Clarence Thomas: It Ain't Over

Clarence Thomas: It Ain't Over

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) is turning up the heat on Justice Clarence Thomas based on new information that builds upon previous reports of his alleged ethical lapses.

In late September, Slaughter had sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States to request official action on Thomas' multiyear failure to disclose his wife's income from various conservative think tanks and activist organizations. The Judicial Conference is the principal policy-making and administrative body for the federal court system.

On Friday, Slaughter submitted a new letter, this time addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts in his capacity as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference, to update and clarify the September letter.

Noting in the new letter that the accurate filing continued through Thomas' tenure as a federal appeals court judge and his first five years as a Supreme Court justice, Slaughter wrote that "it is very difficult for Justice Thomas to make a credible argument that he understood the filing instructions for ten years but then misunderstood them for the next thirteen years."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 01854.html

Of course, if this were one of the Liberal judges, the right-wing would be on a screaming witchhunt... But since it's Thomas, it must be "lefty persecution"... Hum-bug... It's called tax-evasion, and I hope they bust his chops.

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached? Or been forced to resign?

One more reason to make sure Republicans win the Senate and Presidency.

It's about time that we did impeach and remove one....

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

So, maybe it's about time we impeached and removed a tax-evader.

One more reason to make sure Democrats KEEP the Senate and Presidency.

Why are you so excited about tax evasion? That's a resume enhancement for an Obama administration applicant.

LadyJazzer wrote: It's about time that we did impeach and remove one....

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

So, maybe it's about time we impeached and removed a tax-evader.

One more reason to make sure Democrats KEEP the Senate and Presidency.

You are such a hypocrite. You don't make a peep about all the tax evaders filling the Obama cabinet....but this interests you.
Come on...go after everyone.

Deflectors on Maximum, Scotty!

I'm no more selective than you guys...

LadyJazzer wrote:
I'm no more selective than you guys...

I disagree with that assessment. IMO your posts give lip service to dem corruption and salivate over repub corruption.

There are some of us who are angry at all corruption regardless of party. That is one reason why entrenched republicans fear the tea party.

You are free to disagree.... I disagree with YOUR assessment. There are just as many, if not more, here who give lip service to GOP corruption and salivate over dem corruption.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Clarence Thomas: It Ain't Over

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) is turning up the heat on Justice Clarence Thomas based on new information that builds upon previous reports of his alleged ethical lapses.

In late September, Slaughter had sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States to request official action on Thomas' multiyear failure to disclose his wife's income from various conservative think tanks and activist organizations. The Judicial Conference is the principal policy-making and administrative body for the federal court system.

On Friday, Slaughter submitted a new letter, this time addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts in his capacity as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference, to update and clarify the September letter.

Noting in the new letter that the accurate filing continued through Thomas' tenure as a federal appeals court judge and his first five years as a Supreme Court justice, Slaughter wrote that "it is very difficult for Justice Thomas to make a credible argument that he understood the filing instructions for ten years but then misunderstood them for the next thirteen years."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 01854.html

Of course, if this were one of the Liberal judges, the right-wing would be on a screaming witchhunt... But since it's Thomas, it must be "lefty persecution"... Hum-bug... It's called tax-evasion, and I hope they bust his chops.

My understanding is he failed to disclose his wife's income on a disclosure form. I haven't seen anything that they (or she) failed to pay taxes on her income.

A disclosure of income has nothing to do with paying taxes. It's used to see if you have income from parties which may be part of a case before the court and to see if there may be a conflict of interest.

If Thomas did deliberately avoid paying taxes I think he should be impeached. Failing to disclose is less an offense, IMO, but I could see it going either way.

Let's face it, this is all coming up again because of the health care bill going before the court. I doubt there would be time to impeach him in time anyway.

But you could make a case that he should recuse himself from the case (not that you can force him to) due to whatever lobbying his wife might of done (if she did any).

Here is more info on this from last January...

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/22/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122

Based on the above, it doesn't sound like an impeachable offense to me. From what I've read the constitutional standard for impeaching a judge is similar to impeaching a President. Does anyone see something that meets such a standard?