Clarence Thomas ethics violation?

I think it was wrong of him to do it.....he should be censured by the Supreme Court who will thereafter give him an opportunity to say it's all bullshit and then give him a standing ovation......
 
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...

"Non-disclosure?"

I guess Supreme Court justices are permitted a different ethical standard, eh, yurt?
 
Yurt said:
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?
Click to expand...

He was supposed to report his wife's income, she's a consultant with the Heritage Foundation and the founder/president of Liberty Central. Ergo, her income must be reported. He lied. See bolded sentence.

"As reported in the Los Angeles Times, Justice Thomas has failed for years to report his wife’s income of the required financial disclosure statements that Supreme Court justices must file. Between 2003 and 2007 Virginia Thomas was paid $686,589 by the Heritage Foundation while Justice Thomas was checking off the “none” box for “spousal non-investment income” on is disclosure statements. He also claimed she received no income from the group Liberty Central for 2009."

http://lezgetreal.com/2011/01/justice-thomas’-ethics-problems-mount/
 
christiefan915 said:
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
Click to expand...
If this is true, that his wife was payed by a PAC, would not this sort of unethical conflict of interest, bordering on bribery, be an impeachable offense?
 
Ice Dancer said:
This is just another finger pointing hypocritical BS thread from a partisan libtard~

Judges fail to fully comply with financial disclosure rules Dozens 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."
Click to expand...

.
 
you idiots crack me up. nothing but hacks on both sides.

you realize that nearly every single elected representative and federal judge is laughing their asses off at you right now, right? except for maybe ms. giffords.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you idiots crack me up. nothing but hacks on both sides.

you realize that nearly every single elected representative and federal judge is laughing their asses off at you right now, right? except for maybe ms. giffords.
Click to expand...

Well, that was a very enlightening post. Thanks for the info.

Of course, what's truly humerous is you thinking any judge or rep is reading this.
 
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...


Aaaaaand here we go...

Four posts in and the very same people who screamed to high heaven about all the "tax cheats" in the Obama administration just dismissing this.
 
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...


Like I just said...
 
Yurt said:
:palm:

this is truly an ignorant statement, not only do the large unions have a large sum of wealth, they have strong control over voters, in that, they can swing a huge portion of a voting block either through intimidation or simply propaganda

unions are on equal footing, if not a stronger footing, when it comes to the power to effect an election

its absurd to deny that
Click to expand...

yeah...unions are on equal footing because 11% of the workforce belongs to a union.

That's a mighty big chunk of the voting block they have control over, wouldn't ya say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top