[akramachamarei]

I don't think it's plain. My motivation for commenting, generally, is that a lot of people seem to have weird impressions of SCOTUS. In this case, I really don't see cause for recusal, though I suppose it would've been preferable to disclose. (But I suspect I only feel obliged to admit that because of the fervor with which the press reported it, which seems to me somewhat politically motivated.)

I'd be interested if there were an example of a case where Thomas took an opinion that was (a) at odds with his judicial style and (b) clearly and directly benefitted Harlan Crowe. The fall of Chevron deference is not to me one of those cases. I see it, plainly, as returning some powers back to the proper branch.

You seem to be suggesting that no judges should receive gifts from at least any business leaders at all? And if they do that they should recuse. I think that's a rather extreme position. I don't think the minds of justices are so malleable.