Skip to comments.Dems want probe of Justice Thomas as health law ruling looms
Posted on 09/30/2011 10:11:19 AM PDT by BradtotheBone
Twenty House Democrats are demanding a judicial ethics investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas just as the high court is poised to issue a ruling on the healthcare law that could make or break President Obamas reelection.
The lawmakers on Thursday asked the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the Department of Justice look into Thomass failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars his wife has received from groups that want the healthcare law repealed. Their letter comes after 75 House Democrats in February asked Thomas to recuse himself from the case following reports that hed failed to report his wife Virginias income since he joined the bench in 1991.
Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomass high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wifes income for two decades was willful, and the Judicial Conference has a non-discretionary duty to refer this case to the Department of Justice, the Democrats wrote in the letter, which was spearheaded by Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.
The letter comes just a day after the Obama administration and 26 states challenging the Democrats healthcare reform law asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, all but assuring that the high court will render a decision by next summer.
Many legal experts believe the court will end up with a split 5-4 ruling on the law with Justice Anthony Kennedy filling his customary swing-vote role so pressure on justices to recuse themselves is only expected to increase.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I want them to investigate Keegan she should not be involved in this ruling because she does have a conflict of interest in it!
Please don’t throw me into the Briar Patch Briar Crat!
Pray for America
:: The lawmakers on Thursday asked the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the Department of Justice look into Thomass failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars ::
The lawmakers on Thursday asked the Inspector General’s Office to formally request an inquiry of the Department of Justice regarding failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of illegal purchased weapons that were allowed to move to Mexico.
As long as Elena Kagan recuses herself first.
Kagan should recuse self, Thomas should NOT. They’d be glad to trade a bad card for a good card.
Who didn’t see that coming?
So Charlie Rangel’s tax evasion is o.k. but Clarence Thomas failure (for whatever reason) to disclose is not?
I say we stoop down to their level and give CT a ‘rangel’.
You should be able to gather at least 240 signatures to probe Zer0's former Solicitor General Kagan too (and while you're at it, throw in the wide Latina also).
Or does my asking make me a RINO?
the left hates (honest) blacks. the left is color blind to slacking, scammers.
Liberal high tech hanging / witch hunt !
§ 102. Contents of reports
(A) The identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts aggregating more than the minimal value as established by section 7342 (a)(5) of title 5, United States Code, or $250, whichever is greater, received from any source other than a relative of the reporting individual during the preceding calendar year, except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported, and any gift with a fair market value of $100 or less, as adjusted at the same time and by the same percentage as the minimal value is adjusted, need not be aggregated for purposes of this subparagraph.
The definitions section includes a wife as a relative: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05a/usc_sup_05_5_10_sq3_20_I.html
Can someone with a legal background shed some light?
Well, you might as well turn off your television, because you won't find it there.
Kind of like during the Presidential campaign when the Dems challenged McCain over his status as an American and made him prove he was an American citizen, knowing full well their candidate didn’t pass the snuff test.
Like we couldn’t see this coming.
But I bet none of these commie pinkos are asking Kagan to recuse herself...
Thanks for the insight, I will remember that next time.
Then lets investigate that ugly witch Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, that other witch Soda-Jerk, The other witch Kagan and that guy with the irrational grin on his puss, Breyer.
PLUS all their respective spouses, cousins, room-mates, etc.
THis is just more hard-ball Chicago Gangland tactics by the Chief Thug Obama and his cronies.
The GOP should counter with a special prosecutor to investigate Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Light Squared and the Gibson Guitar caper.
We need street fighters and who do we have??? Boner and
They can ‘probe’ all they want. The only way to get a member of SCOTUS to do anything is to impeach them and remove them from office. Other than that, they can do whatever they please..........
(e) (1) Except as provided in the last sentence of this paragraph, each report required by section 101 shall also contain information listed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a) of this section respecting the spouse or dependent child of the reporting individual as follows:
(A) The source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceed $1,000 and the source and amount of any honoraria received by a spouse, except that, with respect to earned income (other than honoraria), if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession need be reported.
(B) All information required to be reported in subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to income derived by a spouse or dependent child from any asset held by the spouse or dependent child and reported pursuant to subsection (a)(3).
(C) In the case of any gifts received by a spouse or dependent child which are not received totally independent of the relationship of the spouse or dependent child to the reporting individual, the identity of the source and a brief description of gifts of transportation, lodging, food, or entertainment and a brief description and the value of other gifts.
(D) In the case of any reimbursements received by a spouse or dependent child which are not received totally independent of the relationship of the spouse or dependent child to the reporting individual, the identity of the source and a brief description of each such reimbursement.
(E) In the case of items described in paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (a), all information required to be reported under these paragraphs other than items (i) which the reporting individual certifies represent the spouses or dependent childs sole financial interest or responsibility and which the reporting individual has no knowledge of, (ii) which are not in any way, past or present, derived from the income, assets, or activities of the reporting individual, and (iii) from which the reporting individual neither derives, nor expects to derive, any financial or economic benefit.
(F) For purposes of this section, categories with amounts or values greater than $1,000,000 set forth in sections 102 (a)(1)(B) and 102 (d)(1) shall apply to the income, assets, or liabilities of spouses and dependent children only if the income, assets, or liabilities are held jointly with the reporting individual. All other income, assets, or liabilities of the spouse or dependent children required to be reported under this section in an amount or value greater than $1,000,000 shall be categorized only as an amount or value greater than $1,000,000.
Reports required by subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 101 shall, with respect to the spouse and dependent child of the reporting individual, only contain information listed in paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of subsection (a), as specified in this paragraph.
bump for later