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

Skip to comments.

Democrats mobilize over Clarence Thomas ethics investigation
YahooNews ^ | 10/8/2011 | Rachel Rose Hartman

Posted on 10/08/2011 11:04:57 AM PDT by South40

Forty-six House Democrats have joined forces this week to ask the chamber's Judiciary Committee to investigate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for ethics violations. The Democratic lawmakers' complaint argues that reports of Thomas' actions--including those related to the high-profile political activism of his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas--have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

"Public records clearly demonstrate that Justice Thomas has failed to accurately disclose information concerning the income and employment status of his wife, as required by law," Democrats led by Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter (pdf) Wednesday to leaders of the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats also question whether Thomas accurately reported gifts and inappropriately solicited donations.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: clarencethomas; newyork; obamacare; oregon; scotus; virginiathomas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2011 11:04:58 AM PDT by South40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: South40

The Democrats also question whether Thomas accurately reported gifts and inappropriately solicited donations.

You mean like Rangel?


2 posted on 10/08/2011 11:07:37 AM PDT by bikerman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

And so it begins.


3 posted on 10/08/2011 11:07:58 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (I never win at Scrable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40
These people are sooooo obvious!!! Key SC decisions on leftist issues are coming up and they don't want his Conservative/Constitutional vote on the outcomes. Soooo obvious ...wow.

Love that little kid - use him in e-mails all the time! ha ha ha

4 posted on 10/08/2011 11:09:43 AM PDT by NordP (Common Sense ConservaTEAves - Love of Country, Less Govt, Stop Spending, No Govt Run Health Care!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bikerman

And I’m SURE he hid them in the freezer, like that Dem Congressman did!


5 posted on 10/08/2011 11:10:51 AM PDT by NordP (Common Sense ConservaTEAves - Love of Country, Less Govt, Stop Spending, No Govt Run Health Care!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Louise Slaughter is going to lecture us about legal procedures and adhering to the letter of the law????

The same Louise Slaughter who came up with the Slaughter House solution to get Obamacare passed? The same Louise Slaughter who said they could just “deem” that the House had actually passed Obamacare, without actually having to vote, or follow the specific legal procedures for the Congress to pass bills? That Louise Slaughter?????


6 posted on 10/08/2011 11:11:07 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: South40
Wasn't Ed Rendell former Govenor and Head of the DNC wife a Court of Appeals Judge?

As for failing to report just an oversite that most Obama's people certainly understand.

7 posted on 10/08/2011 11:11:25 AM PDT by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

Looks like the Usual Suspects are getting more nervous about the upcoming SC decision on Obamacare.


8 posted on 10/08/2011 11:12:01 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

OK, then Sotomayor and Kagan should recuse themselves from any of the Obamacare cases....


9 posted on 10/08/2011 11:12:45 AM PDT by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

You mean like Barney Frank letting the world know that his “husband” was one of the architects of the financial meltdown he profited from? Or Pelosi telling us about her brother-in-law’s involvment with solar companies that profited from guaranteed government loans? Or Biden’s wife the lobbyist? Or Obama’s wife getting a half-million dollar kickback from a hospital he got earmarks for?

I could go on but you get the idea.


10 posted on 10/08/2011 11:15:20 AM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

They nneed this to try to take our minds off Fast and Furious. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Fast and Furious is not going away so they better get used to it.


11 posted on 10/08/2011 11:15:30 AM PDT by mardi59 (Time to turn off the tv so I don't break it..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SW6906
One or both may already have to.

And that's exactly why they're going so hard after one of our Judges...to equalize the vote.

12 posted on 10/08/2011 11:16:05 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: South40

So stop playing and put forward articles of impeachment, as you can do with any judge in this country.

Oh, right, this isn’t about impeaching a Supreme Court justice, it is about trying to manipulate the decisions of the court through targeted investigations. Seems to me there’s a name for this sort of thing...


13 posted on 10/08/2011 11:16:37 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks South40.

Make sure your local Demwits know that they’ll be held accoountable for their reversion to their KKK / Jim Crow roots.


14 posted on 10/08/2011 11:16:59 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

It’s the HOUSE judiciary committee. Do you really think Democrats are going to get any traction? I’d like to see a list of the Democrats that signed on to that. Those are targets for unelection.


15 posted on 10/08/2011 11:17:04 AM PDT by meatloaf (It's time to push back against out of control government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Agreed, and they’re playing for the whole thing this time.


16 posted on 10/08/2011 11:18:26 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NordP
"William Jefferson Democrat-Louisiana..." -- Rush Limbaugh
17 posted on 10/08/2011 11:18:51 AM PDT by BufordP ("Drink me if you can't take a joke!" --Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: South40

Just once I’d like to see ‘Republicans mobilize against...’


18 posted on 10/08/2011 11:19:31 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (2012—They vote twice— we'll vote three times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NordP
These people are sooooo obvious!!! Key SC decisions on leftist issues are coming up and they don't want his Conservative/Constitutional vote on the outcomes.

Exactly. Were Thomas gone, the best they could hope for would be a 4-4 vote.

As for the kid -- why is it 'racist' for conservatives and/or Republicans to oppose black Barack Obama but not racist for liberals and/or DemocRATs to oppose black Clarence Thomas?

Hypocrisy abounds in the liberal party.

19 posted on 10/08/2011 11:21:11 AM PDT by South40 (I will vote for Perry if he's the last man standing against Romney. ~ Jim Robinson 10/5/2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U
Just once I’d like to see ‘Republicans mobilize against...’

Someone posted something recently about a business leader (I think) basically saying that offending leftists was avoided because they retaliated well, but offending righties was OK because they complained but never did anything.
20 posted on 10/08/2011 11:22:27 AM PDT by DTxAg (The Presidency is not an entry-level position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: South40

I think this is all about 10th Amendment issues relating to ObamaCare and the Commerce Clause. Thomas will sway the Court if the Dims cannot force him to recuse himself. That is the primary goal of all this.

Thomas is also the best friend we have on the Court regarding 2nd Amendment issues and has influenced the Court favorably in favor of gun rights.


21 posted on 10/08/2011 11:22:41 AM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U
Just once I’d like to see ‘Republicans mobilize against...’

They did -- back in 1998.

I'm still waiting for the trial of Maxine Waters.

22 posted on 10/08/2011 11:22:59 AM PDT by South40 (I will vote for Perry if he's the last man standing against Romney. ~ Jim Robinson 10/5/2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: South40
The Democrats just what to plant the seed that the ruling is illegal if Supreme Court over turns ObamaCare, thus undermining the rule of law.

Funny how their side never has to follow ‘illegal’ laws, but our side must always follow any law even those struck down by the Supreme Court.

What the Democrats are accomplishing is undermining the rule of law. Either there is a law and everyone follows or there are no laws.

Note to Libs, I can operate in either environment, can you?

23 posted on 10/08/2011 11:23:41 AM PDT by Lockbox (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

The Dems have passed so many laws that it’s impossible to avoid violating some law. This is one of those laws. There is no motive that Thomas would have for violating this law. He did not profit from it. It was simply a mistake. But because the Democrats don’t like him, they find some obscure law he’s violated and try to use that against him. It’s reminiscent of Atlas Shrugs.


24 posted on 10/08/2011 11:25:09 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

Bring out the soft drinks and pubic hairs!!


25 posted on 10/08/2011 11:25:22 AM PDT by CommieCutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

The wife (or husband) of a Supreme Court Justice is both legally and ethically free to work for whomever she (or he) pleases. And a Justice is free to decide cases however he or she pleases, provided neither the husband nor the wife receive any bribe or reward contingent on the way a case is decided.

Of course, for every decision any judge has ever made, or ever will make, he or she benefits from the fact that the decision necessarily conforms to his or her interpretation of the law. It is logically impossible to prevent that.

Yes, Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginny Thomas, is getting paid to lobby for the anti- ObamaCare cause by her current clients and/or employer. But she would be getting paid to do so regardless of which way the decision went, or even if the case never got to the SCOTUS. Unless and until someone can establish a quid-pro-quo of a bonus to her if he decides in a given manner, or of an adverse consequence unless he does so, there is no conflict of interest.

The bottom line is that Ginny Thomas doesn’t stand to gain or lose any benefits no matter how her husband rules. Unless Ginny benefits, neither does Clarence (since no one even claims he would receive benefits directly, but only indirectly via his wife.)

Unless continued employment is contingent on how her husband rules, or unless she will get some additional remuneration for a favorable decision, one cannot say that she will benefit from the decision, no matter what the court may rule. Has she been promised that if Justice Thomas decides a certain way she will be additionally compensated? Has she been threatened with adverse consequences unless he rules a certain way? No, and no.

In fact, the only even remotely-credible argument would be that Ginny’s financial interests are best served by a SCOTUS decision that keeps the issue alive, and keeps her employer and its clients as interested as possible in additional legal and political work in opposition to ObamaCare. But the possibility that that would improperly influence Clarence Thomas is essentially zero, as explained below.

As for the Heritage Foundation issue: All work and all payments to Ginny Thomas from that source occurred BEFORE Obamacare was passed. That categorically prevents that issue from establishing any pretext for recusal.

Finally, the idea that Clarence Thomas would be in any way influenced to rule against ObamaCare due to the political views and/or activities of his wife is too ludicrous and ridiculous even for the left. Does anyone seriously doubt—especially anyone on the left—that Clarence Thomas opposes not only ObamaCare in particular, but the egregious misinterpretations of the Commerce Clause used to justify not only ObamaCare, but most of the modern Unconstitutional activities of the Federal government? Read his writings and his past opinions, should you have any doubt about that whatsoever. And then you’ll understand why the idea that his wife will have any influence on his legal opinions on this issue at all is outrageously false.

Justice Breyer, whom President Bill Clinton appointed to the court in 1994, said concerns about recusal were “a false issue.”

“As far as what your wife does, or your husband, I myself have tried to stick to a certain principle — that a wife is an independent person, and they make up their own minds as to what their career is to be,” Breyer said, adding that he sits in on cases involving psychology despite the fact that his wife is a clinical psychologist.

Justice Breyer noted that a Supreme Court recusal leaves a vacancy on the court that could affect a court decision, whereas justices can be replaced when a conflict of interest occurs in Federal courts. [ref: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/breyer-thomas-clarence-virginia/2011/06/29/id/401940}


26 posted on 10/08/2011 11:27:52 AM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

If Republicans will not defend Thomas (which they SHOULD; but they’ll leave it to talk radio as usual), then they had better get Kagan to recuse herself...she ARGUED Obamacare, for cryin’ out loud.

But even if she doesn’t recuse and Thomas does-—won’t a 4/4 ruling still allow the appeals court decision (that Obamacare is unconstitutional) to stand?

Of course, once again it all comes down to Anthony Kennedy.


27 posted on 10/08/2011 11:30:32 AM PDT by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

Wouldn’t it be nice if Democrats investigated the very outrageous subjects they are trying to distract America from, Fast and Furious and several other serious White House infractions?

And what about the huge profits made feom government to the husbands of Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi?


28 posted on 10/08/2011 11:31:39 AM PDT by Paperdoll ( I like Herman Cain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

There is absolutely no reason for Justice Thomas to recuse himself. However, there is ample reason for Kagan to recuse herself. In fact, she is so closely tied with the President; she should not be on the Court.


29 posted on 10/08/2011 11:32:29 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

“Exactly. Were Thomas gone, the best they could hope for would be a 4-4 vote.”

Are you counting on Kennedy voting with conservatives?

That is a far from safe bet.


30 posted on 10/08/2011 11:34:29 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bikerman
One of the congress critters advocating this witch hunt was on the radio yesterday saying it scared her that there was a Supreme Court Justice that couldn't fill out a legal document properly.

I wonder how they feel about a Secretary of the Treasury that can't file his taxes properly?

31 posted on 10/08/2011 11:36:10 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox

From Atlas Shrugged:

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against . . . We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” — Floyd Ferris, Director of the State Science Institute


32 posted on 10/08/2011 11:37:16 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: South40
Basically:

DEMONCRATS ORGANIZE AGAINST FREE SPEECH.


33 posted on 10/08/2011 11:37:59 AM PDT by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Get out of my head! Geez, third post.


34 posted on 10/08/2011 11:40:53 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bikerman; All

the rats have again open the door for the GOP to point out the next ending hypocrisy of the rats whether it be rangel or kagan...lets see what they do- i am not expecting much...


35 posted on 10/08/2011 11:44:55 AM PDT by God luvs America (63.5million pay no federal income tax then vote demoKrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: South40

FRIGGIN RACISTS!!!


36 posted on 10/08/2011 11:45:30 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

They only attack him because he’s Black.

Democrats would never go after a White Justice like this.

Well, not unless he were also conservative


37 posted on 10/08/2011 11:46:16 AM PDT by DakotaRed (Why not just pass a law requiring criminals to obey the laws?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

traction is not the point- the utter hypocrisy of these d-bags and the coverage they get while the GOP sits on their hands is bothersome...


38 posted on 10/08/2011 11:46:38 AM PDT by God luvs America (63.5million pay no federal income tax then vote demoKrat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Argus

Husband?

I thought Bwahney Fwhank had an A-hole???

I could be wrong...


39 posted on 10/08/2011 11:47:27 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: South40

It sounds as though the commie left is starting to worry about Barry’s CommieCare fiasco. They’re going to go after “the black guy” who refused to stay on their plantation. Americans need to start burning down the phone lines in Washington and tell the buffoons to knock this crap off. We don’t want their communist “healthcare” scheme. Let’s put the Post Office back to work with letters.


40 posted on 10/08/2011 11:50:59 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (If you always tell the truth, you won't have to remember what you said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bogus and outrageous charges against a great American.

The leftist establishment wants all conservatives dead or at the very least, behind bars serving time for opposing their crazy agenda.


41 posted on 10/08/2011 12:11:42 PM PDT by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox
Dems may be simply trying to defend the indefensible Kagan, She was solicitor general in charge of the legal ramifications of Obamacare, which would normally be a clear conflict and a slam-dunk recusal for anyone of honor.

These aren't normal times, however...this is Chicago thug politics; the ends justify the means, by any way possible.

42 posted on 10/08/2011 12:11:50 PM PDT by chiller ( Obama is nothing more than a professional money launderer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SW6906

And 46 House Republicans need to demand that now.


43 posted on 10/08/2011 12:20:52 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DTxAg

It’s not a theory, people live in fear of democrats.


44 posted on 10/08/2011 12:33:26 PM PDT by Williams (Honey Badger Don't Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: South40

The attack against Thomas was suppose to be lead by Anthony Weiner.

From Weiner earlier this year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-anthony-weiner/conflicted-clarence-thoma_b_821444.html


45 posted on 10/08/2011 12:33:53 PM PDT by Atlantan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40

Are the Dems going after John Conyers for his wife’s actions???


46 posted on 10/08/2011 12:52:39 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lockbox

The Democrats just what to plant the seed that the ruling is illegal if Supreme Court over turns ObamaCare, thus undermining the rule of law.
______________________________________________________________

That’s it exactly. Make it seem illegitimate. A common tactic of the left (Bush/Gore 2000).


47 posted on 10/08/2011 1:05:06 PM PDT by free me (heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: South40
exactly! OR give such grief to Cain?

CAIN/WEST 2012!

I'm blonde and from Minnesota, so what are yah gonna call me NOW,? Obama!

48 posted on 10/08/2011 1:22:36 PM PDT by NordP (Common Sense ConservaTEAves - Love of Country, Less Govt, Stop Spending, No Govt Run Health Care!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Actually, it's a continuation of the "lynching" attempt started during confirmation. The Dems and their cohorts can't stand a black man who achieved what he is without help from the usual race oriented social programs, especially one who believes in republicanism. The double standard will apply.

They're just starting to demonize Herman Cain.
49 posted on 10/08/2011 1:24:17 PM PDT by Banjoguy (The U.S. Government has become a criminal enterprise! None of us are safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: South40

Investigate this crotch salute at Ft Hood you miserable DemocRATs!

50 posted on 10/08/2011 1:26:12 PM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 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