Supreme Court Justice Paid Off

[Pat]

Jeff, I actually agree with you. My interest is to put it in perspective.
Thankfully this thread has evolved from accusing Justice Thomas of being "paid off" to your post which is I believe accurate. It was a mistake, (albeit one blown way out of proportion given the politics involved). A Supreme Court Justice, especially one under the media microscope and public scrutiny of Justice Thomas, shouldn't have made even an inadvertent mistake. As you suggest, it's not like all this isn't public anyway.
I personally would feel better about it if all public officials regardless of political ideology, affiliation, race, sex or sexual preference were put under the same level of scrutiny though.

 

[Nick]

It may have been inadvertent, but still wrong.

Jeff,

To me it's like the receiving stolen goods laws in the UK, were pleading ignorance is no defense. "I suspect that these goods may be stolen, but it may be on the other hand that they are not"

The situation is further complicated by the concept of recklessness or wilful blindness to the circumstances; either will be treated as a belief that the goods are stolen. Thus, suspicion will be converted into belief when the facts are so obvious that belief may safely be imputed, any denial of belief by the defendant would not be credible.

If the judge suspected his wife of receiving a substantial amount of money, he should have looked into it.

If he had no knowledge of a $680,000 coming into the household; at a minimum he is paid to much, and a maximum he is not astute enough to be a Judge.

 

[Pat]

Nick, if you are now suggesting any U.S. Supreme Court Justice that has not recognized the spousal income amounts on their disclosure forms "is not astute enough to be a judge", then you'll need to impeach most of them. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Souter are exempt because they are single.

 

[Doug S.]

Doug, let me try again.

For all who like to criticize and name call without the facts here are the instructions for SF 278 (Rev. 03/2000) 5 C.F.R. Part 2634 U.S. Office of Government Ethics, SCHEDULE A, Assets and Income.
Note the wording in the last paragraph “For your spouse, report the source but not the amount of earned income of more than $1,000”.

If any of you have ever amended a tax return you may be deemed as guilty as Justice Thomas.

VEEK, this IS NOT a tax issue. I misread Jim's original post, and when he so graciously pointed out that it was not a tax form, but a mandatory disclosure form, I apologized for my error.

I did not, however, change my mind regarding the transgression...this is a matter of a SCJ either failing to report that his wife had a source of non-interest income OR a SCJ failing to scrutinize the form for accuracy (assuming an assistant of some sort filled it out for him) before he signed off on the accuracy of the form.

Having worked in a job where the failure to file an accurately completed form would have cost me my job, I see no reason to hold a SCJ to any less a standard of performance.

Please see post #41 for my apology for misreading Jim's original post:

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...".

...as well as post # 157 for my specific mention that the requirement did NOT require that either the source or the amount needed to be reported:

Just curious, Jack.....would you call SCJ Thomas a liar for not having disclosed the fact that his wife had non-interest income (keep in mind there is no requirement that she divulge the source or the amount)?

Again, IMHO this is a form that MUST be completed honestly AND accurately for job maintenance....and since he can't just be fired, there is no other option than impeachment. Whether he is prosecuted or not is another matter....I'm with Jeff on this one, just slap his hands by impeaching him and removing him from the Supreme Court, and let that be the end of it, no need to prosecute him (unless it is required by law, then there should be no choice).

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Nick]

Having worked in a job where the failure to file an accurately completed form would have cost me my job, I see no reason to hold a SCJ to any less a standard of performance.

:thumbsup: !

 

[Cliff Beer]

Ditto what Doug said.

The disclosure questions don't start with "to the best of your knowledge" or "in your opinion".... The disloser is, in fact, obligated to have the level of knowledge necessary as to the relevant facts and circumstances in order to be able to make an accurate disclosure. The Justice in this case knew full well of his wife's compensation, understood completely the question being asked, and chose not to disclose the relevant information. It has nothing to do with race or religeon or political leaning. It has everything to do with integrity, honesty, and a sense of right v. wrong. Why would we trust a seat on our highest Court to the judgment of person who showed in at least one case here to be grossly inadequate?

 

[Jim Craik]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself immediately from any cases regarding the constitutionality of the health care reform law.
The Thomas household has profited from opposition to health care reform. His wife has already taken nearly $700,000 from health care opponents and now openly advertises herself as a crack lobbyist with the "experience and connections" to overturn the law of the land.
Yesterday, 75 of my House colleagues sent a letter to Justice Thomas calling on him to recuse himself from deliberations related to health care. Now I need your help to show Justice Thomas that we won't accept a biased Supreme Court.

From the Huffinton Post, written by Anthony Weiner (D) New York.

Al, Veek, I know you think I "made this up" It appears that at least 75 House Members feel strongly enough to sign this declaration.