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