SJC Thomas didn't disclose $680,000 (to wife) from conservative think tanks

[EagleKeeper]

He should be impeached.

On what grounds?

 

[Vette73]

Had there been rulings that were questionable, I am sure that the liberal article would be trumpeting it to the heavens.

As it is, they could only find a oversight to file to complain about.


But those that climb aboard for the knee jerk are unable to tell the difference.

The case of the financial allowing of Corps alone jumps out. His vote on the 5-4 ruling allowed what became of his wifes new job and she directly profited from it. If this was a lower level Federal court I bet the SC would take a review of a case like that just to clean it up. But since it was the SC… well that’s it.

Like I said before, he has nothing to lose and you can’t appeal to another court really. So yea its bad, but those at the top usually get their way from being at the top.

 

[thraashman]

Not his taxes.

OP wanted it to seem that way

Right, not his taxes. Skirting his taxes would be miniscule in comparison to the potential fallout from this. Not paying his taxes is a monetary issue that affects only him. Not recusing himself from a ruling he should have been obligated to because it personally benefited him is one of the biggest frauds a judge can do. And at the supreme court level it's possibly the worst thing a major US political figure has done since in my lifetime except perhaps Oliver North and the Iran Contra affair.

 

[daishi5]

That's exactly what happened. There's more detailed info here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8331
With the initial outing here:
http://bradblog.com/Docs/ClarenceThomas_CommonCauseLetter_012111.pdf
This should be treated as a BFD.

Nevermind, if someone was looking and that caused him to turn it in, it looks a lot less innocent. It might still be a mistake he just became aware of because of the investigation. But, this does need to be a BFD, and it really looks bad for Thomas.

 

[senseamp]

On what grounds?

Failure to disclose a conflict of interest in violation of the law.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

On what grounds?

Well there's either being too grossly incompetent to understand simple legal forms, or knowingly falsifying them and violating 5 USC app 104 and 18 USC 1001. And if this were a liberal judge who failed to report spousal income from some left wing think tank I'd be saying the same thing, how about you?

 

[boomerang]

"Progressive" Rallyists Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas

My, my, lots of violent proclamations among this progressive crowd. Glad there weren't any shootings.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Failure to disclose a conflict of interest in violation of the law.

Half of Congress will have to go then.

Good luck getting such through.

Your latest judge has admitted that she will be biased based on her backgrouind. That seems to be a conflict - she needs to recursive herself when any Latino or female related case shows. Immigration issues for her - out the door.

 

[Vette73]

"Progressive" Rallyists Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas

My, my, lots of violent proclamations among this progressive crowd. Glad there weren't any shootings.

Deflect much?
What does that have to do with anything that is being talked about here?

 

[senseamp]

Half of Congress will have to go then.

Good luck getting such through.

Your latest judge has admitted that she will be biased based on her backgrouind. That seems to be a conflict - she needs to recursive herself when any Latino or female related case shows. Immigration issues for her - out the door.

Not a violation of the law, unlike what Thomas did.

 

[thraashman]

Half of Congress will have to go then.

Good luck getting such through.

Your latest judge has admitted that she will be biased based on her backgrouind. That seems to be a conflict - she needs to recursive herself when any Latino or female related case shows. Immigration issues for her - out the door.

First off she did nothing of the sort. One statement has been twisted and twisted again to be made to look so. Also I have no idea how one recusives themself, do they refer to themself over and over again or something?

As far as your mention of questionable rulings, well the reason for discovering this came while investigating the Citizens United ruling that flipped over 100 years of legal precedent and a law that was 60 years old. That sounds pretty questionable. Corporations are groups not people and money is not speech.

 

[BigDH01]

Your latest judge has admitted that she will be biased based on her backgrouind. That seems to be a conflict - she needs to recursive herself when any Latino or female related case shows. Immigration issues for her - out the door.

Who does she belong to? Does senseamp own her?

There's a difference between the bias that a human naturally accrues throughout the course of life and a bias that exists because you have a material interest in ruling one way over another. If Thomas had a conflict of interest, knew about it, and yet didn't recuse himself, then there was a serious ethical violation.

Half of Congress will have to go then.

I have no issue with this.

 

[boomerang]

Deflect much?
What does that have to do with anything that is being talked about here?

I'm sorry, but on my computer this thread is about Clarence Thomas. What's it about on yours?

Regardless, it's always good to see some lefties promoting hangings of black men and violent acts against others. I can start a new thread if the consensus wishes, or we can leave it buried here.

 

[senseamp]

Can you imagine what would happen if Sotomayor failed to disclose financial benefits her family received from George Soros?

 

[EagleKeeper]

she hoped a “wise Latina woman” might reach better conclusions than white males without the same experiences.

Seems to be admitting bias and taking into account her background.


I repeat - had the organization felt that there was more than just a failure to file; they would have presented it.
They would have identifed cases that he was involved in that the disclosure wold have provided evidence of a conflict.

 

[Vette73]

I'm sorry, but on my computer this thread is about Clarence Thomas. What's it about on yours?

Regardless, it's always good to see some lefties promoting hangings of black men and violent acts against others. I can start a new thread if the consensus wishes, or we can leave it buried here.

Well by your nutty reasoning I guess this thread is also about coke with pubic hair on it as well.

 

[senseamp]

Seems to be admitting bias and taking into accoutnnher background

What law does that break?
Notice that Thomas failed to disclose a conflict of interest, in violation of the law.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I'll give Thomas the benefit of the doubt and just consider him stupid. Though I've never considered him particularly honorable, I've long considered him to be stupid. Even when I have suspected him to be less than honest, his efforts at it let the stupid shine through.

 

[fed3r2198]

What law does that break?
Notice that Thomas failed to disclose a conflict of interest, in violation of the law.

For 20 years no less. All of his decisions in that time should come under scrutiny.

 

[PokerGuy]

LOL @ rabid lefties foaming at the mouth. This is going nowhere, it's not a big deal and he filed the paperwork with his mistake already. Nothing to see, just another set of left wing nutjobs going at it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

For 20 years no less. All of his decisions in that time should come under scrutiny.

I am sure that they did before posting the article

 

[crownjules]

When large amounts of money are involved, it's never a simple mistake.

 

[Fern]

Since this information seems fairly new, it is very hard to foresee exactly what the ramifications may be.

But Richard Nixon was forced to resign for less. And it will hopefully result in getting Clarence Thomas booted off SCOTUS. Especially if the Justice department gets involved.

As for the Heritage Foundation, they may end up in serious doo doo also.

But the last thing to note, is that no one was barking up the Clarence Thomas tree before, and no many thousands will be combing his past with a fine tooth comb, and thus who knows what else will be found.

Richard Nixon was forced to resign for less? WTH?

That's just crazy.

Thomas should've written "Hertitage Foundation" under that section for his wife, acording to the intrsuctions I found on google you need not even declare the amount of income.

I see that he listed HIS income (honorium, reimbursements etc) from the Heritage Foundation.

Yeah, he should have completed the form properly, but I don't see the big deal. I see that he correctly noted her employment with the Hertitage Foundation up til 1996. You can't tell me everyone didn't already where she worked. That would be common knowledge. And, of course, there's nothing that says it's against the rules for her to work there.

It makes him look like a boob, but I don't see anything even remotely sinister here. TBH, I seriously doubt he completed the forms himself. Looks like something his tax accountant would do. I doubt a SCOTUS judge has time to do bookkeeping work like that form requires.

And how the heck could the Heritage Foundation possibly get into trouble? That's just stupid. They didn't file an incorrect form nor have anything to do with this matter.

Fern

 

[Fern]

What law does that break?
Notice that Thomas failed to disclose a conflict of interest, in violation of the law.

Do you read the information presented before posting this type of stuff?

It's not a conflict of interest. It's his wife's job. Heck, he reported the money he himself received from the Heritage Foundation.

If it was against the law for his wife to have this job (which it isn't) and he kept it off the forms to keep it a secret (which it wasn't, it had been previously reported on his forms for several years and her job is/was common knowledge) than I'd say there's a real problem. But that's not the case at all.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not a violation of the law, unlike what Thomas did.

Well we can give him the Charlie Rangel treatment. Call him a bad boy. That should work.

BTW, I assume that since Bloomberg violated the law regarding straw purchases of AZ weapons, you are for him being prosecuted? After all that's a really serious offense, jail time and all.