DC - Clarence Thomas and his Ignorance of the Law Excuse

believe09

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
28,094
Reaction score
471
"The Supreme Court justice broke a federal law by not disclosing his wife's $700,000 think-tank payday. Paul Campos on Thomas' "preposterous" defense and why he likely won't be punished."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/...3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2NsYXJlbmNldGhvbQ--
Here are the facts set forth in this article...

Ginni Thomas was paid nearly $700,000 by the Heritage Foundation, a "conservative think tank," a.k.a. a right-wing propaganda mill, between 2003 and 2007, as well as an undisclosed amount by another lobbying group in 2009. Justice Thomas' false statements regarding his wife's income certainly constitute a misdemeanor, and quite probably a felony, under federal law. (They would be felonies if he were prosecuted under 18. U.S.C. 1001, which criminalizes knowingly making false statements of material fact to a federal agency. This is the law Martha Stewart was convicted of breaking by lying to investigators.)

Thomas' defense is that he didn't knowingly violate the law, because he "misunderstood" the filing requirements. This is preposterous on its face. Bill Clinton was impeached—and subsequently disbarred—for defending his false statements about his affair with Monica Lewinsky with an excuse that wasn't as incredible as the one Thomas is now employing.

People, he is claiming ignorance of the law. A Supreme Court Justice is claiming ignorance of the law-At least we all KNEW Clinton knew what he was risking by defending his false statements. I think the same can be said here. JMO

ETA: Just to remind you-Clarence Thomas recused himself from participating in the case that overturned Campaign Finance laws because of his wife's employers. Yup, he misunderstood the law. At least someone has made a complaint to the Missouri Bar requesting he be disbarred for this. Doubtful, but heartening that someone has made the effort.
 
Clarence Thomas is a national disgrace and always has been. Somehow, we all were sidetracked by a pubic-hair-on-a-Coke-can remark and neglected to notice his utter lack of qualifications to serve on the Court.

(ETA: Frankly, in this matter, I don't know whether he is lying--we know he's quite capable of that--or whether he really is that stupid. With Thomas, it's nearly impossible to tell.)
 
I read that excellent yet disturbing commentary first thing this morning. I'm always left shaking my head over exactly who decides what becomes a scandal and what does not.

If this isn't egregious behavior, what is?
 
I thought the way Thomas was treated at his confirmation hearing was shameful. That being said, I also thought he was totally unqualified and was being appointed for political reasons. As an Associate Justice he has contributed nothing except to "second" Scolita's votes.

I hope this scandal dosen't go away.
 
I thought the way Thomas was treated at his confirmation hearing was shameful. That being said, I also thought he was totally unqualified and was being appointed for political reasons. As an Associate Justice he has contributed nothing except to "second" Scolita's votes.

I hope this scandal dosen't go away.

Since he lied through his teeth not only about his history of sexual harassment, but more importantly, over things such as whether he had formed an opinion on cases such as Roe v. Wade, I can't feel bad for him. But I certainly agree the side show that took place was largely beside the point. (And to be fair, let's remember that Anita Hill testified reluctantly and under subpoena.)

But mostly I hate the hypocrisy of his disdain for affirmative action when he is by far the country's most prominent and obvious beneficiary of it. (I'm not saying he's not entitled to decide the time has come to end that practice; I just resent his lack of candor on the subject.)
 
The article posted by Believe09 says that he won't be prosecuted, but is he going to come clean and pay the fines and interest that you and I would have to pay if we had done something like that?

Martha Stewart had to go to jail for her bad deeds.
 
The article posted by Believe09 says that he won't be prosecuted, but is he going to come clean and pay the fines and interest that you and I would have to pay if we had done something like that?

Martha Stewart had to go to jail for her bad deeds.

Indeed. Because none of the prosecutors was worried he'd ever have to try a case in front of her, it was safe to make an example of her.
 
Frankly I find it hard to argue against his claims of ignorance. I've been saying it for years.
 
If the man claims ignorance, maybe we should believe him and act upon that confession.

I, for one, do not wish to have an self-identified ignorant Justice.
 
I'm surprised no one mentioned the wierd phone message Mrs Thomas left on Anita hill's phone a few months ago. The one where she asked her if she didn't think it was time to admst she'd lied? I found that astounding on several levels. A Supreme Court spouse behaving like that and just assuming that because she said what she did twenty years ago that she could be pressured into 'fessing up.' I think both of the Thomases are really strange.

I remember watching those hearings and thinking he was lying. I did feel sorry for the man; It was no doubt something he wasn't proud of and thought no one would ever know. Apparently Mrs T still thinks it was a liberal frame-up. Well, love can be blind..
 
This may sound like a silly question..but can C Thomas be recalled from SCOTUS due to inability to do his job?...When a Judge on the highest Court of the Land doesnt know the law..or care to find out the laws when declaring with signature such information to IRS??.

Something very wrong with a system that doesnt allow for peer reviews of fellow Judges??..Surely his fellow Supreme Court Justices get that this man know a lick about LAw and goes with the agenda..and recites other's when renders opinions..Geesh..What a disgrace for such a high esteemed level of a LAW INTERPRETER>>>Sad :banghead:

The very least, Judge Clarence Thomas should be investigated ..ya know..blow away the smoke and mirrors and really look at what he has been doing these past decades..Sorry..Im baffled really :waitasec:
 
This may sound like a silly question..but can C Thomas be recalled from SCOTUS due to inability to do his job?...When a Judge on the highest Court of the Land doesnt know the law..or care to find out the laws when declaring with signature such information to IRS??.

Something very wrong with a system that doesnt allow for peer reviews of fellow Judges??..Surely his fellow Supreme Court Justices get that this man know a lick about LAw and goes with the agenda..and recites other's when renders opinions..Geesh..What a disgrace for such a high esteemed level of a LAW INTERPRETER>>>Sad :banghead:

The very least, Judge Clarence Thomas should be investigated ..ya know..blow away the smoke and mirrors and really look at what he has been doing these past decades..Sorry..Im baffled really :waitasec:

I could be wrong, but I don't think a justice of the Supreme Court can be removed for ordinary incompetence. Like a president, a justice has to be impeached.

Maybe if he were babbling incoherent from the bench they could take action. I'm not sure, however, even then.

Are his current offenses impeachable crimes? They might be, but we'll never know for sure.
 
I'm surprised no one mentioned the wierd phone message Mrs Thomas left on Anita hill's phone a few months ago. The one where she asked her if she didn't think it was time to admst she'd lied? I found that astounding on several levels. A Supreme Court spouse behaving like that and just assuming that because she said what she did twenty years ago that she could be pressured into 'fessing up.' I think both of the Thomases are really strange.

I remember watching those hearings and thinking he was lying. I did feel sorry for the man; It was no doubt something he wasn't proud of and thought no one would ever know. Apparently Mrs T still thinks it was a liberal frame-up. Well, love can be blind..

I don't think there's any question that Anita Hill told the truth. Let's remember she didn't initiate the subject, nor did she wish to be the focus of those hearings. She wasn't--and as far as I know isn't--a particularly liberal jurist.
 
I could be wrong, but I don't think a justice of the Supreme Court can be removed for ordinary incompetence. Like a president, a justice has to be impeached.

Maybe if he were babbling incoherent from the bench they could take action. I'm not sure, however, even then.

Are his current offenses impeachable crimes? They might be, but we'll never know for sure.

Lawyers get disbarred all the time for lying on their income taxes. It is against the law and it shows that the lawyer has an untrustworthy character. That's not a good thing for a lawyer. It is good someone turned this into the MO bar.

Salem
 
Lawyers get disbarred all the time for lying on their income taxes. It is against the law and it shows that the lawyer has an untrustworthy character. That's not a good thing for a lawyer. It is good someone turned this into the MO bar.

Salem

Thanks, Salem. That's as it should be. Now if only the same rules applied to Thomas.
 
From reading the article, it was not his income taxes that he didn't pay. It was some sort of disclosure form, not a tax return, in fact, I think they found out by reviewing his tax return. I don't believe there was any financial gain involved, but just an incorrect disclosure. Martha Stewart actually gained financially from her lie. That is just my own interpretation. It still doesn't make him very smart.
 
This was reported WAY back in January here http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/22/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122

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."<snip>
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.

So this must have happened previously.

And for the record, no not everyone believes Anita Hill.
 
"The Supreme Court justice broke a federal law by not disclosing his wife's $700,000 think-tank payday. Paul Campos on Thomas' "preposterous" defense and why he likely won't be punished."

<snip>] nearly $700,000 by the Heritage Foundation, a "conservative think tank," a.k.a. a right-wing propaganda mill, between 2003 and 2007, as well as an undisclosed amount by another lobbying group in 2009. Justice Thomas' false statements regarding his wife's income certainly constitute a misdemeanor, and quite probably a felony, under federal law. (They would be felonies if he were prosecuted under 18. U.S.C. 1001, which criminalizes knowingly making false statements of material fact to a federal agency. This is the law Martha Stewart was convicted of breaking by lying to investigators.)



People, he is claiming ignorance of the law. A Supreme Court Justice is claiming ignorance of the law-At least we all KNEW Clinton knew what he was risking by defending his false statements. I think the same can be said here. JMO

ETA: Just to remind you-Clarence Thomas recused himself from participating in the case that overturned Campaign Finance laws because of his wife's employers. Yup, he misunderstood the law. At least someone has made a complaint to the Missouri Bar requesting he be disbarred for this. Doubtful, but heartening that someone has made the effort.

the part bolded by me above...where exactly was that in the "facts from the article?"

Clinton lied, and lied under oath - Thomas had an opportunity to amend his form and did so - BIG difference.

Why is it heartening that someone made the effort to disbar him? That wouldn't have anything to do with his ability to sit on the court!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
2,084
Total visitors
2,278

Forum statistics

Threads
589,960
Messages
17,928,352
Members
228,020
Latest member
DazzelleShafer
Back
Top