Democrats Call For Investigation Of Clarence Thomas - New England Patriots Forums

***Patters*** · 10-03-2011, 08:00 PM

Democrats Call For Investigation Of Clarence Thomas | Neon Tommy

The Huffington Post reports:

“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.”

Thomas failed to disclose his wife’s income on federal forms for 13 years. She “had hundreds of thousands of dollars of income from conservative organizations, including roughly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007.”

The LA Times reports:

“Thomas reported ‘none’ in answering specific questions about ‘spousal non-investment income’ on annual forms – answers expressly made ‘subject to civil and criminal sanctions.’” The purpose of the financial disclosure forms is to provide information as to possible conflicts of interest. The groups giving money to Virginia Thomas were groups that “had expressed direct interest in the outcome of cases that came before her husband, including Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, in which the court in 2010 struck down limitations on corporate contributions to elections.”

Rather than obligatorily recusing himself from a case in which he might not have been impartial, he chose to hide the possible conflicts of interest and remain on the case.

***IcyPatriot*** · 10-03-2011, 08:03 PM

More Public Corruption...Clarence Thomas fails to report $686K of wife's income..

Thread by Darryl in January.

***patsfan13*** · 10-03-2011, 08:05 PM

Funny he reported the income to the IRS. Case closed.

***Patters*** · 10-03-2011, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Funny he reported the income to the IRS. Case closed.

If that's true, then I think it supports the contention he was breaking the law to hide his conflict of interest. If he knew enough to report it to the IRS, then he was clearly aware of what he was doing. Hope there's an investigation, but that won't happen with the conservative Holder as AG.

Seems like a coverup to me:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan...osure-20110122

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.

***Wolfpack*** · 10-03-2011, 08:23 PM

The racists on the left already brought this up several months ago.

***patsfan13*** · 10-03-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

If that's true, then I think it supports the contention he was breaking the law to hide his conflict of interest. If he knew enough to report it to the IRS, then he was clearly aware of what he was doing. Hope there's an investigation, but that won't happen with the conservative Holder as AG.

Seems like a coverup to me:

Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says - Los Angeles Times

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.

Really?
His wife doesn't have freedom of speech in her career because he is on the court?

Should she stay pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen while she is at it?

Her activities at Heritage was common knowledge their income was reported to the government, if there was a form that wasn't filled out correctly that was an oversight since demonstrably there was no attempt to hide the income from the government as it was reported to the IRS as opposed to tax cheats like C Rangel who hid income on his forms and didn't report the income to the IRS. I don't recall your support for investigation into Rangel's cheating his fellow taxpayers.

***Patters*** · 10-03-2011, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Really?
His wife doesn't have freedom of speech in her career because he is on the court?

Should she stay pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen while she is at it?

Her activities at Heritage was common knowledge their income was reported to the government, if there was a form that wasn't filled out correctly that was an oversight since demonstrably there was no attempt to hide the income from the government as it was reported to the IRS as opposed to tax cheats like C Rangel who hid income on his forms and didn't report the income to the IRS. I don't recall your support for investigation into Rangel's cheating his fellow taxpayers.

I was never against investigating Rangel. I try to be fairly consistent in calling for greater transparency. Given the important ethical considerations of Thomas' job, I think an investigation is warranted. After all, the disclosure form is simple, he's a bright guy, and by not disclosing it made it a little easier for him not to recuse himself from cases where there could be a conflict of interest.

***DarrylS*** · 10-03-2011, 08:38 PM

The laws on conflict of interest, i.e. ethics violations, are very specific and govern how judges should act..

Attending retreats sponsored by the Koch Brothers raises eyebrows.. and an obvious appearance of impropriety..

From the code.. there is no commentary on race here, even though there are those who want to inject such..

Anybody who claims to be associated with any court system, knows how sacred these rules are..

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Quote:

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

When a judge should recuse themselve in a matter before them..

Quote:

C) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a)the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b)the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
(c)the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d)the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

***Wolfpack*** · 10-03-2011, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

I was never against investigating Rangel. I try to be fairly consistent in calling for greater transparency. Given the important ethical considerations of Thomas' job, I think an investigation is warranted. After all, the disclosure form is simple, he's a bright guy, and by not disclosing it made it a little easier for him not to recuse himself from cases where there could be a conflict of interest.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Darryl when he harped on the same subject several months ago:

Which cases did Clarence Thomas rule on where you think his impartiality was compromised?

For some reason, no one ever answers me when I ask that.

***DarrylS*** · 10-03-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I'll ask you the same question I asked Darryl when he harped on the same subject several months ago:

Which cases did Clarence Thomas rule on where you think his impartiality was compromised?

For some reason, no one ever answers me when I ask that.

Read response #8 above, anyone involved with the court systems is well aware of ethics violations.. and that thread clearly articulates some of the issues..

It is very clear.. he went to a retreat with the Koch Brothers and regarding his wife who is part of the Heritage Foundation..

Quote:

the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party

;

When you become a judge, the standards as to what you can and cannot do.. change quite a bit. If you spend time in court systems, judges recuse themselves all of the time due to a potential conflict of interest.