Supreme Court Justice Paid Off

[Doug S.]

... I really think that he was paid off (through his wife) but paid off none the less.

If you're right, Jim, that would make both of them guilty of conspiracy...it was a possibility I had never considered, I was just thinking of how Mrs. Thomas might have justified not including the information.

Speaking of "...the information", I must apoligize for misreading your original post. For some reason, I read income tax (must be b/c I'm still waiting for my W-2 form to arrive) rather than "...Supreme Court financial disclosures forms...".

That seems to put the onus probandi even more on Mr. Thomas, doesn't it?

 

[Cliff Beer]

Jim brigs up a good point - that is a major oversight at best, and a possible criminal misrepresentation at worst, by no less than a Supreme Court Justice. It doesn't make any difference what that Justice's political leanings are, the law is clear, the disclosure forms are simple, and Justice Thomas chose to break the law.

We hold our officers of the law to a higher standard than others. Why? Because they are charged with being the safeguarders of the primacy of the law, and power it holds over all. A Supreme Court Justice making a material misrepresentation on a mandatory disclosure form is not like you or me lying on a job application about a drunk and disorderly charge from 20 years ago.

There's really two issues here: a) lying on a disclosure form, and b) was influence exerted by way of monies paid to a Justice's spouse? Both are equally wrong, and criminally reprehensible. If the wife did indeed receive that money then a) is pretty much an established fact. What would be interesting to know as sub-points of b) is did the wife render some services to the think tank that would normally be worth that kind of income and, more importantly, did the receipt of that money by the spouse create some intended influence over Justice Thomas? Because, indeed, lots of very rich people give large amounts of money to their favorite think tank in the hopes that the money will find its way into the pockets of people with influence over important decisions.

My favorite legal quote: Fiat justitia ruat caelum ("Let justice be done though the heavens may fall") Caesoninus d. 43 BC. Personally, that's such a glaring misstatement by a Justice (who fully understands the importance of such disclosures) that I'd say it's grounds for removal from the bench. Just my $.02.

Thanks for pointing out this little known fact Jim.

 

[Pat]

Pretty amazing that everyone is leaping to conclusions and making accusations only hearing one side of the story.
There is nothing I've read that indicates that any taxes were evaded or there was some sort of judicial action taken by Justice Thomas on behalf of the Heritage Foundation. If he failed to fill out a form accurately, then he certainly needs to be held appropriately accountable for that.
Given that Virginia "Ginni" Lamp Thomas is an American attorney who is presently serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and as the founder and president of the Tea party associated advocacy group, Liberty Central. She certainly falls on the Progressive hit list and I expect that she will soon be blamed for the Tucson shootings. She seems to have the qualifications for a think tank role and the implication that her salary is some sort of bribe without any sort of evidence is simply nonsense.
Of course if Justice Thomas could be made to step down (or impeached) that would allow the administration to get a liberal balance in the court while the senate is still in the hands of the Democrat party. So there is ample motivation to "Palin" Justice Thomas.
So much for the "new-civility" in rhetoric.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Pretty amazing that everyone is leaping to conclusions and making accusations only hearing one side of the story.
There is nothing I've read that indicates that any taxes were evaded or there was some sort of judicial action taken by Justice Thomas on behalf of the Heritage Foundation. If he failed to fill out a form accurately, then he certainly needs to be held appropriately accountable for that.
Given that Virginia "Ginni" Lamp Thomas is an American attorney who is presently serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and as the founder and president of the Tea party associated advocacy group, Liberty Central. She certainly falls on the Progressive hit list and I expect that she will soon be blamed for the Tucson shootings. She seems to have the qualifications for a think tank role and the implication that her salary is some sort of bribe without any sort of evidence is simply nonsense.
Of course if Justice Thomas could be made to step down (or impeached) that would allow the administration to get a liberal balance in the court while the senate is still in the hands of the Democrat party. So there is ample motivation to "Palin" Justice Thomas.
So much for the "new-civility" in rhetoric.

Well said.

 

[Jim Craik]

So there is ample motivation to "Palin" Justice Thomas.

Part of a post by Veek

Veek, so when you say someone has a motivation to "Palin" someone, of course you mean to make someone "accept responsibility for what they do and say"

 

[Jim Craik]

My favorite legal quote: Fiat justitia ruat caelum ("Let justice be done though the heavens may fall")

Part of a post by Cliff

Cliff,

That quote, should be engraved on the wall of the Supreme Court. I will remember and use that often. What is right is right, what is wrong is wrong.

If Al wants to defend Mr Thomas, then he must defend a hypothetical liberal justice who takes money from Acorn. Al, you must remember the Founding Fathers line about "Equal Justice Under The Law"

 

[Garry]

If anyone thinks that Jim is fair and balanced they have been spiking their tea.
Did it ever occur that there is a CPA involved? What does he have to say about the boxes checked? Was it his advise? There are a lot of questions here that are unanswered.
That being said, if anyone, and I mean anyone tries to get away with illegal activity while in the employ of America, they should be drawn and quartered. Let's see the proof of intent though, and not a political witchunt of which the government is very good at. I fear that unbiased investigations are not possible with the current climate in Washington. Does anyone think this looks like the personal attack politics that is prevelent in largely Democrat majority controlled states like Illinois? If it smells like sh*t, it probably is.


Garry

 

[Jim Craik]

Gary,

If you go back and read the original post you will see that this had nothing to do with taxes or CPAs, this was the anual "Supreme Court Financial Disclosure Form" that Justices are required to fill out every year.

Mr Thomas filled this report out every year and every year he "forgot" about this six figure income. Does that seem plausable to you?

As far as "fair and balanced" goes I would condemn any Justice who flaunts their supposed imparciality in this way!

Gary, how about you?

 

[Damian]

Come on guys it's not like he claimed to be from a country but never produced a BIRTH CERTIFICATE ( Atlas Shrugs: Obama's Birth Certificate Forgery) so really come on already. It's like the old joke says .... You know how a polotician is lying (or judge in this case) ; His lips are moving. (because I like playing the devils advocate)

 

[Doug S.]

Come on guys it's not like he claimed to be from a country but never produced a BIRTH CERTIFICATE ( Atlas Shrugs: Obama's Birth Certificate Forgery) so really come on already.

Come on, Damian, you don't really believe all that crap about Bee-OH being born outside the USA, do you?

If so, there is relief coming for what ails you. Access to birth certificate copies is usually reserved to the person under question or close family members (probably so that genealogists can perform research), but I read recently that the Hawaii legislators have introduced a bill in their state legislature that would make copies of Bee-OH's OFFICIAL birth certificate available to anyone who wants it.....for a fee, of course!

Of course, that won't do anything to convince the conspiracy theorists and other paranoids who live and breed among us....they would rather believe the crap they hear from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Now back to our normally scheduled "topic".....regardless of whether SCJ Thomas filled out the disclosure form or not, he is responsible for the accuracy of the content. Most disclosure forms contain a statement something to this effect: "I declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained herein is complete and correct".

Sounds like SCJ Thomas needs to be brought before the legal system on charges of perjury, at least. Let's see how Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh deal with that one (well, at least Glenn Beck, we all know Limbaugh is in a drug induced haze that keeps him from seeing ANYTHING clearly, except for those little creatures buzzing around his head).

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Damian]

I really don't care either way. I was just pouring fuel on the fire.

 

[Doug S.]

I really don't care either way. I was just pouring fuel on the fire.

:thumbsup:

 

[Jim Craik]

Damian,

That line about a politicions lips moving is very old and often true.

But I have never heard it used about Judges, much less Supreme Court Justice!!!!! Lets hope we never hear it again!

Damian, you say you do not care either way!

You should care, you should care very much.

If this is not stopped, a special interest group only needs to buy off five set for life Justices, not hundreds of elected politicions. Just think of the savings!

Just think if Al and RonR get their way these special interest groups can ruin our great Country for just a few million!

 

[Damian]

Please the Supreme Court is nothing more than an out of touch group of geezers that make decisions (if you can ever get them to make a decision) based on the political whim of the time all nicely hidden under the guise of the constitution. They should have limited terms if you want them to stay honest. If not than really what can anyone do to them. For all intense and purposes they are untouchable and will be for the foreseeable future. I just choose not to get all uppity about them since NOTHING CAN OR WILL BE DONE. In theory they are one of the greatest parts of our legal system but reality sings a very different tune.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Part of a post by Cliff

Cliff,

That quote, should be engraved on the wall of the Supreme Court. I will remember and use that often. What is right is right, what is wrong is wrong.

If Al wants to defend Mr Thomas, then he must defend a hypothetical liberal justice who takes money from Acorn. Al, you must remember the Founding Fathers line about "Equal Justice Under The Law"

I am not trying to defend Thomas, he should pay his taxes. Do most places W2 their payoffs? What you have said is unfounded slander. You always ask for proof, show me your proof of a payoff. This is a stretch at best Jim.

 

[Damian]

The point really should be did the justice HIMSELF do anything. His wife was paid for work done / not done and SHE IS RESPONSIBLE NOT HIM. Look at it like this ... how many of you know everything about your wifes work. Do you each know down to the $ how much she makes (especially if you file separately)? So he didn't claim HER INCOME on HIS questionnaire; GET OVER IT. I see many pots calling the kettle black here. As for the ACORN comment GIVE ME A BREAK ... anyone remember B.H.O. standing by his beloved ACORN until they got blown up. Or what about the fact that B.H.O. made the ridiculous comment that HE HAD NO IDEA about how radical Van Jones was. Come on that's corruption at the highest levels and not one of you sat there and complained so sit back take mothers little helper with something to wash it down with and breath.

I said it before in a perfect world this would be something to get upset over (once all of the details are known) but in todays day and age how is anyone surprised by this? Oh and were the taxes actualy paid and he just didn't mention it or were they not payed because that would make a world of difference.

 

[Jim Craik]

Al,

Do you read the posts?

For the third time, this is not about taxes!

This is about the "Anual Supreme Court Financial Disclosure Form" that each Justice is required to full out each year.

This form is so "WE THE PEOPLE" can see what they are being paid for and if our Justices are being unduly inflenced.

Under spousal non-interest income he checked ****NONE**** each year, year after year even while she was being paid $100,000+ per year.

This money came from a concervative political action group, they raise mony each year to influence people with power to vote in ways they want!!!!!!

Al, I'll ask one more time, if this was a Liberal Justice accepting and lieing about money from Acorn or the ACLU would you be defending him???

Al, Yes or NO, it really is that easy.

 

[Damian]

Jim since the justice himself did NOT take any money than your whole argument is mute. Had HE been the one in question than I could understand your outrage but since that is NOT the case me thinks that thou protest too much! Sorry Al didn't mean to step on your toes.

 

[Jim Craik]

Damian

You obviously know nothing about the Supreme Court, if they did not care about spousal income they would not have aske the question.

Why would he lie about it if it was so inocent?

 

[Jim Craik]

Al, Damian, RonR

Are you telling us that as long as you give the money to their wife, kids, friends or partners its OK!

No need to be honest in those pesky questions.

You morons, say goodby to America!!!

It's been bought and paid for!