Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says
Los Angeles Slimes ^ | January 22, 2011 | Kim Geiger

Posted on 01/22/2011 5:39:24 PM PST by Kaslin

Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over 5 years, a group says. But the Supreme Court justice did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clarencethomas; commoncause; financialdisclosure; heritagefoundation; libertycentral; scotus; virginiathomas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 01/22/2011 5:39:27 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Do they file separately? - if so, would each others incomes be on their separate forms?


2 posted on 01/22/2011 5:42:09 PM PST by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I just wish my wife would report her income to me!


3 posted on 01/22/2011 5:43:17 PM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Ruh Roh


4 posted on 01/22/2011 5:43:20 PM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’d wait until we get confirmation from a real newspaper before thinking about this.

The LAT is a joke.


5 posted on 01/22/2011 5:44:18 PM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
Do they file separately?

I would say yes but then that wouldn't be news..........

6 posted on 01/22/2011 5:45:43 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (The only thing Super Glue is good for is gluing your fingers together.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

0bama’s hoofprints on this one for sure. He just needs to knock off one conservative, and the court will be forever locked in the left’s favor.
For some reason, Thomas is the chosen target. Probably not a rational reason, either.


7 posted on 01/22/2011 5:46:41 PM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

(maybe)

8 posted on 01/22/2011 5:47:40 PM PST by smokingfrog (BORN free - taxed to DEATH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If he didn’t report it to the IRS (like Charlie Rangel), that’d be a scandal. This is nit-picking.


9 posted on 01/22/2011 5:47:59 PM PST by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

They are so out to get him. They should take it to the Supremes. Haha. Maybe instead he should be on the Cabinet — that’s where the high-rolling scoff-laws go.


10 posted on 01/22/2011 5:48:12 PM PST by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why is Common Cause picking on the only Black on the Court?


11 posted on 01/22/2011 5:48:35 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just restock [chg'd to comply w/ The Civility in Discourse Act of 2011])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Justice Thomas “failed” at NOTHING!
He took the lawful option to file separately.


12 posted on 01/22/2011 5:48:49 PM PST by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

Obama’s a racist.


13 posted on 01/22/2011 5:49:07 PM PST by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

He has Scalia in his sights, too.


14 posted on 01/22/2011 5:49:18 PM PST by kiltie65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You mean like Senator Clinton reported her significant others income?


15 posted on 01/22/2011 5:49:30 PM PST by Shanty Shaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

He already has a lifetime appointment to the court; he can’t be gunning for Geithner’s position.

Oh, is it vitriolic and hateful to say “gunning”?


16 posted on 01/22/2011 5:50:06 PM PST by FoxInSocks (B. Hussein Obama: Central Planning Czar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Jeez...what is the big deal here? The head of the IRS is a tax cheat, as is the most prominent member of the Ways and Means committee.

You would think this would be a resume enhancer to libs...

/s


17 posted on 01/22/2011 5:50:06 PM PST by rlmorel ("If this doesn't light your fire, Men, the pilot light's out!"...Coach Ed Bolin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Maybe Justice Thomas feels this is nobody’s business, like the details of Pres. Obama’s birth and life story.

Kinda “you tell me yours, and I’ll tell you mine” mentality.

Once confirmed by the Senate, what can happen to a Justice on the Supreme Court?

President or Congress can’t terminate them, can they?

Could congress Impeach a sitting Justice?

What law, rule, regulation compells a Justice to make these “disclosures?”

What are the legal implications of non-filing, or incorrect filing?


18 posted on 01/22/2011 5:50:15 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If it’s true, it’s a pretty stupid thing to do.


19 posted on 01/22/2011 5:50:22 PM PST by Krankor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well then, that makes him eligible to be a White House czar or cabinet member.


20 posted on 01/22/2011 5:50:46 PM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

I'm guessing he didn't need to...the last time I heard this issue, it had to do with liveshot and his alcoholic wife. She didn't have to report income on his filings.

21 posted on 01/22/2011 5:52:32 PM PST by gogeo ("Every one has a right to be an idiot. He abuses the privilege!" Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
UHH, OHH ! Clarence Thomas might be in BIG TROUBLE the next time he's up for reelection!

...yes that was a joke, I know he's got a life appointment.

22 posted on 01/22/2011 5:52:38 PM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

financial disclosure forms......not income tax!!!!!!!!1


23 posted on 01/22/2011 5:53:31 PM PST by is_is (VP Dad of Sgt. G - My Hero - "Sleep Well America......Your Marines have your Back")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Ha! What’re they gonna do to him??


24 posted on 01/22/2011 5:53:56 PM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
...the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Common Cause?

Does any suspect that the W.H. might be behind this, ultimately, in order to tilt the court?

Just a guess, of course, but who knows what all those "czars" are really doing or influencing?

.

25 posted on 01/22/2011 5:55:00 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Hence my Loss Angeles Slimes as the source


26 posted on 01/22/2011 5:55:07 PM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Ummmm. The Supremes don't pay federal taxes to the IRS. They ruled that Article III, Section I of the US Constitution; "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." meant that they don't pay taxes on their income from the US government.

I wish they could read the 2nd amendment as clearly.

/johnny

27 posted on 01/22/2011 5:59:20 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Sounds to me like it was income from a job, not an investment.

THe RATS are trying to oust Thomas before Zero loses the 2012 election and they lose the Obamacare case in court.


28 posted on 01/22/2011 6:02:39 PM PST by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop

The lunatics in Boston Tea Party Chat are all salivating over it, hoping he get kicked out and be replaced by a liberal judge from their side


29 posted on 01/22/2011 6:06:09 PM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Coming from the L.A.Slimes whats the odds this is bull squirt..


30 posted on 01/22/2011 6:08:49 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This has nothing to do with taxes, as I understand the article.

By the way, is the L.A. Slimes interested at all in Hussein’s overseas funds, like from the Gaza strip?


31 posted on 01/22/2011 6:09:21 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

He should just file an EEO complaint. They usually take about 10 years to finalize. I’d say a black man married to a white woman could make a really good case. I’m sure that would make their heads explode. Maybe he could get the NAACP to assist him with his claim (sarc).


32 posted on 01/22/2011 6:13:01 PM PST by MotherRedDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It doesn’t say they didn’t report it on their IRS forms, they are saying he didn’t report it on his disclosure forms. I don’t know the rules about reporting the spouses income on disclosure forms.


33 posted on 01/22/2011 6:15:36 PM PST by McGavin999 ("I was there when we had the numbers, but didn't have the principles"-Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogeo
From the article

-- snip --

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."

34 posted on 01/22/2011 6:15:41 PM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Nothing more than puppies biting at his ankles.

This is part of Common Causes efforts for the Justice Department to “investigate” Scalia and Thomas and force them vacate last years decision on campaign finance.

Crying “conflict of interest,” the smear job begins all because since they did not get the bench to legislate as they wanted.

Our constitution is but a roll of toilet paper to the left.

If they were really worried about “conflicts of interest,” wouldn’t they have been outraged over an openly gay federal judge deciding Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was unconstitutional last September?

Just a power grab unlike any other we have seen from these people.

All hail Obama, there will be no more separation of powers.


35 posted on 01/22/2011 6:17:44 PM PST by DakotaRed (Why not just pass a law requiring criminals to obey the laws?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Ruh Roh

rut roh my @ss. Like he's stupid enough to cheat on taxes after the living hell the left put him through already.

36 posted on 01/22/2011 6:20:57 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (talk to the hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

How dare you ask any relevant question that gets in the way of the leftist narative.


37 posted on 01/22/2011 6:20:57 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If they are filing separately, there is nothing to disclose.


38 posted on 01/22/2011 6:27:08 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
"0bama’s hoofprints on this one for sure. He just needs to knock off one conservative, and the court will be forever locked in the left’s favor. For some reason, Thomas is the chosen target. Probably not a rational reason, either."

You don't really believe the House would vote to impeach Thomas do you? And the Senate to convict?

Not a chance.

39 posted on 01/22/2011 6:28:50 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Why is Common Cause aiming at the only black on the USSC? Well, maybe it's because they want to shoot him down!

They've always been into this targeting stuff you know.

40 posted on 01/22/2011 6:30:07 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Liberal or conservative, a Supreme Court Justice’s spouse shouldn’t be involved in such things. Especially when they are earning lots of money from such endeavors. To say it could give the appearance of impropriety could be an understatement.


41 posted on 01/22/2011 6:31:11 PM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Only two words: Timothy Geitner.

Now go pound sand!


42 posted on 01/22/2011 6:39:43 PM PST by Artcore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Left is on the march again. They had a bit of success with the "Right Wing Murderers" meme. They are going to do everything they can to discredit anyone with even a modest set of conservative credentials.
43 posted on 01/22/2011 6:41:46 PM PST by Major Matt Mason (Democrat Motto - "A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can put its pants on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here’s all you need to know, courtesy of David Horowitz at Discover the Network:
Founded in 1968 as a “people’s lobby,” Common Cause (CC) is a registered lobbying and nonprofit organization which began as an outgrowth of the Urban Coalition Action Council (UCAC). Its mission is to “restor[e] the core values of American democracy” in order to ensure that “the people’s — rather than the special interests’ — voices [are] heard.” CC has especially focused on bringing about campaign finance reform; promoting an “open, ethical, and accountable” government; pursuing media reform reminiscent of the Fairness Doctrine; and cutting military budgets in favor of increased social-welfare and environmental spending. As of 2010, CC claimed to have “nearly 400,000 members and supporters” and 36 state organizations.
In recent years, CC has received large amounts of funding from George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Tides Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Arca Foundation, the GE Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Century Foundation, and the Compton Foundation.


44 posted on 01/22/2011 7:17:52 PM PST by weeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
The Supremes don't pay federal taxes to the IRS. They ruled that Article III, Section I of the US Constitution; "The judges... shall ... receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished..." meant that they don't pay taxes on their income...

I thought that the Art III Sec I was meaning that the salary could only remain the same or increased, and could not be decreased, ie: political retribution for judgements. That it had nothing to do with taxes.

45 posted on 01/22/2011 7:18:00 PM PST by C210N (0bama, Making the US safe for Global Marxism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: weeder

Thanks that will come in handy


46 posted on 01/22/2011 7:31:24 PM PST by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Didn’t Commie Cause go after Scalia and another justice today for some other imagined violation of their Communist Manifesto? It must be fundraising time for the commie piggies.


47 posted on 01/22/2011 7:37:23 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (They're not going to shut me up! - Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
Do they file separately? - if so, would each others incomes be on their separate forms?

Tthis isrivial. It is NOT the IRS, but Supreme Court disclosures to try and determine any conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, Ruth Ginsberg's position as former chief counsel of the ACLU doesn't disqualify her from ruling on their numerous lawsuits.

48 posted on 01/22/2011 7:45:58 PM PST by montag813 (http://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
Do they file separately? - if so, would each others incomes be on their separate forms?

That wouldn't make a difference on financial disclosure forms.

49 posted on 01/22/2011 7:46:38 PM PST by ElkGroveDan (He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
Do they file separately? - if so, would each others incomes be on their separate forms?

This is TRIVIAL. It is NOT the IRS, but Supreme Court disclosures to try and determine any conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, Ruth Ginsberg's position as former chief counsel of the ACLU doesn't disqualify her from ruling on their numerous lawsuits.

50 posted on 01/22/2011 7:48:17 PM PST by montag813 (http://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson