DC - Clarence Thomas and his Ignorance of the Law Excuse

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by believe09, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. believe09

    believe09 Active Member

    Messages:
    28,114
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.)
     
  4. believe09

    believe09 Active Member

    Messages:
    28,114
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Nova, that was hilarious.
     
  5. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  6. kemo

    kemo Active Member

    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  7. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Thanks. I wish I could say I was trying to be amusing.
     
  8. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.)
     
  9. UdbCrzy2

    UdbCrzy2 New Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  11. Velouria

    Velouria Don't Drink the Pinellas Punch!

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Frankly I find it hard to argue against his claims of ignorance. I've been saying it for years.
     
  12. Missizzy

    Missizzy New Member

    Messages:
    10,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Snick1946

    Snick1946 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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..
     
  14. LyndyLoo

    LyndyLoo Active Member

    Messages:
    3,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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:
     
  15. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  16. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  17. Salem

    Salem Former Member

    Messages:
    29,160
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  18. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Thanks, Salem. That's as it should be. Now if only the same rules applied to Thomas.
     
  19. ohiogirl

    ohiogirl New Member

    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Charlie09

    Charlie09 Former Member

    Messages:
    8,862
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This was reported WAY back in January here http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/22/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122

    So this must have happened previously.

    And for the record, no not everyone believes Anita Hill.
     
  21. Charlie09

    Charlie09 Former Member

    Messages:
    8,862
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice