PDA

View Full Version : "retroactive recusal"



Qtec
10-06-2011, 01:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rep. Louis Slaughter (D-NY) told Current TV's Keith Olbermann Tuesday that a "retroactive recusal" of Justice Clarence Thomas <span style='font-size: 14pt'>could result in overturning the Citizens United case.</span>

Earlier this year, the liberal group Common Cause argued that both Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case because <span style='font-size: 14pt'>they attended events organized billionaire Charles Koch.</span>

In addition, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, may have received financial benefit from the Citizens United ruling, something that was never disclosed by the justice.</span>

Twenty House Democrats Thursday called on the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate Justice Clarence Thomas's non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Justice Thomas indicated on his annual financial disclosure forms that his wife had received no income since he joined the bench in 1991, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007.</span> </div></div>

link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/rep-slaughter-calls-retroactive-recusal-just)




They should arrest him, call him 'an enemy of the State' and waterboard him.

The guy doesn't have enough integrity to be a bingo caller.

Q

LWW
10-06-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They should arrest him, call him 'an enemy of the State' and waterboard him.

Q </div></div>

The true snoopy.

Qtec
10-06-2011, 04:10 AM
I am not partisan. On some things, I actually agree with you.

Now that waterboarding is just 'hazing', why shouldn't the Gov extend its use?

First up should be Dick Cheney. Then Karl Rove.

Oh boy, what a tale they could tell.


Qs

Qtec
10-06-2011, 04:14 AM
How about a simple lie detector test?

No pain involved! If Rick Scott wants to drug test SS or UE benefit applicants, why not ensure that the highest court in the land - who are also receiving tax payer money - is not corrupt?

Against that are you????


Q

LWW
10-06-2011, 04:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not partisan.


Qs </div></div>

See ... you do have a sense of humor.

Gayle in MD
10-06-2011, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about a simple lie detector test?

No pain involved! If Rick Scott wants to drug test SS or UE benefit applicants, why not ensure that the highest court in the land - who are also receiving tax payer money - is not corrupt?

Against that are you????


Q </div></div>

Thomas AND Scalia, should be impeached, and that finding should be overturned.

Rick Scott should have to take a drug test. He's on the same stuff that Bachmannn is on. Those eyes are creepy.

The protestors should leave Wall St. in December, and set up on the steps of the Supreme Court, where the core RW fascist Government of the Reagan-Bush-Bush-repiglican-Fascist Shock Doctrine, was legalized, and set into stone.

Waterbooarding would be too easy on them. We should put them on a 1600 calorie daily diet for six months, if we really want to torture them. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Pigs at the trough, protecting pigs at the trough.
G.

eg8r
10-06-2011, 07:55 AM
If there was a real way to find out if they were telling the truth then sure give them a lie detector test. I have no problem making sure the people who are there to uphold the laws are not liars. I personally think that if a person ever has any political affliation or receives money a lobbyist then they should be taken out of the running.

The problem with all of this is neither side is really interested in getting honest people in there. They just want to pick the guy that most closely resembles the direction they want to take the country. Since that is the game I sure hope every conservative on the Supreme Court stays until we get a Conservative President in the WH.

As far as Rick Scott testing UE applicants, that is a fantastic idea.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-06-2011, 09:35 AM
At a minimum, let him be the poster boy for the reform of judicial ethics to apply fully to the Supreme Court justices.

As it stands now, every federal judge is bound by a canon of ethics and comportment, and it is the same for judges at all federal levels, except for the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS has NO ethical canon they must abide by. It is sometimes the case that justices, some of whom were federal judges before being appointed to the high court, voluntarily comport themselves according to the ethics rules that used to apply to them.

They all should, and it should not be optional.

This would eliminate such apparent conflicts of interest (which are disallowed at the lower federal judicial levels) as having sitting justices serve as fundraising persons for various causes (rw causes are the ones I've seen, but I'll say they shouldn't do political endorsing or fundraising for the leftward side of things either), or having Scalia going on hunting trips with Cheney or whatever he did.

A 'retroactive recusal' is a pipedream, imo. He's not going to do even a prospective recusal unless forced to (going forward), and basically, you need the reform of SCOTUS ethics canons (since they have NONE) to be able to force it even going forward. And then when it would be done (and it won't be, I predict), it would not be retroactive.

At this point, I think only legal action will have any effect on the lifetime appointee Justice [sic] Thomas, but the ethics in government act carries no criminal penalty, iirc.

Gayle in MD
10-06-2011, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At a minimum, let him be the poster boy for the reform of judicial ethics to apply fully to the Supreme Court justices.

As it stands now, every federal judge is bound by a canon of ethics and comportment, and it is the same for judges at all federal levels, except for the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS has NO ethical canon they must abide by. It is sometimes the case that justices, some of whom were federal judges before being appointed to the high court, voluntarily comport themselves according to the ethics rules that used to apply to them.

They all should, and it should not be optional.

This would eliminate such apparent conflicts of interest (which are disallowed at the lower federal judicial levels) as having sitting justices serve as fundraising persons for various causes (rw causes are the ones I've seen, but I'll say they shouldn't do political endorsing or fundraising for the leftward side of things either), or having Scalia going on hunting trips with Cheney or whatever he did.

A 'retroactive recusal' is a pipedream, imo. He's not going to do even a prospective recusal unless forced to (going forward), and basically, you need the reform of SCOTUS ethics canons (since they have NONE) to be able to force it even going forward. And then when it would be done (and it won't be, I predict), it would not be retroactive.

At this point, I think only legal action will have any effect on the lifetime appointee Justice [sic] Thomas, but the ethics in government act carries no criminal penalty, iirc.



</div></div>

OMG! Say it isn't so!!!

You mean to tell me that there is no way to impeach a Supreme Court Justice?

WOW, thanks for the info, friend. I never knew that.

G.

Soflasnapper
10-06-2011, 01:13 PM
It isn't so. Sorry to have made that impression.

Impeachment does exist for SCOTUS justices, and is a remedy available. However, doing these sleazy things that are forbidden to all other federal judges are NOT impeachable actions. I don't think violating a non-criminal law is, either.

Generally, SCOTUS justices have historically been impeached (rarely, but when it happens) for proven criminal actions, after they are found guilty on those criminal charges by trial. Alcee Hastings was a rarity, in that he was found not guilty at trial, and yet still impeached and convicted of those same serious charges (bribery, perjury, conspiracy).

What SHOULD be an impeachable offense, in my view, is perjury in the confirmation hearing, of which Thomas was guilty. However, even THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, since impeachment is for the absence of 'good behavior' once installed on that court.

Thomas is a most disgraced justice, but one who remains untouchable, even by the impeachment process, under guiding precedents.

The only chance is to take what then-Minority Leader Gerald Ford's position claimed to be true, that an impeachable offense is anything that a majority of the House is willing to vote it to be. (Said during the boomlet for impeaching Chief Justice Earl Warren.) I disagree with that very low bar, however, and think impeachment ought to have actual parameters set in law.

Gayle in MD
10-06-2011, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It isn't so. Sorry to have made that impression.

Impeachment does exist for SCOTUS justices, and is a remedy available. However, doing these sleazy things that are forbidden to all other federal judges are NOT impeachable actions. I don't think violating a non-criminal law is, either.

Generally, SCOTUS justices have historically been impeached (rarely, but when it happens) for proven criminal actions, after they are found guilty on those criminal charges by trial. Alcee Hastings was a rarity, in that he was found not guilty at trial, and yet still impeached and convicted of those same serious charges (bribery, perjury, conspiracy).

What SHOULD be an impeachable offense, in my view, is perjury in the confirmation hearing, of which Thomas was guilty. However, even THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, since impeachment is for the absence of 'good behavior' once installed on that court.

Thomas is a most disgraced justice, but one who remains untouchable, even by the impeachment process, under guiding precedents.

The only chance is to take what then-Minority Leader Gerald Ford's position claimed to be true, that an impeachable offense is anything that a majority of the House is willing to vote it to be. (Said during the boomlet for impeaching Chief Justice Earl Warren.) I disagree with that very low bar, however, and think impeachment ought to have actual parameters set in law. </div></div>

I've been wondering about this, and you can probably enlighten me.

Since Thomas lied about his wife's income on the annual official inquiry that S.C. Justices have to fill out, has anyone looked into whether he, or she, lied on their income taxes, as well?

I don't even know if SCJ's have to file Income Taxes....I would imagine they do.

And also, why isn't lying on a Federal Form, IOW, the SCJ annual income inquiry, a Federal Offense?

G.

eg8r
10-06-2011, 02:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since Thomas lied about his wife's income on the annual official inquiry that S.C. Justices have to fill out, has anyone looked into whether he, or she, lied on their income taxes, as well?
</div></div>While I wouldn't have any problem with an investigation of this sort I believe the current administration has already set a specific precedent if this turned out to be true. All he would have to do is pay the difference and continue in his current position.

eg8r

LWW
10-06-2011, 05:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It isn't so. Sorry to have made that impression.

Impeachment does exist for SCOTUS justices, and is a remedy available. However, doing these sleazy things that are forbidden to all other federal judges are NOT impeachable actions. I don't think violating a non-criminal law is, either.

Generally, SCOTUS justices have historically been impeached (rarely, but when it happens) for proven criminal actions, after they are found guilty on those criminal charges by trial. Alcee Hastings was a rarity, in that he was found not guilty at trial, and yet still impeached and convicted of those same serious charges (bribery, perjury, conspiracy).

What SHOULD be an impeachable offense, in my view, is perjury in the confirmation hearing, of which Thomas was guilty. However, even THAT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, since impeachment is for the absence of 'good behavior' once installed on that court.

Thomas is a most disgraced justice, but one who remains untouchable, even by the impeachment process, under guiding precedents.

The only chance is to take what then-Minority Leader Gerald Ford's position claimed to be true, that an impeachable offense is anything that a majority of the House is willing to vote it to be. (Said during the boomlet for impeaching Chief Justice Earl Warren.) I disagree with that very low bar, however, and think impeachment ought to have actual parameters set in law. </div></div>

I've been wondering about this, and you can probably enlighten me.

Since Thomas lied about his wife's income on the annual official inquiry that S.C. Justices have to fill out, has anyone looked into whether he, or she, lied on their income taxes, as well?

I don't even know if SCJ's have to file Income Taxes....I would imagine they do.

And also, why isn't lying on a Federal Form, IOW, the SCJ annual income inquiry, a Federal Offense?

G.

</div></div>

Thanks for pointing out how clueless you are.

He had no obligation to point out how much her income was at all to anyone other than the IRS.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 03:25 PM
Yes, SCOTUS justices owe federal income taxes on their government salaries, as all federal employees do.

Assuming perhaps the Thomas family files married, but separately, then SHE would have to disclose the income on HER return, but it wouldn't then be shown on HIS return. (I know of no charge that there was underpayment of federal income taxes due, at this time.)

Contrary to LWW's claim, there is a requirement under law that Justice Thomas disclose his spouse's income on his mandatory filing required under the Ethics in Government Act (or some such named law).

However, that law does not provide for criminal sanctions or penalties for breaking that law. (Don't ask me why not, I have no idea!)

LWW
10-07-2011, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Contrary to LWW's claim, there is a requirement under law that Justice Thomas disclose his spouse's income on his mandatory filing required under the Ethics in Government Act (or some such named law). </div></div>

Obviously you still haven't signed up for an internet that uses the google.

There is no such requirement ... although the electronic lynching left has word-smithed their story to lead the naive to believe that there is.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 04:45 PM
There is a technical reason that you are right, I admit it.

(I knew this back the last time it arose as an issue, but had forgotten it in the meantime.)

I now will amend my prior statement with one word, which will make it entirely accurate:

Contrary to LWW's claim, there is a requirement under law that Justice Thomas disclose his spouse's income <u>sources</u> on his mandatory filing required under the Ethics in Government Act (or some such named law).

There we go.

It's indeed a requirement under law that he list his spouse's employers (her sources of income from employment), if any.

He did violate this law, by pretending and falsely stating on the form 'none,' when she had employment, and income from that employment, that was first stated at $750,000, went to an admitted figure north of $850,000, and is now stated at $1.5 million or something like that, over a period of years during which he did not disclose she had ANY employer(s).

LWW
10-08-2011, 02:20 AM
Congratulations on learning something on your own.

Gayle in MD
10-08-2011, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a technical reason that you are right, I admit it.

(I knew this back the last time it arose as an issue, but had forgotten it in the meantime.)

I now will amend my prior statement with one word, which will make it entirely accurate:

Contrary to LWW's claim, there is a requirement under law that Justice Thomas disclose his spouse's income <u>sources</u> on his mandatory filing required under the Ethics in Government Act (or some such named law).

There we go.

It's indeed a requirement under law that he list his spouse's employers (her sources of income from employment), if any.

He did violate this law, by pretending and falsely stating on the form 'none,' when she had employment, and income from that employment, that was first stated at $750,000, went to an admitted figure north of $850,000, and is now stated at $1.5 million or something like that, over a period of years during which he did not disclose she had ANY employer(s). </div></div>

Unless one was a bottle fed, partisan, nitpicking internet twit, anyone would have understood your original correct answer, perfectly.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif