(maybe)
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 ...
Do they file separately? - if so, would each others incomes be on their separate forms?
I just wish my wife would report her income to me!
Ruh Roh
I’d wait until we get confirmation from a real newspaper before thinking about this.
The LAT is a joke.
I would say yes but then that wouldn't be news..........
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.
(maybe)
If he didn’t report it to the IRS (like Charlie Rangel), that’d be a scandal. This is nit-picking.
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.
Why is Common Cause picking on the only Black on the Court?
Justice Thomas “failed” at NOTHING!
He took the lawful option to file separately.
Obama’s a racist.
He has Scalia in his sights, too.
You mean like Senator Clinton reported her significant others income?
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”?
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
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?
If it’s true, it’s a pretty stupid thing to do.
Well then, that makes him eligible to be a White House czar or cabinet member.
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.
...yes that was a joke, I know he's got a life appointment.
financial disclosure forms......not income tax!!!!!!!!1
Ha! What’re they gonna do to him??
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?
.
Hence my Loss Angeles Slimes as the source
I wish they could read the 2nd amendment as clearly.
/johnny
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.
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
Coming from the L.A.Slimes whats the odds this is bull squirt..
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?
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).
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.
-- 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."
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.
rut roh my @ss. Like he's stupid enough to cheat on taxes after the living hell the left put him through already.
How dare you ask any relevant question that gets in the way of the leftist narative.
If they are filing separately, there is nothing to disclose.
You don't really believe the House would vote to impeach Thomas do you? And the Senate to convict?
Not a chance.
They've always been into this targeting stuff you know.
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.
Only two words: Timothy Geitner.
Now go pound sand!
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.
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.
Thanks that will come in handy
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.
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.
That wouldn't make a difference on financial disclosure 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.
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.