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 ...
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.
NOT enough information, only speculation is what I see here, so apparently Libs throwing crap against the wall to see if it sticks once again. Typical of the bastards.
This is ALL because of the Citizens United decision, which devastated the Left in 2010 and will shred Senate Democrats in 2012. They have launched this Blitzkrieg to try and wreck their reputations or try and get some kind of DOJ investigation or impeachment hearings (which will never happen). Democrats are in a total PANIC over this ruling.
Hmmmm...LA Slimes. Whose income was it again? That’s right, his wife’s income. He doesn’t have to report zilch to the IRS.
This is misleading and a stupid article written about misleading accusations from socialist academics against Supreme Court Justice Thomas.
In the case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that corporate and union funds could be spent directly on election advertising
And that disclosure is to whom for SCOTUS members?
That's correct. Judges and the President have had to pay taxes since the Public Salary Act of 1939. JRF spreads guano, and this isn't even a birther thread!
Anyway, this story is not about taxes. It's about reporting spousal income on an ethics disclosure.
Common Cause is a joke
This piece boils down to one sentence:
Clarence Thomas allegedly committed an an act that “isn’t a crime of any sort” or he allegedly committed an act that “could be interpreted as a violation of some law”.
I guess the LA Times is hoping that the “right” person will interpret this as a violation. At the very least, they hope the story sticks around for a while so everyone can talk about Clarence Thomas instead of other things.
The only thing that matters about this is to make it publicly visible whether a judge has a financial conflict of interest between a case he presides over and the interests of the entities who paid money to him or his spouse. I don’t see where Thomas’ wife’s enterprise would have tempted Thomas to sway a decision. With a Republican House, there’s no way an impeachment attempt could be initiated either — Common Cause is at least two years too late to do that.
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.