Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1 Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says 
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,117
    Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms.
    January 22, 2011|By Kim Geiger, Washington Bureau
    Reporting from Washington Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

    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.A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday. But Virginia Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time.

    Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization 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 contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.

    Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas' omission which could be interpreted as a violation of that law could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said.

    "It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission," Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight."

    But Steven Lubet, an expert on judicial ethics at Northwestern University School of Law, said such an infraction was unlikely to result in a penalty. Although unfamiliar with the complaint about Thomas' forms, Lubet said failure to disclose spousal income "is not a crime of any sort, but there is a potential civil penalty" for failing to follow the rules. He added: "I am not aware of a single case of a judge being penalized simply for this."

    The Supreme Court is "the only judicial body in the country that is not governed by a set of judicial ethical rules," Gillers said.

    A spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which oversees the financial disclosures, could not be reached Friday night to comment on what actions could be taken. In most cases, judges simply amend their forms when an error is discovered.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan...osure-20110122
    I heard about this on Quinn and Rose Friday, the left thinks they could use this to remove Thomas from the court.
    Watch this one, it could sneak up on us. Franklin Roosevelt played dirty pool with the court also.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,117
    Here is some Humpington Post drivel about it.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morris..._b_821133.html
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Something does not smell right here. The article does not say she did not pay federal income taxes. It may just be a disclosure omission.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,117
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Something does not smell right here. The article does not say she did not pay federal income taxes. It may just be a disclosure omission.
    That is what it is, a disclosure omission but the word on the street is that the libs are going to blow this out of proportion.
    Last edited by Rockntractor; 02-14-2011 at 01:37 AM.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    That is what it is, a disclosure omission but the word on the street is that the libs are going to blow this out of proportion.
    Big difference between a disclosure omission and die in the wool Democratic TAX CHEATS like Geithner, Rangel and cold cash Jefferson.

    The tax code lingo is so f...d up. Why did the form just indicate income rather than non investment income? Income is income.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,805
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Something does not smell right here. The article does not say she did not pay federal income taxes. It may just be a disclosure omission.
    It all has to do with the expected upcoming SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare. From Real Time with Bill Maher. They are discussing this exact thing last week:

    MAHER: No, but to me, to me this is, I mean this borders on corruption.

    WEINER: Well he, I gotta tell you this, he should definitely recuse himself from any decision about the healthcare plan, because hes clearly in the tank.

    MAHER: His wife wrote an editorial called, I mean, shes extremely political, called "ObamaCare Unconstitutional." And her husband is one of nine people whos going to vote on it.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz1DuqlPDS4

    Heritage Foundation is working hard against Obama Care. Justice Thomas' wife works for Heritage and makes a tidy sum for it. So they are going to use that to try and get him removed from hearing the case which means a 4-4 tie or that Justice Kennedy sees which way the wind is blowing and goes 4-3 with the Liberal justices in saying it's legit legislation.

    Once again the Libtards prove that everything they do is about politics and nothing else.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    And will the lesbian recuse herself from the case as well since she was part of the justice department pushing for it?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,586
    It's no big deal because she paid her taxes on the money.

    If the dems can prove that her work for the Heritage Foundation will somehow effect Justice Thomas' ruling on the health care issue, then he should recuse himself. But that's really a pretty big stretch to make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,805
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    And will the lesbian recuse herself from the case as well since she was part of the justice department pushing for it?
    Don't be silly! Don't you know that those rules are only for non-Liberals?
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Thomas is just following DIMoRAT precedent. Rangel and Geitner are his mentors regarding IRS information.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •