PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas



Qtec
02-17-2011, 12:26 AM
In 5 years he has never uttered a word in court, never asked a question..but his wife has been busy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seventy-four House Democrats, led by New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas Wednesday calling on him to sit out deliberations on the Affordable Care Act because of his wife's ties to a lobbying group that opposes the health care law.

"The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law," the letter said. "From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred."

Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, founded the conservative group Liberty Central, but stepped down in December amid controversy over a memo under her name calling for the repeal of the "unconstitutional law."

The group, which later took down the memo from its site, blamed staff error </div></div>

It gets better......... link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx6ot4I1iQ)

His wife worked for Dick [ the only good Dem is a dead Dem ] Armey, the Heritage Foundation and lobbied against HC reform. link (http://www.youtube.com/user/VRAdmin#p/u/5/woG_Vhm1LuE)

It gets better still. Remember the controversial Citizens United case. Turns out.... watch it (http://www.youtube.com/user/VRAdmin#p/u/0/fJX7CPPiBjk)

Q

Gayle in MD
02-17-2011, 01:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 5 years he has never uttered a word in court, never asked a question..but his wife has been busy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seventy-four House Democrats, led by New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas Wednesday calling on him to sit out deliberations on the Affordable Care Act because of his wife's ties to a lobbying group that opposes the health care law.

"The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law," the letter said. "From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred."

Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, founded the conservative group Liberty Central, but stepped down in December amid controversy over a memo under her name calling for the repeal of the "unconstitutional law."

The group, which later took down the memo from its site, blamed staff error </div></div>

It gets better......... link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx6ot4I1iQ)

His wife worked for Dick [ the only good Dem is a dead Dem ] Armey, the Heritage Foundation and lobbied against HC reform. link (http://www.youtube.com/user/VRAdmin#p/u/5/woG_Vhm1LuE)

It gets better still. Remember the controversial Citizens United case. Turns out.... watch it (http://www.youtube.com/user/VRAdmin#p/u/0/fJX7CPPiBjk)

Q

</div></div>

He attended a political strategy and fund raising, closed door session with Koch Industries.

Between that, and hiding his Wife's income, he should be impeached.

G.

LWW
02-17-2011, 04:51 AM
So when Clinton hid Hillary's income he should have been impeached?

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 05:26 AM
No comment then.

Q

LWW
02-17-2011, 05:32 AM
Are you illiterate?

I'm trying to fathom ... which is getting ever more difficult ... where the rant queen is coming from?

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 05:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you illiterate?

I'm trying to fathom ... which is getting ever more difficult ... where the rant queen is coming from?

LWW </div></div>

Are you stupid?

Where in my post do I mention Hillary Clinton?

Everyone can see you are trying to change the subject. You don't want to know how corrupt CT is because he is a Republican judge.



Q

Gayle in MD
02-17-2011, 06:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you illiterate?

I'm trying to fathom ... which is getting ever more difficult ... where the rant queen is coming from?

LWW </div></div>

Are you stupid?

Where in my post do I mention Hillary Clinton?

Everyone can see you are trying to change the subject. You don't want to know how corrupt CT is because he is a Republican judge.



Q </div></div>


Exactly! He'd much prefer to continue with his personal attacks, than address any of your excellent points, because he can't debate, period. He has to assuage his addictions to cyberstalking.

What a waste!

G.

LWW
02-17-2011, 06:15 AM
You didn't, I did ... and I was asking Gee and not you.

Pay attention bro.

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 06:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You didn't, I did ... and I was asking Gee and not you.

Pay attention bro.

LWW </div></div>

So where did g mention Hillary? I don't see it. help me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He attended a political strategy and fund raising, closed door session with Koch Industries.

Between that, and hiding his Wife's income, he should be impeached.

G </div></div>

Keep digging Dorothy.

Q

LWW
02-17-2011, 06:22 AM
I thought her name was Gayle?

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 06:24 AM
Correct.

First time today.

Q..well done.

eg8r
02-17-2011, 01:40 PM
Why you think this is a conflict of interest but Feinstein's husband who owned a couple defense company's, was getting cherry deals from his wife, isn't?

eg8r

eg8r
02-17-2011, 01:42 PM
Yep, changing the subject is needed to show your hypocrisy. The rant queen was not a reference to you I am sure. You are the copy/paste queen. The rant queen has earned her title and you should not try to take it away. Now, she went off half cocked once again and lww tried to show her hypocrisy. You have to admit, it is a lot of work keeping up with how many times the two of you jump back and forth over the fence depending on which political party is the subject.

eg8r

eg8r
02-17-2011, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So where did g mention Hillary? I don't see it. help me.
</div></div>Are you stupid or what? lww said he was the person that mentioned Hillary. He was asking the gayle (NOT YOU) a question of her hypocrisy.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-17-2011, 01:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when Clinton hid Hillary's income he should have been impeached?

LWW </div></div>

I'm not aware that Bill hid Hill's income, and I'm quite conversant with almost any alleged scandal concerning those two. What are you referring to? That she worked for the Rose Law Firm? (always a public fact in evidence, not hidden).

Regardless, the answer would be no.

The standard for impeaching a president and a federal judge of any stripe is quite different, pace Coulter's very weak arguments to the contrary in her book.

Federal judges enjoy a life tenure on the bench only 'during good behavior.' Bad behavior has been defined by precedents of why various judges have been impeached, and it involves things as low-end as personal bad behavior. So, constructively lying for years and failing to disclose as is required his wife's large income of nearly $700,000 can easily qualify as an impeachable offense.

A president is not in for a life tenure (after the FDR amendment, anyway), but 2 terms max, and a president is not appointed, but elected by the entire country (usually, cough). The grounds for impeaching a president don't involve any measure of 'good behavior,' but rather evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors against the state involving the unique powers of the presidency.

LWW
02-17-2011, 06:01 PM
Every POTUS until Billy Jeff offered up joint tax returns and financial statements.

The Clintons refused.

Although this was within the letter of the law it certainly was outside the spirit of the law, and certainly was in violation of a promise to provide the most ethical regime in history.

Now. I'll give them a pass on that as it was within the letter of the law. The left's hypocrisy comes in when they ... as always ... attempt to hold a conservative to a higher standard.

OH DEAR! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3165953&page=1)

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-17-2011, 06:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every POTUS until Billy Jeff offered up joint tax returns and financial statements.

The Clintons refused.

Although this was within the letter of the law it certainly was outside the spirit of the law, and certainly was in violation of a promise to provide the most ethical regime in history.

Now. I'll give them a pass on that as it was within the letter of the law. The left's hypocrisy comes in when they ... as always ... attempt to hold a conservative to a higher standard.

LWW </div></div>

I recall disclosures of their income tax statements. Do you mean their PRIOR years' income tax or financials, prior to reaching the Oval Office?

LWW
02-17-2011, 06:21 PM
Click the link.

LWW

Qtec
02-17-2011, 08:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So where did g mention Hillary? I don't see it. help me.
</div></div>Are you stupid or what? lww said he was the person that mentioned Hillary. He was asking the gayle (NOT YOU) a question of her hypocrisy.

eg8r </div></div>

Duh.....my question was, why bring Hillary into this.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when Clinton <u>hid Hillary's income</u> he should have been impeached?

LWW </div></div>

Did he hide it? No.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Full Disclosure Not Required</span>

The candidates who keep their returns private generally note they are complying with all federal regulations with regard to financial disclosures.

The candidates are required to submit standard financial disclosure forms -- due next week -- similar to those filed by all members of Congress, stating their income sources and investment holdings in broad financial categories. </div></div>

Did CT break the law?

Quote soflasnapper,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, constructively <u>lying for years and failing to disclose as is required</u> his wife's large income of nearly $700,000 can easily qualify as an impeachable offense. </div></div>

There is no comparison between the two situations. As usual LWW ignored the post and tried to change the subject and I called him on it.

Q

Soflasnapper
02-18-2011, 02:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Click the link.

LWW </div></div>

Thanks, missed it. Clinton refused to honor non-binding custom and release anything. As a candidate for office, not an office-holder. With no requirement to report under ethics rules or law of any kind, as you rightly say.

Clarence Thomas holds a seat on the highest court of the land enjoying life tenure under good behavior (and the opposite when not). He is required to file financial disclosure reports by a law. There is a line there for spousal income. He has filed false reports on that line for 20 years, now amounting to nearly $700,000.

This fact pattern would be ample cause for tax evasion charges, if these were 20 1040s omitting this income. But I'm sure he's reported all income and paid his taxes correctly. Meaning he's very well aware that his wife has income, under his signature.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...[I]t’s hard to comprehend, and unsettling to consider, how a justice on our highest court could misread the ethics act and fail to make the annual disclosures it requires of income earned by his spouse. And not just once, but for 20 years in a row.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declared Monday that he “inadvertently omitted” his wife’s income from his disclosure forms for 1989-2009; he failed to report Virginia “Ginni” Thomas’s earnings because of a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions,” the justice explained.[...]

[...]

The disclosure form demands only that each judge reveal “the source of items of earned income earned by a spouse.” There is no requirement for disclosure of the spouse’s actual income or for the identity of anyone who paid the spouse less than $1,000.

The form has an important purpose. The annual disclosures are the only practical mechanism available to the public or to litigants with cases before the high court for monitoring potential conflicts of interest by the justices. If a justice’s husband or wife is drawing substantial income from someone with a pending case, other parties to the case should have an opportunity to seek the justice’s recusal.

Justice Thomas’ colleagues on the Supreme Court have had no trouble with the form; they routinely report spousal income. And both Justice Thomas and his colleagues have staffs of bright young lawyers – who also help them research and analyze far more complex legal and Constitutional issues – to help make sure they get it right.

All this makes Justice Thomas’ mistake more puzzling and more troubling. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[...]I'm amazed Mr. Edgar would have the gaul to post this wanna-be hit piece. Maybe Justice Thomas was too busy defending himself against 9 year old unsubstantiated charges of insignificant violations that the Democrats, in day-after-day of television theatrics, tried unsuccessfully to inflate into grounds to block his appointment. Maybe he was distracted by Democrats calling him "dumb" and making jokes that showed that his race was part of what they were targeting. I consider Justice Thomas to be one of the outstanding Justices of our lifetimes and those who try to make slander out of nothings are his opposite. BY Edwin Loftus on 01/26/2011 at 11:42</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The financial disclosure form clearly states that falsely filling it out is subject to criminal and civil punishment. Clarence Thomas falsely checked off "none" regarding his wife's income for at least six years.

I want to know why it took a watchdog group to catch this and not Chief Justice John Roberts. He IS leading the Supreme Court, is he not??? BY Beth C. on 02/01/2011 at 14:59</div></div>

From The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/140305-the-questionable-ethics-standard-of-clarence-thomas)

Qtec
02-18-2011, 03:38 AM
Lets not forget that he sat on the Citizens United case when they had ran adds that helped him get confirmed.

Q...... link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJX7CPPiBjk)

I read somewhere that if its proved there was a conflict of interest the CU case, it could be annulled.

LWW
02-18-2011, 05:03 AM
How did it help him get elected when SCOTUS Justices are never subject to election?

Do you ever think at all?

LWW

Qtec
02-18-2011, 05:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did it help him get elected when SCOTUS Justices are never subject to election?

Do you ever think at all?

LWW </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Did I say he got elected <u>or did you just make that up?</u></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they had ran adds that helped him get confirmed.

Q...... link </div></div>

Why do you lie when its so easy to show you are lying?



Q

LWW
02-18-2011, 05:40 AM
1 - You changed it within the forum's parameters, and you know it.

2 - It's irrelevant as TV ads to the populace may sway public opinion but the public has no vote.

Flop around some more for us.

LWW

Qtec
02-18-2011, 05:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - You changed it within the forum's parameters, and you know it.

2 - It's irrelevant as TV ads to the populace may sway public opinion but the public has no vote.

Flop around some more for us.

LWW </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> *
*
* 0diggsdigg

Washington-area television viewers were startled last week to see three familiar senatorial faces pop up on their screens above the words WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGE? The follow-up question -- "How many of these liberal Democrats could themselves pass ethical scrutiny?" -- was hardly necessary, since the faces were those of Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden and Alan Cranston, all scarred veterans of highly publicized scandals, from Chappaquiddick to plagiarized speeches to the Keating Five.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The ad, produced by two independent right-wing groups, was intended to bolster Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas' confirmation chances by pointing the finger at three liberal Democrats who seemed likely to oppose him.</span> Not coincidentally, the ad was produced by the same people who launched the 1988 Willie Horton spot that branded Michael Dukakis soft on crime but left George Bush open to charges of racism. Anxious not to be associated with such negative campaigning this time around, Bush quickly labeled the attacks on the Senators "counterproductive." Thomas pronounced them "vicious." His chief Senate supporter, Missouri Republican John Danforth, called them "sleazy" and "scurrilous."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Although Bush and chief of staff John Sununu demanded that the ads be - pulled, their right-wing sponsors -- L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Conservative Victory Committee, and Floyd Brown, chairman of Citizens United -- refused. Calling the campaign a "pre-emptive strike" </span>to counter anticipated anti-Thomas commercials, as well as retaliation for the 1987 spots that helped defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, they vowed to keep running the messages for at least two weeks "until the left agrees to discontinue all its efforts against Judge Thomas." Thus far, that has been a mostly fitful effort at best, but Brown and Bozell appeared to see the flag of revolution rising above it. "Unfortunately," the two men declared in a written statement, "the Administration has no desire to confront the radical left."

The commercials, shown only in Washington at a cost of about $100,000, have reaped millions of dollars' worth of free publicity through network television and print-media reproductions that have accompanied news stories about the flap. That probably was the intent all along.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973826,00.html#ixzz1EJJJMKZL
</div></div>

Q

LWW
02-18-2011, 06:09 AM
That's an extreme stretch ... but, just for kicks, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>why didn't you also denounce the same type ads mentioned in your link that targeted Robert Bork?</span>

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-18-2011, 05:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
2 - It's irrelevant as TV ads to the populace may sway public opinion but the public has no vote.

</div></div>

In the case of Thomas, it made a lot of difference. For the Democrats still had senators from the south, whose elections were made possible by support from blacks. It was mainly those southern Democratic senators who proved the margin of difference in the tightest confirmation vote in over 100 years, and they had heard an earful from their black constituents about putting the brother on the high court bench.

LWW
02-18-2011, 05:44 PM
Don't you find it odd that the democrooks fought so hard against the only two brothers ever nominated ... yet put a Klansman on the court?

LWW

Qtec
02-18-2011, 06:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's an extreme stretch ... </div></div>

No it isn't.
Citizens united ran attack ads that helped him be confirmed.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>That's a FACT.</span>

he ruled on a case that citizens United brought before the Supreme court, that's a fact also.

There was a clear conflict of interest, especially considering what his wife does for a living.

Q

LWW
02-19-2011, 04:34 AM
Why didn't you answer the part that was an actual question?

Actually ... you don't need to as the answer is obvious.

You support the use of the media to crush your political opposition with lies, half truths, and innuendo but oppose it being used by your opposition to present their side.

Thugocracies depend upon having tools like you to build the thugocracy with.

LWW

Qtec
02-19-2011, 04:57 AM
1. I have never heard of Robert Bork?

2. What does he have to do with CT's lack of ethics?

The thread is about CT and his lobbyist wife, any comment on that?

Q

LWW
02-19-2011, 05:47 AM
I didn't ask if you knew who he was, because if it wasn't on the spoon for you you wouldn't know.

I asked why you are OK when the left uses the same tactic you deplore ... except far more viciously.

BTW ... Bork was nominated for the SCOTUS by Reagan and the left went into a fit of apoplectic horror because he was actually a conservative judge. Their stated reason for opposing him was because he confessed to having smoked pot while in college.

Now, answer the question dawg ... even though we already know the answer.

LWW