in the case. Now, it’s clear that the disclosures in question could have provided more evidence of his wife’s involvement in the plot to overthrow the results of the 2020 election.
Thomas’ past recusals show that he is not ignorant of the rules outlining when federal judges must disqualify themselves from participating in a case.”
Then, there’s Alito flying the MAGA-affiliated flag at his home.
Yeah, Turley only sees potential ethics issues when a non-MAGA judge is involved–AND for comments these Justices made.
How much will your handlers at Act Blue financially contribute to help pay for accused felon Judge Hannah Dugan attorney fees? Since you have claimed to be an attorney, and a butcher, a baker and candle stick maker, why don’t you represent her pro-bono?
🤡
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Judge Hannah Dugan deserves a full and aggressive defense. Your support will help ensure she receives it
https://www.hannahdugandefensefund.org/
Excerpted from “The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal”, dateline 5/16/2025:
“Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan’s legal team has claimed judicial immunity in a May 14 motion to dismiss the charges against the judge.
The move sets the stage for what many expect to be a long legal battle ahead.
Dugan’s team filed the motion the day after she was indicted on charges of helping an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in her courtroom.
So what is “judicial immunity,” and how does it apply here? Here’s what to know.
What is judicial immunity?
Judicial immunity is a legal doctrine that protects judges from liability for actions taken in the course of their judicial duties.
Dugan’s legal team is arguing that her actions were within the scope of her official duties to maintain control of her courtroom.
“Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court,” the motion wrote. “It is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset.”
Prosecuting Dugan, the motion argues, would violate the 10th Amendment, which has to do with states’ rights. The amendment states that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
The judicial immunity doctrine is rooted in English common law and was first established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1871 case Bradley v. Fisher. The doctrine is meant to allow judges to make decisions free from external pressures and political pressure.
“(A) judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself,” the Supreme Court’s opinion states.
Since then, it has been applied in various other cases.
So far, judicial immunity remains a legal doctrine, meaning it is not necessarily written in statute but can be considered legally binding because it has been applied in previous case rulings.”
The case will be dismissed, either at the trial court or appellate level.
Your view of law is twisted. Helping people escape [in a case-matter totally outside of Dugan’s purview], thwarting other agenesis pursuing their own duty, is not in the scope of Dugan’s duties. Her “judicial immunity” needed to be invoked as her response to another agency doing its job. All she had to do was ask ICE to wait till her hearing [for something altogether DIFFERENT] was over, and perhaps brought all parties into her chambers to make her political objection. Judges are not dictators—in the sense that you think.
Dianna: Judge Dugan didn’t HAVE to do anything. ICE didn’t have a valid warrant–an administrative “warrant” is not legally-binding on her because it was not issued by a judicial officer. And, it’s not “MY” view of the law–I cited “The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel”, although I agree with their assessment.
Ah, but Dugan DID do something, something quite outside of her purview. The ICE administrative warrant may not have been legally binding on HER, btu her interference was neither legally binding on ICE; you are straining at gnats, while comparing apples to oranges, and swallowing camels to come up with new fangled assessments of very poor judgement. We might have a gray area here, that needs expatiation. Nevertheless Dugan acted rashly—no judge worth his/her salt should be running out back doors like criminal herself!
The administrative warrant was sufficient for deportation. They weren’t arresting him for another crime such as robbery etc.
Gigenius still thinks welfare and affirmative action, “free stuff” and “free status,” are constitutional.
Speaking of swill. The group “Fix the Court” has a long history of making claims about Thomas that inflate his alleged “criminal behavior”. You fail to post links. Wonder why?
Michael: the citations are very numerous–look them up for yourself. I cited “CNBC”.
And that is why you fail. You presume that we will just accept your accusations. It is up to you to provide the proof. In addition you cite CNBC a bastion of anti-Trump propaganda for the last 9 years. Try again.
she doesn’t cite anything. Any lawyer knows how to cite. She just makes vague reference like “this is from CNBC” or “Huffpost said…”
“
There is NO SUCH THING as “MAGA SCOTUS.” As your own exhibit shows: The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against assertions of executive privilege by ex-President Donald Trump and his ex-aides, including Meadows…..Those that lean center-right more-often have the ability to entertain and allow negative or opposition factor to hold sways, a skill in non-prejudicial balance required of the moral/legal arbiter (blindfolded justice), a skill the extreme-leftists on the court, in far greater example, do not possess. SC Justices should never go about politicking, making leftist policy speeches and socially agitating.
For any-and-all rage-filled detractions that Thomas’s rich-connections hold for you, you should be just as seriously concerned with the blatant practice of leftist SC judges openly engaging in social engineering, which is proof-positive that they cannot rule outside their personal emotions, predetermined prejudices, and particular politicks. The closed mind cannot mete out justice. This is that to which Turley alludes. You can’t and won’t see it, preferring a big fat red-herring to the specific issue at hand, that of “Side commentaries the UNDERMINE the court.” You are virtually unable to address the issue Turley raises because you are a leopard with the very same spots as Sotomayor and Kagan.
Somehow I knew Giggles would read today’s comments, including previous mention of Alito’s wife’s flags and Thomas’s wife, then copycat it over here.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “ It is a belief that seems particularly to beset modern society that believing deeply in something, and following that belief, is the most important thing a person can do…I am here to tell you that it is much less important how committed you are than what you are committed to.” Justice Scalia while discussing Euro Governance”…to be sure, my own court is often justly accused of playing the same anti-democratic role in American society, invalidating the decisions of political majorities based on the policy preferences of nine unelected judges….”
Do we now have federal judges at all levels that cannot see the harm they are perpetuating on this great nation with activism?
God help us before America falls of the cliff of doom!
Professor Turley,
In selectively quoting Kagan’s 2022 interview, you gloss over a critical distinction between what was happening then and now.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/14/kagan-supreme-court-legitimacy-00056766
What is a “nationwide policy?” If a president ignores the APA to repeal a nationwide policy that was previously instituted using the proper procedures, then a nationwide injunction locking in the status quo rather than allowing for the extralegal change in policy should be warranted.
Let’s take an example that everyone would agree with. The national budget. If instead of the Big Beautiful Bill, Trump decided to unilaterally push through his own bill without Congress, then a nationwide injunction stopping this action and allowing the status quo is warranted and not in contravention with what Kagan said in 2022.
The only female on the Court that I ever held high regard for was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who preserved decorum in both extra-judicial commentary/chatter as well as inter-judicial hearings/arguments before the Court (too early to draw opinion on Coney-Barrett). And she was on the Court for a.very.long.time. I miss her practical, just get-to-the-heart-of-it, approach.
And it’s not an easy road to walk, when media crucifies you for spousal speech (Alito, Thomas) yet parsimoniously mentions Sotomayor’s blatant unprofessionalism. –And who could forget, at the nation’s highly-televised inauguration of President Trump, front-row-seat Justice Ketanji-Jackson, wearing her stand-out, symbolic “distinctive collar adorned with cowrie shells…believed to offer protection from evil in African traditions” over her black robe? https://abovethelaw.com/2025/01/ketanji-brown-jackson-wears-protection-from-evil-at-trumps-inauguration/
(IMHO Ch. J. Roberts was professional in addressing recent criticism of the Court.)
How are the cowrie shells any different from the jabots that were popularized by the women (including O’Connor) that preceded her on the Court?
She wasn’t even the first to adorn her neck with something from Africa. RBG’s favorite jabot was from South Africa.
Clown show, a lace or cloth jabot does not have symbolic meaning. And South Africa is not Africa. I’m not the one who is interpreting Jackson’s message–look it up on your favorite Google site.
Jonathan: It is understandable you would support universal injunctions. The shoe one day could be on the other foot. During the Biden administration right-wing state AGs and outside groups got universal injunctions from a single judge in Texas against Biden and it hamstrung his policies. You supported those injunctions. Naturally, you don’t want to lose that ability should the Dems get back the presidency.
The problem is that DJT brought the wrong case to challenge universal injunctions because it is tied to the issue of birthright citizenship. That is a dead loser for DJT because there are a long line of cases that say if you are born in the US you are automatically a citizen. If the right-wing of the SC were to do away with universal injunctions it would create chaos around the country. Something they would not relish.
I agree that Trump brought the wrong case, but wrong because Congress, not the President not the Courts, is the sole branch empowered by the Constitution to define Citizenship eligibility. If Congress passes HR 569, the legal ambiguities surrounding who is eligible for automatic Birthplace Citizenship will finally be resolved. If the current Supreme Court were to hear a challenge to such a law, the odds are great they would defer to Congress.
Justice Sotomayor clearly stated in Thursday’s hearing that Congress is the proper venue for resolving birthright citizenship. She knows and respects Article I Section 8.
Many times, Congress has overruled the Supreme Court in matters of citizenship eligibility. They overruled Dred Scott in 1866 with the Civil Rights Act allowing US Citizenship for freed slaves. They overruled Elk v. Wilkins in 1924 with passage of the Indian Citizenship Act. In 1942, Congress made Chinese eligible for Naturalization, and in 1965, eliminated all racial and nationality biases in Immigration eligibility — nullifying over a century of Supreme Court cases that previously validated racial/ethnic restrictions.
Sure, the left will be horrified when The People (majority public opinion) through our Congress are back in control of Citizenship policy, because it will mean the loss of judicial control waged by their activist plaintiffs and lawyers.
So be it.
But it’s absurd to view Citizenship policy as a jump ball between the WH and Supreme Court, when neither is authorized in the Constitution to be deciding that policy, except temporarily until Congress resolves the contested ambiguity.
pbinca: WHAT “legal ambiguities” or “question” about birthright citizenship are you writing about? There isn’t any “legal ambiguity” or “question” here–Trump is trying to overturn the Constitution via an Executive Order–and, that won’t fly. Anyone who recalls grade-school level civics or government class recalls that Congress is supposed to make laws–not the President via Executive Orders. Pretending there is some legal grounds for Trump’s violation of the oath to protect and defend the Constitution is a typical MAGA tactic. MAGA media keeps raising the bogus argument that there is some real “controversy” over birthright citizenship–which there isn’t. And the majority of Americans do not support Trump’s effort to overturn birthright citizenship or his policies toward immigrants. According to “Ipsos”:
“Washington DC, May 15, 2025—New NPR/Ipsos polling finds that a bare majority of Americans continue to oppose ending birthright citizenship, as seen in an NPR/Ipsos poll from February. Likewise, a plurality continues to support giving legal status to immigrants without legal status brought to the U.S. as children. Overall, there has been little change in public opinion since February. However, there is some slight softening among Republicans on a few policies, as fewer support ending birthright citizenship than did three months ago.
The poll also finds that support for the Trump administration’s immigration proposals and initiatives remains lukewarm, as no policy receives a majority support. Lastly, Americans hold conflicting views on whether immigrants should have constitutional rights. A plurality agrees that First Amendment free speech protections should apply to everyone including immigrants, regardless of their legal status. However, a similar percentage also agrees that constitutional rights generally should not apply to immigrants in the country without legal status.”
Your “long line of cases” includes just zero Supreme Court cases.
It seems some justices like to argue – “well this case is different”. Same as the attorneys for the judge who smuggled the illegal out of her courtroom.
“This month, the crowd at the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture was electrified as a speaker called on the lawyers in the audience to “fight this fight” and declared, “We can’t lose the battles we are facing.”
What was particularly thrilling was that the declaration of an “act of solidarity” was not coming from a Democratic member of Congress or an MSNBC host, but from Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.”
*****************************
Look we all knew that Judgette Soto was a “running on empty” partisan hack. She never hid it. Just like we know Justice Jackson is a dope. What we didn’t know is that the combination of those two along with Justice Amy Two Face and Hypocrite Kagan make up the (now) four witches of Macbeth who like their famous literary counterparts sow equal parts predictions and chaos. And as Roald Dahl explained about witches ““REAL WITCHES dress in ordinary clothes and look very much like ordinary women. They live in ordinary houses and they work in ORDINARY JOBS.” Sometimes not so ordinary jobs.
Texas laws are passed by elected officials. SCOTUS cannot change the law. They can find it unconstitutional. If I lived in California I would be pulling my hair out with their laws. But Californians voted for it and keep voting for it. My choice would be to move or start a political movement. The Left are the real authoritarians. They are especially mad now because we don’t have as many roll over Republicans. There is only one nationally elected official: POTUS. In the words of Obama: “elections have results”. I ate dog poo for 4 years under Biden. Not its time for the Democrats.
Sage advice:
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck.
The justices are engaging in lawfare. Supreme advocacy and think why shouldn’t they as everyone is. Very serious coupled with truly above the law in life tenure, it is.
I find it extremely hypocritical when a SCOTUS nominee refuses to speculate on the legal treatment of a hypothetical question by a senators but feels free to offer public opinions on partisan issues after their nomination to SCOTUS.
YES, YES, but then everyone knows it’s really a –> GFY or FO…
Turley tends to exaggerate small issues to make his arguments seem stronger.
Sotomayor’s comments were actually quite mild and not controversial at all. However, Turley presents them in a way that makes them seem more significant, especially for readers who might not be fully informed. Every Supreme Court justice is likely to say something that people on either side of the political aisle can interpret as biased. For instance, Justice Thomas has connections with wealthy donors who pay for his luxurious trips and even help with living expenses for his family. If Turley really wants to investigate the justices’ appearances, he should consider all of them, not just those who easily provoke outrage among MAGAs.
Except gorge.
Thomas broke NO laws.
Please keep crying
Dustoff
Actually, Anthony Welters, who loaned Thomas $267,300 to buy his RV, admitted in writing that he forgave the loan, after Thomas made a few interest only payments.
Welters further admitted in writing that Thomas never paid any of the principal.
A loan that is forgiven must be declared as income, upon which tax is payable.
Thomas never declared the income from the forgiven loan, and never paid the tax due.
That is a violation 26 USC 61.
We do not have access to Thomas’ tax return, so how do we know he failed to declare the income.
He is required to make an annual financial statement of all income and gifts received.
He never included the loan forgiveness in his required financial statements.
That is violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-521), amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
Clearly Clarence Thomas has broken multiple laws.
“[George] tends to exaggerate small issues to make his arguments seem stronger.”
Sauer IS losing all over the place, Turls. And he’s using disingenuous arguments while doing it, which, sadly, is probably why you don’t like Kagen’s honesty.
And you think we are interested in your “disingenuous” comment when you can’t even spell Kagan, let alone come up with your own synonym for the greatly overused “disingenuous?’
“The hearing also highlighted the public comments of another justice on the very matter before the Court. In 2022, when President Biden faced a fraction of the injunctions imposed against Trump, Justice Elena Kagan publicly condemned the use of universal injunctions in an interview at Northwestern University School of Law. She lashed out at the obvious “forum shopping” to get before favorable courts and said “It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.” She added, “You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right.”
Now, in the Trump administration, Kagan has a case that can right that wrong by requiring parties to certify a national class action if they want a national injunction. However, Kagan raised some eyebrows by quickly stating that “this case is very different” and then suggesting that there was a need for national injunctions against Trump.”
************************************
Behold the hypocrisy of the partisan hack. Nationwide injunctions are only absolutely essential when Trump does something (psst … the voters and common sense be damned). Respect and trust lost in usually irrecoverable, Madam Justice Kagan (D-NY).
“It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.” Justice Elena Kagan In 2022
Random: We Have a Problem: When “Getting Trump” is More Important Than Doing Your Job Working For America https://shorturl.at/3ddNa
….An double minded man, is unstable in all his ways.”
James 1:7-9
I always like “[p]rofessing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
~Romans 1:22 (King James Version)
I despise narrowly defined class when it’s a constitutional decision. Every person in the U.S. has standing if in a case with universal effects such as free speech, or the right to privacy for you and your physician, or whether money equals speech, for example.
Kagan is especially unqualified, and absolute idiot, and it certainly “breaks the norms” when they behave as political partisans.
The ideology of progressives necessitates the exclusion of good manners when it interferes with said ideology.