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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
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]

To: Kaslin

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.


51 posted on 01/22/2011 7:52:46 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All
Common Cause has launched a multi-pronged JIHAD against Scalia and Thomas this weekend. Here is another of their meaningless gripes that is being blown up into a faux scandal by the other Times (NYT): Advocacy Group Says Justices May Have Conflict in Campaign Finance Cases

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.

52 posted on 01/22/2011 7:54:01 PM PST by montag813 (http://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Have you considered the possibility that she is the true originator of the Taxed Enough Already Party?
53 posted on 01/22/2011 7:56:28 PM PST by B4Ranch (Do NOT remain seated until this ride comes to a full and complete stop! We're going the wrong way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


54 posted on 01/22/2011 8:04:33 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The real issue here. The liberal twerps are whining about the Citizens United case. Waaaaaa Waaaaaa....big babies.

In the case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that corporate and union funds could be spent directly on election advertising

55 posted on 01/22/2011 8:07:32 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

And that disclosure is to whom for SCOTUS members?

56 posted on 01/22/2011 8:10:54 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: C210N; JRandomFreeper
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.

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.

57 posted on 01/22/2011 8:25:03 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Common Cause is a joke


58 posted on 01/22/2011 8:28:15 PM PST by pissant ((Bachmann 2012 - Freepmail to get on/off PING list))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


59 posted on 01/22/2011 8:59:57 PM PST by cpanter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpanter

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.


60 posted on 01/22/2011 10:23:31 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 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