Should Clarence Thomas Recuse Himself ???

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

A judge <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">shall disqualify himself</span> or herself <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including</span> but not limited to instances in which:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;

(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

(d) the judge or <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">the judge’s spouse</span>, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding</span>; or

(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

(e) the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy​
Canon 3(C)(1), of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.




  • The Thomas household has profited from opposition to health care reform. Virgina earned $686,589 between 2003 and 2007 from health care opponents (which Clarence failed to disclose) and now openly advertises herself as a crack lobbyist with the “experience and connections” to overturn the health care law. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"></span>


  • Virginia Thomas: advocates for the repeal of President Obama's "unconstitutional law" regulating health insurance. "With the U.S. Constitution on our side and the hearts and minds of the American people with us, freedom will prevail," says a position paper posted on the website of Liberty Central, formed by Virginia Thomas this year to advance conservative principles and candidates.


  • The constitutionality of the healthcare law is in all likelihood to be decided by the Supreme Court.


Should Clarence Thomas recused himself when the case reaches the Supreme Court ???









 
He should but he won't. Republicans seem to not see conflicts of interests when it involves them.

Unfortunately, there is the appearance that Conservative Supreme Court justices no longer bothering to avoid appearance of conflicts of interest.

But, as a reminder to some out there why it is so important to register and vote, of the four (4) different courts that have ruled on the legality of the Affordable Care Act (referred to some as Obamacare probably in an effort to blasphemize the President) two (2) Clinton appointees have found the law constitutional, while Henry Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, and Vinson, a Reagan appointee, have found it unconstitutional.

QueEx
 
Unfortunately, there is the appearance that Conservative Supreme Court justices no longer bothering to avoid appearance of conflicts of interest.

But, as a reminder to some out there why it is so important to register and vote, of the four (4) different courts that have ruled on the legality of the Affordable Care Act (referred to some as Obamacare probably in an effort to blasphemize the President) two (2) Clinton appointees have found the law constitutional, while Henry Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, and Vinson, a Reagan appointee, have found it unconstitutional.

QueEx


This is the subtle or no so subtle tool of those that wish to maintain the status quo. Claiming that there is no difference between the parties or candidates. This will discourage the cynical or lazy voter from voting. If you think President Obama is the same or similar to Bush, then there is no way you can claim that the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are any where near similar as the appointments of Roberts and Alito.
 
This is the subtle or no so subtle tool of those that wish to maintain the status quo. Claiming that there is no difference between the parties or candidates. This will discourage the cynical or lazy voter from voting. If you think President Obama is the same or similar to Bush, then there is no way you can claim that the appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are any where near similar as the appointments of Roberts and Alito.

:yes: Didn't Kagan recuse herself from a case just recently. She did the right thing but it's hard to "win" when you're the only ones playing with any kind of integrity.
 
:yes: Didn't Kagan recuse herself from a case just recently. She did the right thing but it's hard to "win" when you're the only ones playing with any kind of integrity.


but it's hard to "win" when you're the only ones playing with any kind of integrity

The is the genesis of thought of the no regulation capitalist mind. It is Darwinism (uncivilized) at it's purist.
 
source: New York Times

Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics</NYT_HEADLINE>


Thomas-articleLarge-v2.jpg
Kamenko Pajic/Associated Press
Justice Clarence Thomas was given a $15,000 bust of Lincoln in 2001 by a group for which a friend is a trustee.

<NYT_TEXT><NYT_CORRECTION_TOP></NYT_CORRECTION_TOP>

PIN POINT, Ga. — Clarence Thomas was here promoting his memoir a few years ago when he bumped into Algernon Varn, whose grandfather once ran a seafood cannery that employed Justice Thomas’s mother as a crab picker.

Mr. Varn lived at the old cannery site, a collection of crumbling buildings on a salt marsh just down the road from a sign heralding this remote coastal community outside Savannah as Justice Thomas’s birthplace. The justice asked about plans for the property, and Mr. Varn said he hoped it could be preserved.

“And Clarence said, ‘Well, I’ve got a friend I’m going to put you in touch with,’ ” Mr. Varn recalled, adding that he was later told by others not to identify the friend.

The publicity-shy friend turned out to be Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate magnate and a major contributor to conservative causes. Mr. Crow stepped in to finance the multimillion-dollar purchase and restoration of the cannery, featuring a museum about the culture and history of Pin Point that has become a pet project of Justice Thomas’s.

The project throws a spotlight on an unusual, and ethically sensitive, friendship that appears to be markedly different from those of other justices on the nation’s highest court.

The two men met in the mid-1990s, a few years after Justice Thomas joined the court.
Since then, Mr. Crow has done many favors for the justice and his wife, Virginia, helping finance a Savannah library project dedicated to Justice Thomas, presenting him with a Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass and reportedly providing $500,000 for Ms. Thomas to start a Tea Party-related group. They have also spent time together at gatherings of prominent Republicans and businesspeople at Mr. Crow’s Adirondacks estate and his camp in East Texas.

In several instances, news reports of Mr. Crow’s largess provoked controversy and questions, adding fuel to a rising debate about Supreme Court ethics. But Mr. Crow’s financing of the museum, his largest such act of generosity, previously unreported, raises the sharpest questions yet — both about Justice Thomas’s extrajudicial activities and about the extent to which the justices should remain exempt from the code of conduct for federal judges.

Although the Supreme Court is not bound by the code, justices have said they adhere to it. Legal ethicists differed on whether Justice Thomas’s dealings with Mr. Crow pose a problem under the code. But they agreed that one facet of the relationship was both unusual and important in weighing any ethical implications: Justice Thomas’s role in Mr. Crow’s donation for the museum.

The code says judges “should not personally participate” in raising money for charitable endeavors, out of concern that donors might feel pressured to give or entitled to favorable treatment from the judge. In addition, judges are not even supposed to know who donates to projects honoring them.

While the nonprofit Pin Point museum is not intended to honor Justice Thomas, people involved in the project said his role in the community’s history would inevitably be part of it, and he participated in a documentary film that is to accompany the exhibits.

Deborah L. Rhode, a Stanford University law professor who has called for stricter ethics rules for Supreme Court justices, said Justice Thomas “should not be directly involved in fund-raising activities, no matter how worthy they are or whether he’s being centrally honored by the museum.”

On the other hand, the restriction on fund-raising is primarily meant to deter judges from using their position to pressure donors, as opposed to relying on “a rich friend” like Mr. Crow, said Ronald D. Rotunda, who teaches legal ethics at Chapman University in California.

“I don’t think I could say it’s unethical,” he said. “It’s just a very peculiar situation.”

Justice Thomas, through a Supreme Court spokeswoman, declined to respond to a detailed set of questions submitted by The New York Times. Mr. Crow also would not comment.

Supreme Court ethics have been under increasing scrutiny, largely because of the activities of Justice Thomas and Ms. Thomas, whose group, Liberty Central, opposed President Obama’s health care overhaul — an issue likely to wind up before the court. Mr. Crow’s donation to Liberty Central was reported by Politico.

In January, the liberal advocacy organization Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from last year’s Citizens United campaign finance case because they had attended a political retreat organized by the billionaire Koch brothers, who support groups that stood to benefit from the court’s decision.

A month later, more than 100 law professors asked Congress to extend to Supreme Court justices the ethics code that applies to other federal judges, and a bill addressing the issue was introduced.

It is not unusual for justices to accept gifts or take part in outside activities, some with political overtones.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer has attended Renaissance Weekend, a retreat for politicians, artists and media personalities that is a favorite of Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in a symposium sponsored by the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, and a philanthropic foundation once tried to give her a $100,000 achievement award. She instructed that the money be given to charity.

But in the case of Justice Thomas and his dealings with Mr. Crow, the ethical complications appear more complex

Conservative Ties

Mr. Crow, 61, manages the real estate and investment businesses founded by his late father, Trammell Crow, once the largest landlord in the United States. The Crow family portfolio is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and includes investments in hotels, medical facilities, public equities and hedge funds.

A friend of the Bush family, Mr. Crow is a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation and has donated close to $5 million to Republican campaigns and conservative groups. Among his contributions were $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group formed to attack the Vietnam War record of Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, and $500,000 to an organization that ran advertisements urging the confirmation of President George W. Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Crow has not personally been a party to Supreme Court litigation, but his companies have been involved in federal court cases, including four that went to the appellate level. And he has served on the boards of two conservative organizations involved in filing supporting briefs in cases before the Supreme Court. One of them, the American Enterprise Institute, with Mr. Crow as a trustee, gave Justice Thomas a bust of Lincoln valued at $15,000 and praised his jurisprudence at an awards gala in 2001.

The institute’s Project on Fair Representation later filed briefs in several cases, and in 2006 the project brought a lawsuit challenging federal voting rights laws, a case in which Justice Thomas filed a lone dissent, embracing the project’s arguments. The project director, an institute fellow named Edward Blum, said the institute supported his research but did not finance the brief filings or the Texas suit, which was litigated pro bono by a former clerk of Justice Thomas’s.

“When it came time to file a lawsuit,” he said, “A.E.I. had no role in doing that.”

Coming Up With a Plan

In addition to his interest in politics and policy, Mr. Crow is well known for his keen devotion to history.

A backyard garden at his $24 million Dallas residence is dominated by old statues of dictators he has collected from fallen regimes, including Lenin and Stalin. His private library is packed with 8,000 rare books and artifacts, including a Senate roll call sheet from Justice Thomas’s confirmation and a “thank you” letter from the justice, according to local news reports.

There are a number of reasons Justice Thomas might be thankful to Mr. Crow. In addition to giving him the Douglass Bible, valued 10 years ago at $19,000, Mr. Crow has hosted the justice aboard his private jet and his 161-foot yacht, at the exclusive Bohemian Grove retreat in California and at his grand Adirondacks summer estate called Topridge, a 105-acre spread that once belonged to Marjorie Merriweather Post, the cereal heiress.

Christopher Shaw, a folk singer who said he had been invited several times to perform at Topridge, recalled seeing Justice Thomas and his family “on one or two occasions.” They were among about two dozen guests who included other prominent Republicans — last summer, the younger Mr. Bush stopped by.

“There would be guys puffing on cigars,” Mr. Shaw said. “Clarence just kind of melted in with everyone else. We got introduced at dinner. He sat at Harlan’s table.”

Mr. Crow’s $175,000 donation to the library in Savannah in 2001 started out anonymous, but it was eventually made public amid opposition to the project by some local black leaders who did not like Justice Thomas’s politics. Similarly, Mr. Crow sought to keep his role in the museum quiet.

At first glance the Pin Point Heritage Museum, scheduled to open this fall, would seem an unlikely catalyst for an ethical quandary. That Pin Point’s history is worthy of preservation is not in dispute.

Part of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor designated by Congress, it is representative of tight-knit Southern coastal settlements that trace their roots to freed slaves and were often based around fishing. In Pin Point, the Varn crab and oyster cannery, founded in the 1920s, was a primary source of jobs until it closed in 1985.

Mr. Varn and his wife, Sharon, said they had long hoped the property could be saved from commercial development but had little success coming up with a plan. That changed after their chance encounter with Justice Thomas, who was visiting his childhood home with a television news crew.

Justice Thomas, 62, was born and raised near the cannery overlooking the Moon River, where it was not uncommon for babies to rock in bassinets made of crab baskets while their mothers shucked oysters. He sympathized with the Varns’ wishes and said he had a friend who could help, Mr. Varn said.

The Varns eventually sold their property in April 2008. During a recent interview at their home near the cannery, they made it clear that they were “not supposed to say” who the buyer was, and a news release issued last November by a Savannah public relations firm said the museum was being “privately funded by an anonymous donor.”

But the paper trail leads back to Mr. Crow, and in interviews at the project site, people working on it acknowledged that he was financing it. Property records show a company called HKJRS/Pinpoint bought the land for $1.5 million, and incorporation records say the company is controlled by a Dallas-based partnership run by Mr. Crow.

Project documents reviewed by The Times show a preliminary construction budget of $1.3 million, but it is unclear if that includes expenses related to the content and design of the museum.

Justice Thomas remains closely involved with the project. Emily Owens, a museum spokeswoman who works for Mr. Crow’s company, said the justice “played a big part” in creating a video documentary that will be part of the museum experience. He hosted a design team from Dallas for a four-hour meeting at his Supreme Court offices in February.

And he has had a role in picking people to help with the museum. Barbara Fertig, a history professor at Armstrong Atlantic State University in Savannah, said that she was asked to meet with Justice Thomas last spring and that “by the end of the meeting, he said he would like me to work on this project.”

She said she had “never been particularly curious” about why Mr. Crow is financing it, adding that costly preservation projects are often possible only because of philanthropy motivated by friendships. Justice Thomas and Mr. Crow would seem to fall into that category, Ms. Fertig said.

“I’ve been in the company of the two of them together,” she said, “and they certainly really are friends.”

That friendship is important to determining whether Justice Thomas’s interactions with Mr. Crow conflict with the code, said Raymond J. McKoski, a retired state judge in Illinois who wrote a law review article on charitable fund-raising by judges. If Justice Thomas did not “misuse the prestige of office” in getting Mr. Crow to take on the project, it should not be a concern, he said.

“Some of it depends on the conversations that took place,” Mr. McKoski said. “Who brought up the idea? How willing was Mr. Crow to do it? What exact questions were asked by Justice Thomas?”

Beyond the admonition against fund-raising, the code generally discourages judges from partaking in any off-the-bench behavior that could create even the perception of partiality. It acknowledges the value in judges’ being engaged with their communities, lecturing on the law and doing charitable work, but draws a line where those activities might cause a reasonable person to worry that a judge is indebted to or influenced by someone.

“The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or charities, period,” said Arn Pearson, a lawyer with Common Cause. “If any other federal judge was doing it, he could face disciplinary action.”

The justices are not bound by the federal judiciary’s conduct code, because it is enforced by a committee of judges who rank below the justices. Even so, Justices Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy said in testimony before Congress in April that the justices followed the code.

Beyond the code, the justices must comply with laws applying to all federal officials that prohibit conflicts of interest and require disclosure of gifts. Justice Thomas’s gift acceptances drew attention in 2004, when The Los Angeles Times reported that he had accumulated gifts totaling $42,200 in the previous six years — far more than any of the other justices.

Since 2004, Justice Thomas has never reported another gift. He has continued to disclose travel costs paid by schools and organizations he has visited for speeches and teaching, but he has not reported that any travel was provided by Mr. Crow.

Travel records for Mr. Crow’s planes and yacht, however, suggest that Justice Thomas may have used them in recent years.

In April 2008, not long after Mr. Crow bought the Pin Point property, one of his private planes flew from Washington to Savannah, where his yacht, the Michaela Rose, was docked.

That same week, an item appeared in a South Carolina lawyers’ publication noting that Justice Thomas was arriving aboard the Michaela Rose in Charleston, a couple of hours north of Savannah, where the Crow family owns luxury vacation properties. The author was a prominent lawyer who said she knew of the visit because of a family connection to Mr. Crow.

Justice Thomas reported no gifts of travel that month in his 2008 disclosure. And there are other instances in which Justice Thomas’s travels correspond to flights taken by Mr. Crow’s planes.

On Jan. 4, 2010, when Justice Thomas was in Savannah for the dedication of a building in his honor, Mr. Crow’s plane flew from Washington to Savannah and returned to Washington the next day. Justice Thomas reported in his financial disclosure that his travel had been paid for by the Savannah College of Art and Design, which owned the building.

In his 2009 financial disclosure, Justice Thomas reported that Southern Methodist University in Dallas — Trammell Crow’s alma mater — had provided his travel for a speech there on Sept. 30. Flight records show that Mr. Crow’s plane flew from Washington to Dallas that day.

Among the questions The Times submitted to Justice Thomas was whether he was on any of those flights, and if so, whether the colleges reimbursed him or Mr. Crow. The colleges declined to comment.

One item not required to be reported in Justice Thomas’s financial disclosures is the millions of dollars Mr. Crow is spending on the museum. That is because the money is not being given to the justice as a gift.

For Algernon and Sharon Varn, who said they were thrilled to see a cherished piece of local history being restored, the museum is a gift to the community. While it is about more than Justice Thomas, they said, he deserves credit for putting them together with someone who had the money and the interest to make the project a reality.

“He was instrumental in getting the process started, because he wanted it preserved to show that no matter where you came from, you can go where you want,” Mr. Varn said. “He had a meager existence, and yet look where he is today. It’s a great American story.”
 
Dang Bro. I usually don't go that far (I think it leads down the slippery slope of who is black, who is black enough, etc.), but you do have a point! :D

Thomas's issues go way beyond his presumes hatred for his ethnicity, he jprocesses corporate greed, lust for power and capitalistic selfishness!
 
source: Think Progress


thomas_banner.jpg

The Clarence Thomas Scandal

Lavish GiftsPolitical FundraisersUndisclosed IncomeConflicts of InterestHis Family May Have a Stake In Citizens UnitedJustices Have Resigned For Less

Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done

Justice Clarence Thomas is an ethics problem in a black robe. Just eight months after ThinkProgress broke the story of Thomas’ attendance at a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser, we learn that Thomas doesn’t just do unethical favors for wealthy right-wing donors — they also do expensive favors for him.

Leading conservative donor Harlan Crow, whose company often litigates in federal court, provided $500,000 to allow Thomas’s wife to start a Tea Party group and he once gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank which frequently files briefs in Thomas’ Court, also gave Thomas a $15,000 gift.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because America has seen this movie before. Indeed, the Thomas scandal is little more than a remake of the forty year-old gifting scandal that brought down Justice Abe Fortas. Like Thomas, Fortas liked to associate with wealthy individuals with potential business before his Court. And like Thomas, Fortas took inappropriate gifts from his wealthy benefactors.

Fortas’ questionable gifts first came out when President Johnson nominated him for a promotion to Chief Justice of the United States in 1968. Fortas had accepted $15,000 to lead seminars at American University — far more than the university normally paid for such services — and the payments were bankrolled by the leaders of frequent corporate litigants including the vice president of Phillip Morris. Fortas survived this revelation, although his nomination for the Chief Justiceship was filibustered into oblivion.

Just a year later, the country learned that Fortas took another highly questionable gift. In 1966, one year after Fortas joined the Court, stock speculator Louis E. Wolfson’s foundation began paying Fortas an annual retainer of $20,000 per year for consulting services. Fortas’ actions were legal, and he eventually returned the money after Wolfson was convicted of securities violations and recused himself from Wolfson’s case, but the damage to Fortas — and the potential harm to the Supreme Court’s reputation — were too great. Fortas resigned in disgrace.

It is difficult to distinguish Fortas’ scandal from Thomas’. Like Fortas, Thomas accepted several very valuable gifts from parties who are frequently interested in the outcome of federal court cases. One of Thomas’ benefactors has even filed briefs in his Court since giving Thomas a $15,000 gift, and Thomas has not recused himself from each of these cases.

Of course, Thomas is also the least likely Justice to actually follow the command of precedent. Thomas embraces a discredited theory of the Constitution which would return America to a time when federal child labor laws were considered unconstitutional. His fellow justices criticize him for showing “utter disregard for our precedent and Congress’ intent.” Even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia finds Thomas’ approach to the law too extreme — in Scalia’s words “I am a textualist. I am an originalist. I am not a nut.”

But Thomas’ disregard for what has come before him changes nothing about the precedent he faces. If Abe Fortas had to resign his seat, so too should Clarence Thomas.
 
source: Think Progress


thomas_banner.jpg

The Clarence Thomas Scandal

Lavish GiftsPolitical FundraisersUndisclosed IncomeConflicts of InterestHis Family May Have a Stake In Citizens UnitedJustices Have Resigned For Less

Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done

Justice Clarence Thomas is an ethics problem in a black robe. Just eight months after ThinkProgress broke the story of Thomas’ attendance at a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser, we learn that Thomas doesn’t just do unethical favors for wealthy right-wing donors — they also do expensive favors for him.

Leading conservative donor Harlan Crow, whose company often litigates in federal court, provided $500,000 to allow Thomas’s wife to start a Tea Party group and he once gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank which frequently files briefs in Thomas’ Court, also gave Thomas a $15,000 gift.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because America has seen this movie before. Indeed, the Thomas scandal is little more than a remake of the forty year-old gifting scandal that brought down Justice Abe Fortas. Like Thomas, Fortas liked to associate with wealthy individuals with potential business before his Court. And like Thomas, Fortas took inappropriate gifts from his wealthy benefactors.

Fortas’ questionable gifts first came out when President Johnson nominated him for a promotion to Chief Justice of the United States in 1968. Fortas had accepted $15,000 to lead seminars at American University — far more than the university normally paid for such services — and the payments were bankrolled by the leaders of frequent corporate litigants including the vice president of Phillip Morris. Fortas survived this revelation, although his nomination for the Chief Justiceship was filibustered into oblivion.

Just a year later, the country learned that Fortas took another highly questionable gift. In 1966, one year after Fortas joined the Court, stock speculator Louis E. Wolfson’s foundation began paying Fortas an annual retainer of $20,000 per year for consulting services. Fortas’ actions were legal, and he eventually returned the money after Wolfson was convicted of securities violations and recused himself from Wolfson’s case, but the damage to Fortas — and the potential harm to the Supreme Court’s reputation — were too great. Fortas resigned in disgrace.

It is difficult to distinguish Fortas’ scandal from Thomas’. Like Fortas, Thomas accepted several very valuable gifts from parties who are frequently interested in the outcome of federal court cases. One of Thomas’ benefactors has even filed briefs in his Court since giving Thomas a $15,000 gift, and Thomas has not recused himself from each of these cases.

Of course, Thomas is also the least likely Justice to actually follow the command of precedent. Thomas embraces a discredited theory of the Constitution which would return America to a time when federal child labor laws were considered unconstitutional. His fellow justices criticize him for showing “utter disregard for our precedent and Congress’ intent.” Even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia finds Thomas’ approach to the law too extreme — in Scalia’s words “I am a textualist. I am an originalist. I am not a nut.”

But Thomas’ disregard for what has come before him changes nothing about the precedent he faces. If Abe Fortas had to resign his seat, so too should Clarence Thomas.


I don't think he should resign if he feels he's done nothing wrong. I damn sure don't think he should resign before we kick Obama out of office. I bet you can find evidence of all of the justices "hanging"
With like minded individuals. Where do you expect him to go and speak when he is not ruling on cases? COMINTERN? Think Progress Rally? CPUSA mixer? He doesn't agree philosophicly with you morons, so why the fuck would he hang with you? I only come on here to look at porn and I get drawn into these debates, but if i didn't like black porn so much I wouldnt even hang here.

Oh, and following precedent never made sense to me. If you don't agree with how a case was ruled, isn't that your job not to follow precedent? Maybe one of you commie lawyers can set me straight.

Ps. National Child labor laws are unconstitutional. I personally ran I.to them when I atempted to get work when i graduated from high school early and went looking for a job. I ran into a lot of union and beaorocratic opposition. Any guess why I can't stand unions and heavy handed government?
 
I don't think he should resign if he feels he's done nothing wrong. I damn sure don't think he should resign before we kick Obama out of office. I bet you can find evidence of all of the justices "hanging"
With like minded individuals. Where do you expect him to go and speak when he is not ruling on cases? COMINTERN? Think Progress Rally? CPUSA mixer? He doesn't agree philosophicly with you morons, so why the fuck would he hang with you? I only come on here to look at porn and I get drawn into these debates, but if i didn't like black porn so much I wouldnt even hang here.

So that's what it's really about to you modern day "conservatives": "winning". Not the Constitution or any "lofty ideals" but winning, through any means necessary and available.

Ps. National Child labor laws are unconstitutional. I personally ran I.to them when I atempted to get work when i graduated from high school early and went looking for a job. I ran into a lot of union and beaorocratic opposition. Any guess why I can't stand unions and heavy handed government?

You could always live in Maine where their governor is working to overturn state child labor laws. Of course it's more about trying to suppress wages than give children an opportunity to earn a living since they're also trying to pay them a lower wage than the minimum.
 
So that's what it's really about to you modern day "conservatives": "winning". Not the Constitution or any "lofty ideals" but winning, through any means necessary and available.

I definitely believe in the constitution. I am just sick and tired of our good conservatives resigning and quiting when hit with borderline-at-best charges. Liberals don't do that, I don't want conservatives to either. They need to learn how to fight. There right on Ideas, they just have to fight harder to implement.
Believe me, lefties live and breathe by "Any means necessary". Remember the Wisconsin debate stuff? It was damn near a riot in the courthouse.

You could always live in Maine where their governor is working to overturn state child labor laws. Of course it's more about trying to suppress wages than give children an opportunity to earn a living since they're also trying to pay them a lower wage than the minimum.

Your not going to like the sound of this, but when you suppress wages, more jobs are available. Companies and Land owners can only charge for so much, so prices go down to (a natural way to reduce inflation... ie, no need to jack up interest rates...) When you create jobs you get the economy going. The harder the economy rages the more opportunities to get higher paying jobs.
Your problem is you trying to return to the Hayday's of Liberalism... The early 50's. Where you could just walk out of high school and get a Job that you will stay at forever, doing relatively little work at really high pay. The problem with that is Someone will always recognize that they can do a more efficient job cheaper and undercut your prices at market, driving wages down.

That being said, you and I both know child labor laws are here to stay, so is the minimum wage (which, if removed, would also increase employment).
 
Your not going to like the sound of this, but when you suppress wages, more jobs are available. Companies and Land owners can only charge for so much, so prices go down to (a natural way to reduce inflation... ie, no need to jack up interest rates...) When you create jobs you get the economy going. The harder the economy rages the more opportunities to get higher paying jobs.
Your problem is you trying to return to the Hayday's of Liberalism... The early 50's. Where you could just walk out of high school and get a Job that you will stay at forever, doing relatively little work at really high pay. The problem with that is Someone will always recognize that they can do a more efficient job cheaper and undercut your prices at market, driving wages down.

That being said, you and I both know child labor laws are here to stay, so is the minimum wage (which, if removed, would also increase employment).

You could increase employment and decrease the standard of living for nearly everyone.
The idea that it would work out better for everyone has not been proven in any country anywhere. People aren't sneaking out of the US to go to Mexico. But going by your reasoning and logic, that might change.
And no one is itching to go back to the days before minimum wage and child labor laws. Forget your twisted philosophy, read some history books.
 
I definitely believe in the constitution. I am just sick and tired of our good conservatives resigning and quiting when hit with borderline-at-best charges. Liberals don't do that, I don't want conservatives to either. They need to learn how to fight. There right on Ideas, they just have to fight harder to implement.
Believe me, lefties live and breathe by "Any means necessary". Remember the Wisconsin debate stuff? It was damn near a riot in the courthouse.



I almost missed this.

So you believe in the Constitution but you have a problem with people of Wisconsin exercising their right to assemble and speech? I guess you were upset about all those Tea Party gatherings too, huh?
Where are all these "good conservatives" who are resigning? Name them, please. It seems "Conservatives" (not a fact but a brand name) think ethics rules are for other people and not them, including the governor of Wisconsina and those Republicans in that state government. There are several threads about that and the GOP does not look good in the light of truth.

"They're right on the ideas":lol::lol::lol::lol: Only history, math, and logic disagree with that.
 
Notice media coverage of Solandra and virtually none of Thomas. Which is more important. Liberal media?

source: Connecticut Watchdog

20 Dem Reps: DOJ Should Investigate Clarence Thomas

Twenty Democratic members of Congress- including Connecticut Fifth District Congressman Chris Murphy- wrote federal judicial authorities on Sept. 29 to request a formal Justice Department probe of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas for failing to disclose junkets, other gifts and income.

A coalition of both black and white Democrats told the Judicial Conference of the United States that it is required by law to seek a Justice Department investigation of the new allegations against Thomas and his wife, Republican political activist Virginia Lamp Thomas.

Most of the allegations became public this year. They involve claims of undisclosed gifts, junkets, vast income and other conflicts, along with justice’s failure to report his wife’s earnings on annual judicial disclosure forms that he signed under oath.

“Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas’s high level of legal training and experience,” said the congressional letter to judicial conference secretary James C. Duff, “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.”

To be sure, the 20 signatures are relatively few from a 435-member, Republican-run House. Still, the letter marks a significant step in justifying a criminal probe for what Thomas defenders and the nation’s oft-timid watchdog institutions trivialize as either oversights by a busy public servant or else potential “ethics” issues that have scant remedy as a practical matter.

I observed the start of the Thomas era first-hand by attending his 1991 confirmation hearings. The hearings reached a dramatic point 20 years ago in early October as Thomas faced sexual harassment claims by law professor Anita Hill. She was the fellow Yale Law School graduate who had been a Thomas subordinate at two different federal agencies during the early 1980s.

In February of this year, I hosted Common Cause Vice President Mary Boyle on my “MTL Washington Update” radio show just after her group disclosed that Thomas had been hiding his wife’s income. Last week, our radio audience heard also from retired federal judge Lillian McEwen, a former Thomas lover from the early 1980s and author of the compelling memoir, DC Unmasked and Undressed, published earlier this year. She said — based on Thomas telling her about “Long Dong Silver,” among other shared experiences — that he apparently perjured himself during his confirmation hearings when he denied under oath that same kind of pornography use that Hill had described him mentioning.

Characteristically, Thomas has largely remained silent about the new allegations, aside from disclosing that he promptly corrected his financial statements after Common Cause exposed them in late January. We’ll update today’s report with any comment we obtain from him or Duff’s Administrative Office. That office implements decisions by the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican colleague of Thomas.

Significantly, the congressional letter-signers demand an open-ended DOJ investigation, unlike the forgive-and-forget stance that most in Washington accord to the powerful. “Based upon the multiple public reports,” the letter said, “Justice Thomas’s actions may constitute a willful failure to disclose, which would warrant a referral by the Judicial Conference to the Department of Justice, so that appropriate civil or criminal actions can be taken.” [My emphasis added.]

There are many reasons for those in Washington’s power structure to ignore each others’ sexual and financial scandals, especially in this instance. For one, Thomas has influential friends who orchestrated his court nomination and who want to keep him there. Also, he is the court’s only African-American justice, a status he uses to intimidate critics. For example, he denounced Hill and inquiring Senators alike at his hearing for what he described as a “high-tech lynching.” The tactic worked.

Imagine for a moment a different scenario: Suppose the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired in 1991 by Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden had delayed the hearing to allow more investigation of the allegations against Thomas? Suppose the senators had informed the public with more testimony?

What might have happened if, for example, if they had encouraged their former counsel Lillian McEwen to step forward and describe her experiences. She had been a well-regarded counsel to the committee hired by Biden while chairman in the early 1980s. She later became a law professor before becoming a federal judge with Securities and Exchange Commission.

Suppose she had testified in 1991 that she accompanied Thomas to New York’s Plato’s Retreat sex club? She described that along with multiple Thomas sex partners on other occasions, and lots more in her memoir. But that’s not what Biden and his colleagues wanted. Furthermore, the Senate avoids post-confirmation scrutiny of judges suspected of perjury under a constitutional separation of powers rationale. When it’s over it’s over, right?

Even so, commoners unschooled in the law’s fine points might get confused: Do Senators truly care about good government if they let nominees perjure themselves? Should those winning federal judgeships by such chicanery also bask in lifetime appointments with no real oversight? Should they be immune from scrutiny even if suspected of improper, lavish gifts and family jobs — especially if the facts are hidden to litigants and everyone else by means of misleading, sworn disclosure statements?

On a routine basis, Thomas and his colleagues piously approve long prison sentences for others who mis-state or overlook such disclosures on home mortgage papers, income tax returns or similar papers. Should judges be exempt even from investigation for similar conduct?

Let’s look ahead: To commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Thomas confirmation hearings over the next few weeks, we can expect many accounts of his career. Some will be enlivened, perhaps unfairly, by nasty comments about him from academic, feminist or political critics.

Thomas and his allies will doubtless complain but can afford to shrug it off. The odds are overwhelming that Washington’s thought-leaders will raise a few eyebrows over allegations against him, but ultimately will close ranks with one of their own, as usual, on a bipartisan basis. Many big-time Democrats and their backers, after all, have important business before the Supreme Court.

Still, keep an eye on the congressional letter sent Sept. 29, 2011 to Duff at the administrative office at the Judicial Conference.

Despite the name and address at the top of the page, Rep. Murphy and his 19 congressional members probably meant to send their letter to a different court. Ordinarily, that other body’s members are far too distracted and too disrespected, especially these days, to have much impact. But the other tribunal has, at least theoretically, even greater potential power than the ones run by Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues.

It’s called the court of public opinion.
 
The Clarence Thomas Scandal


In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned in disgrace after the nation learned that he had accepted tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from corporate executives and other wealthy benefactors. Forty years later, Justice Clarence Thomas is caught in a strikingly similar scandal. Similarly to Fortas, Thomas has a wealthy benefactor named Harlan Crow who has shown lavish generosity to Thomas and his Tea Partying wife Ginni. And where Fortas had an ad hoc group of corporate executives to subsidize his lifestyle, Thomas seems to have the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — a corporate-aligned think tank that once gave him a $15,000 gift. We find it difficult to find daylight between Thomas’ actions and the gifting scandal that forced Abe Fortas off the bench.

LAVISH GIFTS: Like Fortas before him, Thomas received tens of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from wealthy benefactors — some of whom have an interest in cases before his court. Crow gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. He provided Thomas’ wife with half a million dollars to start a Tea Party group, and he donated over $1 million dollars to fund a museum that will include exhibits honoring Justice Thomas. Crow has a long history of investing in conservative political causes — he’s donated nearly $5 million to Republican candidates and conservative organizations, including $100,000 to the anti-John Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — but he isn’t even the most troubling entity to rain gifts upon Clarence Thomas. That honor goes to AEI, which gifted Thomas with a $15,000 bust of Abraham Lincoln even though AEI frequently files briefs in Thomas’ Court. Thomas has not recused himself from cases in which AEI participated.

SCANDALS UPON SCANDALS: If Thomas’ addiction to high dollar favors were his only problem, that would be deeply disturbing. But this is just one of many scandals facing the justice. Justice Thomas attended a Koch-sponsored political fundraiser intended to fund the conservative infrastructure of front groups, political campaigns, think tanks, and media outlets, an act that would likely violate his ethical obligation not to engage in fundraising if the Supreme Court were not exempt from the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges. Thomas claimed that his wife Ginni — a lobbyist and high-earning member of the professional right — earned no non-investment income whatsoever while she was working at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, despite having a legal obligation to disclose her income on his annual disclosure form. After Thomas’ failure to disclose this income was widely reported by the press, Thomas amended his disclosure forms to include Ginni’s income. And the fact that his wife is now working as a Tea Party lobbyist could raise recusal issues for Justice Thomas. Ginni Thomas has a right to do whatever she wants for a living, but if the Thomas family earned one dime to lobby in favor of repealing health reform, it would be a serious conflict of interest for Thomas to sit on a case that could make that repeal a reality.

THEIR MAN ON THE COURT: The rich and the powerful have been good to Justice Thomas, but Thomas has been extremely good to them. Thomas didn’t just join the infamous Citizens United decision opening up the flood gates to corporate money in elections, he also would have struck down essential transparency laws that allow Americans to know who is buying their democracy. Thomas stood behind decisions eviscerating consumer rights and the rights of workers in the workplace, and he embraces a vision of the Constitution that is nothing shy of terrifying. In three separate opinions, conservative Thomas called for a return to a discredited theory of the Constitution that early 20th century justices used to declare federal child labor laws unconstitutional. So Thomas has little regard for the Constitution and even less for precedent — perhaps that explains why he has thumbed his nose at the Fortas precedent and entangled himself so tightly with his wealthy and influential benefactors.

Evening Brief: Important Stories That You May Have Missed

The natural gas industry has developed the coloring book “Talisman Terry’s Energy Adventure,” starring the “friendly fracosaurus,” a smiling dinosaur who glosses over environmental concerns and promotes the message that fracking is smart.

Several taxi companies and more than 2,000 cab drivers have filed a lawsuit against Georgia’s new immigration law, arguing that the provision that prevents anyone from transporting an undocumented immigrant would burden them with the responsibility of checking the immigration status of each and every one of their passengers.

The State Department warns that if you try to sail to Gaza, Israel may try to kill you.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt now opposes IPAB, even though he once supported government intervention in the health sector that would have gone further when it comes to health care costs.

NBC has “rewarded” Donald Trump with a hefty paycheck: $65 million a year over two years, “a sum that’s apparently a ‘substantial increase.’”

An undocumented immigrant came forward today with his true identity, not in a police round-up, but on the front page of The New York Times Magazine. Jose Vargas, a Pultizer-Prize-winning journalist who has written for The Huffington Post, The New Yorker and The Washington Post, reports here on his own journey from a childhood in the Bay Area to his successful career to the moment he decided to go public.

The economy has not lived up to growth predictions for June, leading the Federal Reserve into “a zone of inaction” in which it proposes a cautious economic plan and most likely will stay clear of future bond-buying schemes.

Good news for Rep. Michele Bachmann: The double-bind predicament that then-presidential-candidate Hillary Clinton reportedly suffered from in 2008 may no longer be an issue for strong women in the media, according to a new study. Instead, women portrayed as tough seem to benefit in much the same way that tough men do with regards to public opinion.

And Stephen Colbert unveils who he thinks is the GOP’s best candidate: the stick figure from road signs.
 

Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says



Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

Reporting from Washington — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.
A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday. But Virginia Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time.

Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the "founding principles" of limited government and individual liberty.

In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as "none." Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.

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."

The Supreme Court is "the only judicial body in the country that is not governed by a set of judicial ethical rules," Gillers said.

A spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which oversees the financial disclosures, could not be reached Friday night to comment on what actions could be taken. In most cases, judges simply amend their forms when an error is discovered.

"Without disclosure, the public and litigants appearing before the court do not have adequate information to assess potential conflicts of interest, and disclosure is needed to promote the public's interest in open, honest and accountable government," Common Cause President Bob Edgar wrote in a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States.

The allegation comes days after Common Cause filed a letter requesting that the Justice Department investigate whether Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have disqualified themselves from hearing a campaign finance case after they reportedly attended a private meeting sponsored by Charles and David Koch, billionaire philanthropists who fund conservative causes.In the case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that corporate and union funds could be spent directly on election advertising.

The Koch brothers have been key supporters of the group Americans for Prosperity, which spent heavily in the 2010 midterm election and claims a nonprofit tax status that allows it to avoid disclosing its donors.

Clarence Thomas has been the lone justice to argue that laws requiring public disclosure of large political contributions are unconstitutional.


A Supreme Court spokesperson later said that Thomas dropped by the private event, but that Scalia did not attend.
 

Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says



Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms.


He's black-using your Obamabot logic you must still be supportting him no questions asked? Right?

As for me I am consistant. regarless of color, if someone is bad for me and my people, I am AGAINST him and he SHOULD recuse himself!
 

He's black-using your Obamabot logic you must still be supportting him no questions asked? Right?

As for me I am consistant. regarless of color, if someone is bad for me and my people, I am AGAINST him and he SHOULD recuse himself!

You have never seen me post support based on skin color.

I support Obama because I don't have a problem with his overall performance and have placed blame for many of the complaints attributed to him to where that blame should be.And I have consistently supported him.

According to my logic Thomas should never have been confirmed.

And based on his constant conflicts and lapses of ethics he should be impeached.
 

Well, Day One of arguments before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality
of the Affordable Care Act in now over. EACH JUSTICE ASKED QUESTIONS, EXCEPT
ONE.

WHICH ONE WAS THE ONLY JUSTICE NOT TO ASK A SINGLE QUESTION ???


 
Okay, I answered the question, what do i win?? :D:D



ding, ding, ding, ding . . .


Very Good ! ! !

You Sir, have won the Honor of moving to the Final Round of the JUSTICE IS SILENT CONTEST. Now, here is the question in the final round:

How long has it been since <s>that som bitch</s>, I mean Uncle Justice Thom<s>as</s>, last asked a question from the bench in a case before the Supreme Court of these United States ? ? ?​






FOR YOU AT HOME, you can CLICK HERE for a clue
to the answer in the JUSTICE IS SILENT CONTEST.

Only you at home can see the clue. The clue is
invisible to muckraker 10021, but, please read
silently and don't say the answer out loud !!!







[hide]The following is a hint to all the runners-up who, unfortunately,
didn't win the Honor of providing us with the answer to the Real
Question:

13thomas_graphic-popup.jpg


[/hide]
 
ding, ding, ding, ding . . .


Very Good ! ! !

You Sir, have won the Honor of moving to the Final Round of the JUSTICE IS SILENT CONTEST. Now, here is the question in the final round:

How long has it been since <s>that som bitch</s>, I mean Uncle Justice Thom<s>as</s>, last asked a question from the bench in a case before the Supreme Court of these United States ? ? ?​






FOR YOU AT HOME, you can CLICK HERE for a clue
to the answer in the JUSTICE IS SILENT CONTEST.

Only you at home can see the clue. The clue is
invisible to muckraker 10021, but, please read
silently and don't say the answer out loud !!!







[hide]The following is a hint to all the runners-up who, unfortunately,
didn't win the Honor of providing us with the answer to the Real
Question:

13thomas_graphic-popup.jpg


[/hide]

:smh::smh::smh::smh::smh::smh:
What an uncle Tom!!!!
 
Back
Top