Clarence Thomas ethics violation?

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
Contributor
What a creep.

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed for at least five years to report on his financial disclosures his wife's income from a conservative policy group, according to the watchdog group Common Cause.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, was paid $686,589 by the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of Internal Revenue Service records. Thomas failed to note the income for those years, choosing instead to check a box titled "none" where "spousal non-investment income" should have been disclosed.

A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment. Mrs. Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well-known at the time.

Mrs. Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, which she founded to restore the "founding principles" of limited government and individual liberty.

In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as "none." Common Cause says Liberty Central paid Thomas an unknown salary that year.

Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University Law School.

"It could not have been an oversight," Gillers said.

Steven Lubet, an expert on judicial ethics at Northwestern University School of Law, said the failure to disclose spousal income "is not a crime of any sort, but there is a potential civil penalty."

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/liv...fes-pay-for-years.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
 
Yurt said:
christie fan is a racist, if he was white, she wouldn't have said he was creep
Click to expand...

This is just fodder for her hateful angst at anyone conservative- The disclosure regardrs potential conflicts of interest-perhaps he believed her "well known affiliations" were already a matter of public disclosure.
 
Yurt said:
so rangel and obama's friends are creeps? i had no idea you felt that way christie
Click to expand...

I understand completely that you "must defend Republicans!" at every single turn, but try to mix it up a bit. "They do it too!" starts to get to be kind of predictable...
 
This is just another finger pointing hypocritical BS thread from a partisan libtard~

Judges fail to fully comply with financial disclosure rulesDozens of federal judges have failed to comply with financial disclosure requirements, hampering review of their activities for possible conflicts of interest or other improprieties.

These findings came from a Star Tribune review of the two primary mechanisms that provide public checks on judicial behavior: the financial disclosure forms and ethics complaints that are filed against judges.

One in six of the 222 judges' disclosure forms reviewed was incomplete or inaccurate in reporting outside income, trips, club memberships and teaching fees.

The ethics complaint system is designed to give the public an opportunity to register concerns about judicial behavior and to see what happens when judges abuse their power. But hundreds of ethics complaints about judges have been withheld from public files in Washington, D.C., in violation of judicial rules.

The review did not disclose evidence of serious conflicts of interest or corruption -- such problems remain rare in the federal judiciary. But the disclosure omissions can make it difficult for the public to see whether judges have business or political relationships that might raise questions about their impartiality.

The issue of judicial accountability was highlighted last month when the U.S. Senate recommended that the judiciary tighten its ethics rules, in part because of recent disclosures by the Star Tribune that judges had accepted lavish trips from a court contractor and litigant.

In proposing the tightening, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., argued that appearances of impropriety in the judiciary created a more serious problem than in any other branch of government.

"Federal judges hold their positions for life, health permitting," he said. "Their behaviors and their moral authority as adjudicators of great issues are not subject to a public vote of confidence. . . . Because of that authority and extraordinary power, the judicial branch more so than even the other two branches of government must hold and retain the utmost confidence of the American people."

A leading legal ethicist, Prof. Steven Lubet of the Northwestern University Law School, said in an interview: "Federal judges are given by the Constitution enormous amounts of discretion and independence and virtually the only accountability that they have comes in the form of financial restrictions and disclosure requirements."
 
Onceler said:
I understand completely that you "must defend Republicans!" at every single turn, but try to mix it up a bit. "They do it too!" starts to get to be kind of predictable...
Click to expand...

where did i defend clarance? and i never said they did it too....i simply i had no idea christie thought non disclosure made someone a creep....

so once again, all onceler has in terms of "debate" is lies, as i never defended thomas and i never said they did it too

you lie more than desh
 
Yurt said:
where did i defend clarance? and i never said they did it too....i simply i had no idea christie thought non disclosure made someone a creep....

so once again, all onceler has in terms of "debate" is lies, as i never defended thomas and i never said they did it too

you lie more than desh
Click to expand...

LOL

What a complete state of denial.....
 
Ice Dancer said:
This is just fodder for her hateful angst at anyone conservative- The disclosure regardrs potential conflicts of interest-perhaps he believed her "well known affiliations" were already a matter of public disclosure.
Click to expand...

i want to see the form and rules for a scotus justice, if he is required to disclose the income regardless of whether he believes it is a potential conflict, then not disclosing is dishonest....

don't you think?
 
Dune said:
Hypocrisy is you defending this clear ethics violation.
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy is you and other libs ignoring all the numerous ethics violations when it's not a conservative judge. The OP noted that the violation is not even serious...say like all the tax dodging done by members of congress and Obamas admin....and yet...uh-huh
 
bravo said:
I'm just getting fuckin' sick of this shit...

OK pinhead...where did Yurt do as you charged ????
Click to expand...

don't hold your breath, its onceler's MO...enter a thread, give a one liner lie and exit, while ignoring the thread subject...

he used to actually debate, but the past few months he is virtually nothing but a hit and run liar/attacker
 
Ice Dancer said:
Hypocrisy is you and other libs ignoring all the numerous ethics violations when it's not a conservative judge. The OP noted that the violation is not even serious...say like all the tax dodging done by members of congress and Obamas admin....and yet...uh-huh
Click to expand...

Right, it's not serious at all, like last years vote that corperations have the same rights as people, I don't suppose the Heritage Foundation supported that descision. Nope, no comflict of interest there. What you seem to be avoiding or oblivious of is the power of a supreme. This is not a cabinet member or one of 435 peons, but one of just nine who weild the power of the entire judicial branch. No matter how many times ypou try to ignorantly brush off this behavior as trivial, the fact remains that one of the most powerful jurists in the country is a liar.
 
Dune said:
Right, it's not serious at all, like last years vote that corperations have the same rights as people, I don't suppose the Heritage Foundation supported that descision. Nope, no comflict of interest there. What you seem to be avoiding or oblivious of is the power of a supreme. This is not a cabinet member or one of 435 peons, but one of just nine who weild the power of the entire judicial branch. No matter how many times ypou try to ignorantly brush off this behavior as trivial, the fact remains that one of the most powerful jurists in the country is a liar.
Click to expand...

Yeah like last years vote that not just corporations but UNIONS too are allowed first amendment rights...yeah that. Hummmm does Justice Thomas's wife work for a union???

And BTW dork-EVERYONE KNEW that Justice Thomas's wife worked at Heritage foundation...it was not secret.
 
Dune said:
Right, it's not serious at all, like last years vote that corperations have the same rights as people, I don't suppose the Heritage Foundation supported that descision. Nope, no comflict of interest there. What you seem to be avoiding or oblivious of is the power of a supreme. This is not a cabinet member or one of 435 peons, but one of just nine who weild the power of the entire judicial branch. No matter how many times ypou try to ignorantly brush off this behavior as trivial, the fact remains that one of the most powerful jurists in the country is a liar.
Click to expand...

prove he had a conflict of interest

i have no doubt that all the justices spouses have some friend or work or ties to someone who was affected by that decision, to single out thomas is nothing but pure hypocrisy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top