Thomas Says He Erred on Disclosure

[deminks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25thomas.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes

Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures listing Mrs. Thomas’s employment in that time with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, and Hillsdale College in Michigan, for which she ran a constitutional law center in Washington.

(snip)

The additional filings released by the court on Monday regarding Mrs. Thomas’s employment put Justice Thomas in the odd position of issuing two formal statements in five days about his personal dealings.

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.”

As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”

(end snip)

He is either dumb as a post, or dumb as a post.

[wilt the stilt]

1. He doesn't hear anything

he has his ipod on. He just asks Scalia how to vote

[Tansy_Gold]

2. So, does this mean Clarence actually prepares his own tax returns?

And/or disclosure statements?

[madinmaryland]

3. "nadvertently". BULLSHIT!

[Lint Head]

4. LIAR!

[Bonobo]

5. What? He didn't know that all income must be declared?

Impeach him.

He is a scofflaw.

[valerief]

6. Still a lying sack of shit, isn't he? nt

[golddigger]

7. I say he is dumber than a post.

[my2sense]

8. How much of this nonsense will be allowed?

At what point does will impeachment be on the table for gov't employees that are of the conservative persuasion?

[notesdev]

14. With Geithner at Treasury?

probably not possible to prosecute anyone successfully under these circumstances

[msanthrope]

17. Why would Geithner or Treasury have anything to do with this? n/t

[dsc]

19. he pretty much used the same excuse to justify evading taxes

and it was just as lame then.

[msanthrope]

20. Yeah, but you do realize that Justice Thomas hasn't evaded taxes, right?

He didn't disclose them on judicial disclosure forms.


Which should carry it's own penalty, but neither Geithner nor Treasury have fuck-all to do with this.

I mean, let's go after Thomas, but coherence and accuracy count....

[dsc]

23. actually what Geitner did was worse

While I am not enamoured with what Thomas did, the fact is, we know how he is going to rule with or without the disclosure. On the other hand, Geithner robbed poor people of medical care by what he did.

[notesdev]

24. Not only that but...

a) he is an economist by profession and as a result has little excuse not to have understood his obligation
b) as Treasury Sec the IRS now reports to him!

[Kolesar]

9. delete

[abelenkpe]

10. Can we just impeach him now?

I mean really....he lied.

[yellowcanine]

11. If this were a liberal justice House Repubs would be talking impeachment.

[annm4peace]

12. It is against the law to fail to disclose income

besides being unethical it is also illegally.

It was that she had a job. she had a job that could influence his vote.

[gratuitous]

22. But, but, but, the law's complicated!

You can't expect Clarence Thomas to know every little detail about all those nit-picking laws! Why, he'd have to be some kind of super looking up legal stuff kind of person! I don't even know what you'd call it.

[tavalon]

13. Does he even know what that word means?

Dumb as a post.

[pacalo]

15. I'm tired of these damn excuses for breaking laws & ethics boundaries! You're fired, Thomas!

And stop laughing, Scalia. You'll be accompanying him out the door. Now. I'll have Security pack up your things & send them to you.

[spanone]

16. tax fraud

[msanthrope]

21. No. Ethical breach, yes. n/t

[Raine]

18. Not much of a judge when he can't follow the law, he should be impeached

the Democrats should go after him but I bet they won't.

[JoePhilly]

25. Scalia told him not to worry about it.

[Skidmore]

26. This is bullcrap shiny thing stuff to distract from the Thomas' connections

to the Teabaggers. The 'baggers need to be forced to declare as a political party, which they are. A political party which caucuses with the Rs. It's a duck.

[lunatica]

27. What? He's never heard of H&R Block?

The Idiocrats are taking over.

[Vickers]

28. Liar. n/t

[CanonRay]

29. I filled out those forms for 28 years

and if I'd have done what Thomas did, I'd have had my ass fired in about five minutes. Period. Different rules for the elite. I predict there will be no consequences from this.

[bulloney]

30. One of the 9 top judges in the land INADVERTENTLY omitted such basic info on his wife's employment?

Does this sound like he's qualified to be making decisions on cases presented to the SCOTUS?