Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dems want probe of Justice Thomas as health law ruling looms
The Hill ^ | 09/29/11 05:22 PM ET | Julian Pecquet

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 Obama’s reelection.

The lawmakers on Thursday asked the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the Department of Justice look into Thomas’s failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars his wife has received from groups that want the healthcare law repealed.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 he’d failed to report his wife Virginia’s income since he joined the bench in 1991.

“Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas’s high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wife’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: clarencethomas; democrats; elenakagan; kagan; liberalfascism; obamacare; scotus; thomas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 09/30/2011 10:11:29 AM PDT by BradtotheBone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

This is racist.


2 posted on 09/30/2011 10:12:45 AM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked (According to the MSM, I'm a fringe sitting, pajama wearing, Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

As long as Elena Kagan recuses herself first.


3 posted on 09/30/2011 10:13:39 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Obama/Democrats trying to pull an FDR? Trying to stack the Supreme Court in his favor....


4 posted on 09/30/2011 10:16:00 AM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notpoliticallycorewrecked

No, its not racist, since racism has come to be defined as disagreeing with a democrat.


5 posted on 09/30/2011 10:16:12 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Michael Moore: Aggressively Hypocritical and Smug About It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

They don’t want a probe. They already made up their minds they want him off this issue. The only probe they want is to find a way to remove him from this case.


6 posted on 09/30/2011 10:16:41 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

LOL, Ha, Ha, Ha.

Another attempt of a high tech lynching of a Black man by liberal democrats.


7 posted on 09/30/2011 10:16:47 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

Paging the GOP...fight fire with fire.


8 posted on 09/30/2011 10:17:02 AM PDT by RockinRight (If everyone wants to ride in the wagon, then who is pulling it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Of course they do BUT Kagan does not present a problem right? Give me a break...

Justice Thomas no one can MAKE you recuse yourself, NO ONE. Kagan would never recuse herself so please, for the sake of our country, DO NOT COWER to these people.

Thank you Sir.


9 posted on 09/30/2011 10:17:16 AM PDT by bbernard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

agreed 1000%....they could make obama and the rats look foolish turning the tables on kagan.....


10 posted on 09/30/2011 10:18:10 AM PDT by God luvs America (63.5million pay no federal income tax then vote demoKrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

BINGO!!


11 posted on 09/30/2011 10:18:59 AM PDT by sodpoodle (God is ignoring me - but He is watching you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

tell these DemocRATS to go pound sand


12 posted on 09/30/2011 10:19:35 AM PDT by el_texicano (Extremism in the face of tyranny is no fault, Moderation in the face of evil, no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound
Actually, Kagan's interest in upholding ObaMao care is greater than Justice Thomas interest in getting it overturned. Mrs. Thomas is acting as a private citizen as she has a right to do. Kagan the Pagan had a vested interest in writing the damn thing.

You could probably say the same thing about Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who used to be head of the ACLU on any cases brought by the ACLU.

13 posted on 09/30/2011 10:21:21 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound
As long as Elena Kagan recuses herself first.

That's exactly what I was thinking. They're talking about an abstract - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife
Kagan actually pushed for the bill to be passed herself! Her mind is already made up before the facts are even debated.

14 posted on 09/30/2011 10:21:51 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

Republicans really need to demand the exact same judicial investigations and make the exact same demands of recusal to Kagan.

Neither the efforts against Thomas or Kagan will amount to anything, but the tit-for-tat is important for perception.


15 posted on 09/30/2011 10:22:14 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Michael Moore: Aggressively Hypocritical and Smug About It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Paging the GOP...fight fire with fire.

Crickets....Crickets....Crickets.... Crickets.... Crickets....Crickets....

16 posted on 09/30/2011 10:22:25 AM PDT by Wilum (Never loaded a nuke I didn't like)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

The ‘RATS are a bunch of racist pigs. Still going after Justice Thomas. The smartest man on the court, IMHO.


17 posted on 09/30/2011 10:22:58 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Too much "education" can destroy your brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wilum

“Paging the GOP...fight fire with fire.
Crickets....Crickets....Crickets.... Crickets.... Crickets....Crickets....”

That is funny right there, sad but funny.....


18 posted on 09/30/2011 10:23:40 AM PDT by bbernard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Thomas knows these vermin for what they are.
They will have to shoot him.


19 posted on 09/30/2011 10:25:09 AM PDT by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eldon Tyrell
They will have to shoot him.

I think they have a high tech lynching in mind!

20 posted on 09/30/2011 10:27:58 AM PDT by DaveyB (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. -John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bbernard
There is nothing to fight . It is a preemptive head fake to protect Kagen. Smokescreen. The repuplicants should spend their time exposing the green corruption , which seems to be unending.
21 posted on 09/30/2011 10:28:45 AM PDT by fantom (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

I want them to investigate Keegan she should not be involved in this ruling because she does have a conflict of interest in it!


22 posted on 09/30/2011 10:29:28 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Please don’t throw me into the Briar Patch Briar Crat!

Pray for America


23 posted on 09/30/2011 10:31:18 AM PDT by bray (Sarah is hated by the establishment of both Parties. Winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

:: The lawmakers on Thursday asked the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the Department of Justice look into Thomas’s failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars ::

Too easy.

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.


24 posted on 09/30/2011 10:31:59 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

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.


25 posted on 09/30/2011 10:32:21 AM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

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’.


26 posted on 09/30/2011 10:36:19 AM PDT by griswold3 (Character is Destiny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

Exactly!


27 posted on 09/30/2011 10:37:42 AM PDT by Average Al (Forbidden fruit leads to many jams.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone
Hysterical. Speaker Boehner, please pick up the white phone in the lobby.

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).

28 posted on 09/30/2011 10:41:23 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone
I'd like to know why Thomas didn't disclose. Perhaps he was not required to.....but I'd like to hear about his reason.

Or does my asking make me a RINO?

Leni

29 posted on 09/30/2011 10:41:23 AM PDT by MinuteGal (Too Bad Those of Us who Work for a Living Have to Support Those who Vote for a Living)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

the left hates (honest) blacks. the left is color blind to slacking, scammers.


30 posted on 09/30/2011 10:46:16 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Liberal high tech hanging / witch hunt !


31 posted on 09/30/2011 10:46:18 AM PDT by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone
Did someone say our elected congress critters were low in IQ? I might be missing something but here is what is included in the report by law mentioned regarding gifts:

§ 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?

32 posted on 09/30/2011 10:47:02 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
but I'd like to hear about his reason.

Well, you might as well turn off your television, because you won't find it there.

33 posted on 09/30/2011 10:47:14 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fantom

Ah haaaaa...

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.


34 posted on 09/30/2011 10:49:44 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

Like we couldn’t see this coming.

But I bet none of these commie pinkos are asking Kagan to recuse herself...


35 posted on 09/30/2011 10:50:51 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Thanks for the insight, I will remember that next time.


36 posted on 09/30/2011 10:51:50 AM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked (According to the MSM, I'm a fringe sitting, pajama wearing, Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

O.K.

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
McConnell.

Pathetic.


37 posted on 09/30/2011 10:52:32 AM PDT by ZULU (DUMP Obama in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

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..........


38 posted on 09/30/2011 10:53:16 AM PDT by Red Badger (We cannot defeat an enemy that the president and hence his administration cannot name.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
I was missing something, I need the IQ boost. Further down:

(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 spouse’s or dependent child’s 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.

39 posted on 09/30/2011 10:56:42 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

bump for later


40 posted on 09/30/2011 10:57:59 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

In reality the left hates anyone that is honest and is blind to slackers and scammers as long as they have a D after their name.


41 posted on 09/30/2011 10:58:24 AM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked (According to the MSM, I'm a fringe sitting, pajama wearing, Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Paging the GOP...fight fire with fire.

If you are asking for Boehner or McConnel to fight, it will be a long wait. Those two men are very weak. They have NO Warrior genes. Our Republic will be served when these two losers are no longer holding office.

42 posted on 09/30/2011 11:07:36 AM PDT by sand88 (Sarah Palin will win: >370EV :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
If true, he should explain. But, I give equal odds the rats are exaggerating whatever did or did not happen just to get this into the dinosaur news outlets and marxist blogs.
43 posted on 09/30/2011 11:08:51 AM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

BINGO!


44 posted on 09/30/2011 11:09:02 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
Or does my asking make me a RINO?

I desire to rid my government of corruption, which means to me that even conservatives are not above the law. YOur question is valid, but the timing and hypocrisy of the liberals is on display. If I recall correctly, Tim Geitner had a little tax issue and simply claimed that the tax code was too difficult to understand. This is the man in charge of distributing trillions of dollars of our money to the Solyndras of the world. Tax cheats are littered through out the congress, but the only one they want to look at is the guy who may derail their hops of stealing more private wealth for them to distribute to their cronies in the form of health care or is that health control.

45 posted on 09/30/2011 11:09:11 AM PDT by DaveyB (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. -John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone
EXCUSE ME!!!

IF ANYTHING!

Kagan AND Sotomayor Need to Recuse themselves from ObamaCare!


46 posted on 09/30/2011 11:10:51 AM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Rock you like a hermancain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notpoliticallycorewrecked

I’d rather not but if necessary I’d spot ‘em one Thomas for one Kagan.


47 posted on 09/30/2011 11:12:32 AM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

Has it been hard-core proven that she perjured herself during the confirmation hearings?

The stuff I heard sounded pretty rock solid.

If she gets booted, we can always pick up another “wise Latina”

What a dam sham. Hell, I’ve probably read more law than both them dames - put together!!


48 posted on 09/30/2011 11:14:43 AM PDT by djf (Soon you will need a prescription for EVERY SINGLE VITAMIN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc; DrDan4Congress; Sudetenland; smoothsailing; Cincinatus' Wife; SeekAndFind; kristinn; ...

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law. Obama”care” is designed to be a monopoly.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution, because it violates our freedom of choice.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.

Impeached Bill Clinton proved that the US President is above US Federal Law, so anything the President wants he gets, regardless of the Federal Laws that he has violated.


49 posted on 09/30/2011 11:14:47 AM PDT by Graewoulf ( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradtotheBone

COWARDS!

I’m so sick of these liberal cowards who resort to underhanded means to get what they want, starting from the “high-tech lynching” (his words) of Clarence Thomas in 1992.


50 posted on 09/30/2011 11:16:29 AM PDT by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 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