Huffington Post: Clarence Thomas Should Be Investigated For Nondisclosure, Democratic Lawmakers Say

[Patricia M. McBride]

The liberals are after Judge Thomas again.  Heavens they truly hate anyone who is a strict constitutionalist and would dearly love to tip the balance of the courts before Obamacare comes through.............and in fact, I suspect that is what this is all about anyway.  Note the last paragraph says "willfully"..................not a chance he ever did anything illegal willfully.  It isn't in the man.

 

First Posted: 9/29/11 06:12 PM ET Updated: 9/30/11

WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers on Thursday called for a federal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars on annual financial disclosure forms.

Led by House Rules Committee ranking member Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), 20 House Democrats sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States -- the entity that frames guidelines for the administration of federal courts -- requesting that the conference refer the matter of Thomas' non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the Department of Justice.

The letter outlines how, throughout his 20-year tenure on the Supreme Court, Thomas routinely checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income. But in reality, the letter states, she earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007 alone.

Slaughter called it "absurd" to suggest that Thomas may not have known how to fill out the forms.

"It is reasonable, in every sense of the word, to believe that a member of the highest court in the land should know how to properly disclose almost $700,000 worth of income," Slaughter said in a statement. "To not be able to do so is suspicious, and according to law, requires further investigation. To accept Justice Thomas’s explanation without doing the required due diligence would be irresponsible."

The letter also cites a June report in The New York Times indicating Thomas may have regularly benefited from the use of a private yacht and airplane owned by real estate magnate Harlan Crow and failed to disclose the travel as a gift or travel reimbursement.

Current law requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General any judge the conference "has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/democratic-lawmakers-call-...

 

 

[amanda choate]

If I am bringing home $700,000 I am pretty sure my husband would know, they probably file joint returns. Who cares? This is the Supreme Court of the United States. There are nine people in this country who after being nominated by the president, consented upon by the Senate and given a job for life, are required to live their lives beyond reproach. They are the Supremes. There can be no hint of conflict. There can be no sense of impropriety. They are held to a higher standard. Because when they make a decision, it becomes the law of the land, nearly irreversible.

I have no beef with Clarence Thomas, except if he holds himself above or outside the constraints of his office. Let there be no doubt, he is indeed constrained in his private life, otherwise he is of no use to us as a country. And all these constraints were known to him prior to acceptance of the appointment.

[Patricia M. McBride]

The fellow who wrote the piece for the CS Monitor is a far left liberal who works at UC Berkeley and has written many other opinion pieces.  He even has one listed supporting the jobs bill and tax increases and saying how the poor sure need the help from the money.  The money we are talking about isn't enough to help anyone really and it sure won't make a dent in the deficit wonder boy has run up.........but anyway.  The LA Times has a reputation for being liberal and in fact, very liberal, but the woman who wrote the piece you listed made it pretty straight forward and some of her other work is the same, so it is the facts and just the facts but with few details.  The thing most people don't know is that many people do not discuss such things and a lot of married couples do not discuss work at home.  They actually have a life outside of work.  Given the jobs these 2 people have, and especially Thomas, I seriously doubt that he and his wife have discussions about work period.  I had heard one time that he felt his wife had a right to work at whatever job she chose and he knew where to draw the line and given he is a constitutionalist, I suspect he would not cross the line.  I am not saying, for a fact that he didn't know what she earned, but he might not have or who knows they may have some arrangement where she doesn't keep the money even.  How would I know, and the thing is all the folks that are ready to hatchet Thomas also don't know :) or they would have said!

[amanda choate]

CS Monitor and LA Times are hardly liberal rags. The NYT piece is thorough even if you don't like what it says about someone with whom you find yourself politically aligned. Justice Thomas has never refuted any of the claims. He just says it doesn't matter.  Abe Fortas stepped down from the court for accepting gifts back in the 60's.

Digg and Reddit are my favorite aggregators, news from the ground up there. 

Today is the first Monday in October, first day of the Court. Couple of First Ammendment cases come early this year, stay tuned.

[Patricia M. McBride]

Wow lady.  You did a great job.  Problem is all of these guys are liberal right up to their eyeballs, but thank you and will take a gander.  Probably take a day or two; I can only stand about 1 really over the top liberal article a day and have already had the Huffington for today and blogged there some too which is a lot of "liberal" in one day!  Fortunately, there are other conservatives, like myself on Huffington, to break up the sameness of responses :).

 

About my comment about liberal sources, I was quite surprised of late on a couple of article in the LA times..............almost like the coat of many colors as they had a couple of things I found myself cheering them on for!

[amanda choate]

This story broke earlier, much earlier this year. Thomas has never denied that he failed to do so, he says it was an omission:

Further reading from the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2011/0304/Cla...

Back in January:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/22/nation/la-na-thomas-disclos...

There was also a story this past summer regarding him taking money from a Republican donor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?pagewan...

 

As Rod Serling used to say: For your consideration.

[Patricia M. McBride]

The problem is Amanda, we only have the word of the Huffington Post and their reporting.  I don't have enough information to know if he did what they said or whether they were on a witch hunt yet again.  I would feel the same way no matter which justice it was.  Until we know the facts, and all of them, this news article must be taken with a grain of salt or perhaps you forget the game the media has been playing for the last 4 years or so.  I have not and I no longer believe much from any media source that tends towards the more liberal.  Even those who monitor the posts weigh in on the side of the most liberal or progressive stance and are forever saying they agree with the posts that are the most extreme.  I thought it was certainly interesting and will wait and see how it turns out!

[amanda choate]

Patricia, to let you know, my feeling is this; if someone, anyone is breaking the laws then they should be held accountable. I care not which side of the ideological spectrum they state they reside. To not declare this income is wrong and he should be held accountable. Period. If it were Ginsburg's husband earning $700,000 from Planned Parenthood and she failed to disclose this, how would you feel then?