The words “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” are famously chiseled above the main portico of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. But is one of the Justices seated in that building, with a lifetime appointment, now receiving special treatment under the law instead?
Evidence is mounting that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated federal law by failing to report his wife’s annual salary of more than $120,000 per year from conservative political organizations by checking “NONE” on the box for “Non-Investment Income” for his wife Virginia on judicial Financial Disclosure Reports for the last 20 years.
According to the “self-initiated amendment” letters [PDF] signed by Thomas as dated Friday, January 21, 2011, and stamped as “RECEIVED” by the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Committee on Financial Disclosure on a Saturday, January 22, 2011, the Justice failed to reveal such sources of spousal income even on his original nomination disclosure forms during his contentious 1991 confirmation hearings.
One of the amendments hastily filed last week by Thomas states that he “inadvertently omitted” spousal income from as far back as 1989 “due to a misunderstanding of filing instructions.” Though it has also been reported that he did report other spousal income on some disclosure reports up until 1996.
Virginia Thomas’ income from The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, totaling $686,589 from 2003 to 2007 according to Common Cause, was omitted from the forms entirely, as was her Heritage Foundation employment from 1998 to 2003 and other sources of “non-investment income” from as early as 1989.
When reached by phone for comment on Friday, two different officials at the Judicial Conference were particularly hostile in response to questions from The BRAD BLOG in regard to what appeared to be special treatment afforded the Supreme Court Justice, allowing him to deliver the amendment letters for twenty years of inaccurate financial disclosure forms on a Saturday when the federal government office is not usually open to the public. The swift processing of Thomas’ documents, carried out as the news of his false filings was about to break in the media, allowed subsequent news reports to downplay the issue as having already been handled, old news.
Moreover, Thomas’ ‘inadvertent omissions’ appear to be in violation of U.S. federal law, in contradiction to suggestions from the Los Angeles Times’ original reporting on this matter last weekend. That report, breaking the story publicly, quoted a judicial ethics expert from Northwestern University School of Law as asserting that Thomas’ failure to report his wife’s income was “not a crime of any sort.”
It would appear that the law professor was wrong.
Closer examination of the original disclosure forms that Thomas filed and signed year after year, quite directly suggests crimes were committed, though none of the mainstream corporate media reports on this issue, to our knowledge, have bothered to focus on that point. According to the statute clearly printed on the disclosure reports filed by Thomas, just below his signature on each, the Supreme Court Justice could be held accountable for his omissions by penalties under the U.S. Code including as much as a $50,000 fine and up to one year imprisonment, or both, for each violation of the federal law. Even stricter penalties are also a possibility — at least if one believes that even U.S. Supreme Court Justices are subject to the Rule of Law…
‘Not a Crime of Any Sort’?
Thomas has maintained that the omissions of his wife Virginia’s “non-investment income” salary — from the Heritage Foundation, the Liberty Coalition, a “Tea Party” political group she founded in 2009, and a number of Congressional Republicans for whom she work — were “inadvertent.” He quickly moved to file amendments to years of false disclosure reports as the governmental watchdog organization Common Cause sent a letter [PDF] to the Secretary of the Judicial Conference just over a week ago, seeking an investigation and possible referral to the Attorney General, and as the Los Angeles Times worked on breaking their story that weekend.
The Times article included a quote from Northwestern University School of Law professor, Steven Lubet, downplaying the seriousness of the apparent violations of law, by stating his belief that they were “not a crime of any sort”:
However, the disclosure forms (here is the one he filed for 2009 [PDF], for example, as submitted in 2010) as signed by Thomas in the final “Certification” section, attests that the information provided on the report, “including information pertaining to my spouse,” was “accurate, true, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.”
The penalties for falsifying those documents are noted in ALL CAPS on the Financial Disclosure Report itself, just below the Justice’s own signature as follows:
The statute referenced there, 5 U.S.C. app. § 104, defines the “civil and criminal sanctions” for “knowingly and willfully falsif[ying]” the report, including a fine “not to exceed $50,000” and “imprison[ment] for not more than 1 year, or both” for each instance [emphasis added]:
(1) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to section 102. The court in which such action is brought may assess against such individual a civil penalty in any amount, not to exceed $50,000.
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and willfully
(i) falsify any information that such person is required to report under section 102; and
(ii) fail to file or report any information that such person is required to report under section 102.
(B) Any person who
(i) violates subparagraph (A)(i) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both; and
(ii) violates subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code.
The penalties spelled out above reference title 18 of the United States Code as well. Both Roger Shuler at Legal Schnauzer and “AlaskaDave” at Daily Kos have detailed what is referenced by that statute, and how it pertains to the Ethics in Government Act (EGA) as instituted following Watergate.
Both writers cite an article posted at the Mississippi Criminal Defense Blog last January, as written by Mississippi attorney Clarence Guthrie in reference to an FBI agent in the state who was indicted “for making false official statements to a federal official.” Here’s Guthrie:
1. knowingly and willfully;
2. make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation;
3. in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.
This was the charge that Martha Stewart served time for. It is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government. Even if your lie is oral and not under oath, and even if you have received no Miranda warnings of any kind. You must know that your statement is false at the time you make it, but you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime. Any person convicted under this statute faces statutory penalties of a possible fine, and up to 5-8 years in prison.
So you may add the possibility of 5 to 8 years in prison, to the 1 year mentioned in the specific statute printed on the form below Thomas’ signature, for each of his apparent violations, if he was to be charged and found guilty.
As “AlaskaDave” points out:
While there is no doubt an argument to be made that this conduct is just a misdemeanor, take a look at UNITED STATES v. WOODWARD, 469 U.S. 105 (1985) where a person checking the “no” box on a custom form was punished both for the false statement (18 USC 1001) violation and the charge of failing to report the currency itself — all as a result of checking the “no” box.
Personally I don’t like the law, and for that matter neither does Martha Stewart who was convicted for a violation of 18 USC 1001, but it is the law and if a US Supreme Court Justice can’t seem to figure it out year after year, perhaps he should suffer the consequences as so many others have.
The Financial Disclosure Reports submitted by Thomas are quite simple and straight forward, including Section III B for “Spouse’s Non-Investment Income” where Thomas checked “NONE (No reportable non-investment income.).”
As noted by NYU School of Law professor Stephen Gillers in the LA Times’ report, “It wasn’t a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife’s source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission.” He added, “It could not have been an oversight.”
[Note: Since the LA Times’ initial report, additional disclosures reveal that Thomas withheld such information not for just six years, but for as many as twenty, even while he was deciding cases such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which had a very direct impact on the fund-raising ability of organizations such as The Heritage Foundation and his wife’s Liberty Coalition. In short, they stand to make hundreds of thousands, even millions, as based on the decision in the case, in which Thomas supported the majority decision.]
Common Cause President Bob Edgar characterized Thomas’ claims that there was a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions,” as stated on his “self-initiated amendments,” as “difficult to believe” and “implausible.”
“Justice Thomas sits on the highest court of the land, is called upon daily to understand and interpret the most complicated legal issues of our day and makes decisions that affect millions,” he said in a Commom Cause statement issued last week. “It is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form. We find his excuse is implausible.”
Thomas’ claims become even more “implausible” when considering, as AP reported, that he did succeed in including his wife’s employment on many of those very same disclosure reports filed prior to 1996.
Moreover, as noted in a Press Release issued last week by ProtectOurElections.org calling on Thomas to step down and for charges to be brought against him, the Justice’s presumed expertise in law, according to prosecutorial guidelines in the Dept. of Justice’s Handbook on Prosecution, means that he is presumed to have acted “knowingly and willfully,” as per the statute noted on the disclosure report, when he signed and submitted the forms failing to list the organizations paying hundreds of thousands of dollars of salary to his wife.
A defendant’s signature on such documents in criminal prosecutions, says the DoJ, can also be used to “help to establish willfulness.”
[DISCLOSURE: ProtectOurElections.org is a campaign run by VelvetRevolution.us, an organization co-founded by The BRAD BLOG.]The ProtectOurElections.org statement notes a number of other recent cases where defendants were given stiff penalties in a court of law for having falsified financial documents.
Their attorney, Kevin Zeese, says “Justice Thomas admitted that he made false statements on 20 years of disclosure forms, but that it was just a simple misunderstanding. How many criminal defendants have said the same thing but were not offered the same opportunity to correct or amend their statements before being prosecuted?”
“How many cases has Justice Thomas sat in judgment of where people were charged with similar conduct? How many lawyers would have asked for Justice Thomas’s recusal had the disclosure forms been accurate?” he continued.
Zeese observes: “Supreme Court Justices are supposed to know the law. Yet, Justice Thomas wants to be treated differently than others who committed similar conduct. His ‘misunderstanding’ excuse should be argued before a federal jury rather than to a committee that has no authority to grant him immunity from prosecution.”
On the heels of the initial Los Angeles Time’ report, downplaying the seriousness of these violations by the inclusion of Northwestern University law professor Lubet’s comment that Thomas’ transgressions were “not a crime of any sort,” much of the mainstream media seemed to yawn at the news.
We shared much of the information above, twice, including the details on the actual criminal statutes, via email with Lubet to see if he’d like to modify his assessment in light of it. We also left voice messages a number of times, but we’ve yet to hear back from him. We will update this item appropriately when and if we do.
But that was not the only reason, it seems, that the corporate media may have spent very little time looking into 20 years of false filings by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice…
Special Treatment For Thomas by the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee?
After reviewing copies of Thomas’ amendments [PDF], hastily sent to the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure, as obtained via public records request, we noticed a couple of interesting issues.
First, Thomas’ “self-initiated amendments” included not only the omitted details from the Financial Disclosure Reports on his wife’s income from the The Heritage Foundation and Liberty Coalition from 2004 through 2009, but also on forms going back as far as 1990, his “Nomination Financial Disclosure Reports” during his famously contentious nomination hearings in 1991.
Secondly, all seven amendment letters included in response to the records request, are dated January 21, 2011, the same date as the original Common Cause letter to the Secretary of the U.S. Judicial Conference seeking a finding and possible referral to the AG on this matter. The Los Angeles Times story was published in their January 22, edition.
Clearly, Thomas scrambled to amend 20 years of false reports as Common Cause and the Times, who almost certainly contacted him for comment, prepared their reports. That quick work paid off, as most of the subsequent reports on the matter by corporate mainstream outlets were able to downplay the matter since, after all, Thomas had quickly amended the filings (once he got caught.) Problem solved!
USA Today’s first report was that “Clarence Thomas fixes reports to include wife’s pay”. The Wall Street Journal was able to tell readers that “Justice Thomas Revises Disclosures After Criticism”. And Washington Post/AP reported only that “Thomas adds wife’s employment to disclosure report.”
None of the reports offered detailed information on the possible violations of the law as we’ve spelled out above.
We found it interesting that Thomas’ amendment letters, dated Friday the 21st, were stamped as “RECEIVED” on Saturday, January 22nd and wondered if, perhaps, he had received special treatment in processing his letters quickly on a Saturday, prior to the LA Times’ initial report, when federal offices are normally not open for business.
We made several calls last week to officials at the Judicial Conference to find out if receiving such materials on Saturday is normal or if special accommodations were made just for Thomas. A receptionist confirmed that the Financial Disclosure office, like most federal offices, is not generally open for public business on Saturday.
In seeking more details, we were transferred to George Reynolds, Staff Counsel for the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure. The discussion was terse, as Reynolds would not directly answer whether the Supreme Court Justice had received any sort of special treatment for his filings.
“We try to accommodate all filers at different times,” Reynolds told us sharply. “If someone needs our help and we can provide it, why not? Isn’t the idea to get the forms and to make them available?”
He claimed that it was “not unusual” to process such information on a weekend, as long as personnel is in the office already and available to do so. “We aren’t routinely here on a Saturday,” he explained, before adding that he “had someone who was working here on Saturday, so that made it easy” to handle Thomas’ amendments quickly.
“We got the request that they wanted to file the amendment. If they know ahead of time, we try again to accommodate everybody. Why not help them?” he said.
When we asked for further details about when the request came, and whether or not someone came in expressly to receive Thomas’ documents, he refused to answer any more questions and referred us to the Committee’s Public Affairs Director, David Sellers.
Sellers was even shorter with us than Reynolds, and ended up hanging up the phone after just a minute or two of our trying to clarify the situation.
“I think you’re trying to make something out of nothing here,” he said in response to rather polite questions about whether or not someone made a special effort to receive Thomas’ document on a weekend. “I don’t have anything to say,” the Public Affairs official repeated at least twice.
“I don’t know if there were people who were there or not, there are people who work here on weekends.”
In trying to learn if any member of the general public, or even another member of the judiciary, would be able to walk in on a Saturday and receive service at the agency, we were abruptly cut off before we were able to even finish the question.
“I think I see where you’re going with this and you have an agenda,” Sellers snapped accusingly. “That’s clear from every question you ask, and so I think I’m gonna end this conversation. We’re available to assist filers and that’s our job, so we do it any way that we can. So, thank you.”
And then Sellers hung up the phone on us. The call with the Public Affairs Director lasted, in total, no more than three minutes.
CORRECTION: This story, as original published, referenced the case of Missisippi FBI agent Hal Neilsen as having been charged under 18 U.S. Code 1001 in January of this year. In fact, his indictment occurred last year, in January of 2010. The article above has been corrected to reflect the accurate date of that case.
Documents…
- Thomas’ 2010 Financial Disclosure Report for 2009 [PDF]
- Thomas’ “Self-Initiated Amendments” [PDF] (Dated 1/21/11, “Received” 1/22/11) to 20 years of inaccurate Financial Disclosure Reports
ProtectionOurElections.org‘s video release on the Clarence Thomas financial disclosure failures follows below…
Fines, jail time would be nice, but this is but one issue that raises serious questions about this radical-in-robes’ credibility. There is also the question as to whether Thomas perjured himself when he claimed, under oath, that he had not given any thought to the validity of Roe v. Wade between the date that decision issued and his confirmation hearing. And then there was the little matter of Anita Hill.
I’d suggest impeachment, but then I’d be forgetting IOKIYAR.
Impeachment, given the evidence at hand for both what I wrote about in the article above AND the point you make would seem to be a no brainer, Ernie.
On the other hand, impeachment is, by its nature, a political act which would require, essentially, the GOP-majority House voting for it. Whereas a criminal indictment can be brought by the DoJ immediately, if they find reason to believe that crimes were committed here. No political needle to thread (in theory).
The DoJ is too busy issuing subpoenas to wikileaks vlunteers and harassing it’s twitter supporters to care about administering justice to one of the supremes. Too much work. Go for the easy score!
Brad: You’re correct on the law; correct on the fact that a House controlled by a subsidiary of Thomas’ corporate sponsors, GOP, Inc., will not impeach.
But don’t count on the Eric Holder Justice Department, the same DoJ which turned a blind eye to the war crimes of the Bush/Cheney cabal to enforce the law against the duplicitous Clarence Thomas.
But then, the failure to prosecute is but one more reason why Obama needs to be challenged in the 2012 primaries. In the end, it will be the responsibility of U.S. citizenry, like those now active in Egypt, to say enough!
Only then can we expect a restoration of the rule of law.
It is appropriate to add that hard right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife has funded both the Heritage Foundation, where Virginia Thomas is employed and The Federalist Society, which aided Thomas in his confirmation.
I’d recommend, among other reading, HIJACKING JUSTICE: The Federalist Society, a Right-wing network of lawyers, judges and supporters, is undoing civil rights and other gains made through the courts
Is he going to claim this is a “lynching”?
Perhaps thomas will wish the biggest problem he had was the pubic hair on his can of pepsi.
Timothy Geithner and Charles Rangel ——- need I say anymore.
Life is a two way street folks.
If the head of the Treasury, who oversees the Internal Revenue, can get away with tax evasion — why should anybody give a squat about this issue, especially when the Thomas’s did not fail to pay taxes.
Conflict of interest — their probably are a handful of those in congress, who haven’t been involved in some conflict on interest or another. There merely are those that we allow to be thown to the lions from time to time, as if to show that congress really tries to police themselves.
Get real folks — this is a non-issue in the scheme of things.
Actually, you should expect to see Rangel or Geithner sent to jail before ANYTHING happens to Thomas. And that AIN”T GOING TO HAPPEN — no how — no way.
Moving on.
There needs to be sustained coverage of this, and I can tell that the BradBlog is not going to give up until national media starts reporting this IS a criminal offense. If enough Internet blogs refuse to stop talking about this, eventually the national media will get sharper in their reporting of the story. And once that happens…once the word “criminal” starts showing up in some national headlines…then the public will take real notice that one of the Supreme Court justices could very well be a crook. At that point, impeachment is entirely possible.
Ernest Canning @ 4 said:
As you know, I count on them for nothing. Except failure.
Larry @ 7 said:
That was a Coke can, Larry. Accuracy counts! Drink up! 🙂
Joe Bandow @ 8 said:
If you don’t give a damn about the rule of law, or equal justice for all (as chisled over the SCOTUS and in the U.S. Constitution), then I guess you wouldn’t.
You’ll pardon those of us that do, however, I’m sure.
If they violated the law, I hope you will join me in calling for them to be held accountable.
Of course, nobody in Congress has a lifetime appointment, so accountability there is much easier, and criminality much less damaging to the Republic than when a SCOTUS Justice has such conflicts, fails to disclose them, and in the deciding vote in favor of the worst and most damaging court decision since Bush v. Gore and then Dredd Scot prior to it!
Right. For those who don’t care about the rule of law or the Constitution, that’s probably true. See ya!
“Clarence Thomas financial disclosure reports”
Google – currently 29,700 results
GoogleNews – currently 74 results
This country is run by crooks for the crook$… U$ of Decay.
Thank you for giving the bastards hell once again Brad. Keep this in the spotlight. I’m writing my local papers.
ps – BradBlog currently on p6.
I have to say-if this was almost any European country ,Britain , Australia or New Zealand Thomas would be finished and would resign and retire. What has become of the USA?. That is the outcome that would have resulted 20 or 30 years ago in America once the media has made mince-meat of his career.
Brad says
Okay Brad — lets start with Geithner and Rangel — or does that not fit your agenda ?
If you’re honest, you will want to go after bums in all parties.
If you’re a partisan — well, you serve no useful purpose, as you really don’t care about justice for all, but rather, you just want your friends to come out on top, and could care less about the truth.
So are you willing to call the actions of this presidents Treasury Secretary, that of a law breaker? Or did the brilliant Geithner just happen to make one of those mistakes as far as your concerned ?!!!!!
If a U.S. Supreme Court Justice can’t understand a simple disclosure form — something millions of federal, state, county and city workers must comprehend and adhere to — then it’s time for that justice to step down.
Rather obvious that Clarence’s failure to disclose had to do with WHO was paying his wife than the language of the form itself.
You try that and see what happens. The Supremes have not only placed themselve above the law, they make their own when it’s convienent for them.
Remember Gore vs Bush?
Rangel was censured. Yet he was re-elected because his constituents felt that he ultimately served their interests as an elected official.
I read the Geithner tax issues. While stupid, they fell short of deliberate criminal intent, quite clearly. As soon as he was notified by the IRS in 2006, he made restitution and took responsibility.
Should either of them be in office right now? My opinion is no, but that’s not how it played out. Geither was confirmed handily by the Senate, and there was ample opportunity for that confirmation to be denied. It wasn’t.
And NEITHER of these situations have ANY bearing on what’s going on with Thomas. Certainly neither of them should be used as an ‘excuse’ for Thomas’ transgressions, while seem quite deliberate.
So, IOKIYAR, and it’s even more OK if you can find a couple of high-profile Dems who might have been in a comparable situation.
The main difference between Geithner and Rangel is that there was an opportunity to hold them accountable for their actions. The Senate could have chosen not to nominate Geithner. The House could have chosen not to investigate Rangel and then censure him.
Where is the mechanism to hold a Supreme Court Justice accountable for his or her actions? I am assuming there must be one since the finance disclosure form states that falsely filling it out can result in a criminal defense, but who is pursuing this matter with Thomas?
The public needs to see that even Supreme Court Justices can be officially questioned about their actions, and punished if those actions warrant punishment.
correction to a typo i made in my last post: should be criminal “offense” not “defense.”
It’s VERY obvious that Thomas was attempting to cover up his wife’s corporate benefactors who funnel their money through the Heritage Foundation. Corporate benefactors who have direct interests in countless cases that Thomas has ruled on during his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice.
It’s very disheartening to see someone in the highest judicial bench in the country display such brazen corruption.
Is there any institution we can trust anymore? What has happened to honor and integrity in this country? Do we no longer value and expect it? If we can’t get it from the Supreme Court, I truly fear for my country.
All the rightwingers who are comparing Thomas to Rangel and Geithner need to take a history lesson and look back at Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. He ran into ethic problems with his acceptance of corporate money, and eventually had the decency to step down from the Court.
Can we expect Justice Thomas to do the right thing, too? I seriously doubt it. And that’s why this needs to be criminally pursued by the Justice Dept.
Will the media please investigate why Thomas was able to falsely report on his disclosure forms for TWENTY YEARS BEFORE ANYONE NOTICED? Where is the Supreme Court leadership on this issue??? Obviously Justice Rehnquist let Thomas get away with this while he led the Court, and apparently Justice Roberts continued to turn a blind eye once he took over the Court.
This is more than just Clarence Thomas being willfully corrupt. He had assistance from the Chief Justices.
Joe Bandow @8 wrote:
What are you saying, Joe? That two wrongs make a right?
This piece pertains to a Supreme Court Justice who has violated his oath of office and a criminal statute. It offers not one word to excuse or condemn any other individual.
If you had followed this blog closely, instead of bounding in on attack mode, you would understand that Brad Friedman is not about Left or Right, but Right and Wrong.
We at The BRAD BLOG believe that the rule of law means that all citizens, from the homeless to the wealthiest billionaire must be subject to “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.”
The fact that one is a President, or a Treasury Secretary, or a Supreme Court Justice does not give one a license to violate the law. “They all do it,” is not a valid defense!
With that in mind, Joe, if you have something constructive to add, I’m sure we’ll all welcome it.
Ernest… It’s ironic though how often “right” and wrong are actually on the same side of an issue. 😉
You’re correct though. Bradblog definitely doesn’t ignore left/dem malfeasance. If it seems that way, its just because the right just has so much more of that kind of activity.
I remember the left being very upset that Geithner was in the running for Treasury, especially once his tax issues came out. There’s plenty of threads about it on left-leaning blogs, all one has to do is an archive search.
As for Rangel; he looked guilty to just about everyone, left and right. I don’t know why he didn’t get criminally charged, unless sitting legislators have some sort of Constitutional immunity. I think there actually is something in the Constitution about that, but not sure how it relates to Rangel’s ethics issues.
The beauty of this story is-
A) He’s either a criminal, or,
B) Too stupid to serve on the Supreme Court
Conservacons, you can’t have it ANY other way. So which is it, trolls? How would you feel if Kennedy failed to report his wife drew a salary from MoveOn for even ONE year? I’m not one to partake in schadenfreude for the most part, but oh how I would LOVE to see him impeached. Not like he’d suffer much anyway, being the neobag hero he is, and it aint like he’d see the inside of a jail cell for this, but the thought of 5-4 decisions going progressive for the foreseeable future? THAT puts a smile on my face.
Mr. Obama and and Mr. Holder,
This will be another on a long list of prosecutions I expect to see before you get another vote from me.
Obviously, if the omission has gone on for 20 years, it’s important to understand if it was undetected through a fault in the overseeing process or OTOH deliberately overlooked by whatever body is responsible for reporting and overseeing.
Has any group or investigator looked at the disclosure forms for any of the other justices to see if all justices are above the law, or only certain justices?
2. Did Thomas fail to file the forms, but nonetheless appropriately recuse himself from cases on which his wife’s employment resulted in a conflict of interest? If so, then I don’t buy his “inadvertency” argument.
3. It goes so far beyond gotcha it’s mind boggling. If Thomas also failed to recuse himself when appropriate, the particularly in any such case where his vote was decisive, such failure IMHO would have had a real, material impact on the fairness and impartiality of that judicial decision/outcome. Since that decision in turn becomes precedent for many others, this is not a mere paperwork oversight issue. At the heart of it is being honest when you are unable to bring fairness and neutrality to your decision making process.
4. If any such cases exist, is there any after-the-fact redress regarding that decision? We’re talking about the credibility of the highest court in the land, so — while I’m doubting there is any redress such as a re-hearing of the facts of such a case — I’d like to know if there IS any redress for those who brought the case. Or do we not countenance that the SCOTUS makes mistakes or behaves improperly?
Hoping some of your many capable readers can provide insight into how it works…
Professor Lubet has authored numerous titles on the subject of judicial ethics (see his bio).
In Fall 2010, he opined that the idiosyncratic method that the SCOTUS uses for recusal (each justice is permitted to decide for him/herself) might best be abandoned in favor of a process of full-court opinion on questions of recusal. The issue at hand? A website-posted document supposedly signed by Virginia Thomas, stating that the Health Care Reform Act was unconstitutional.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_prof_entire_supreme_court_should_decide_recusal_due_to_activist_wife/
That judicial role models should have a culture and practices that suggest they are exceptional and beyond the reach of rules and laws can have troubling consequences.
IANAL, but here’s a blog post about a case in which the SCOTUS decided a judge who received a big campaign contribution had to recuse himself, because even the appearance of impropriety was sufficient to justify recusal.
http://www.scotxblog.com/news-and-links/us-supreme-court-finds-constitution-requires-judicial-recusal/
Do they have to play by their own rules, and is the notion of “appearance of impropriety” applicable to their own recusals?
Just thinking ahead to the HCR decision.
Meanwhile, It’s interesting how not having rules at the top seems to be a theme in so many areas, public and private.
oops. I thought Kennedy was one of the non-federalist activist neocon judges.
Impeach, then try for et Al Caponian Income TAX EVASION!
We all know that the worst thing that will happen here is thomas will get his little pee-pee wacked.
And the record will show he will love it.
Thanks, all, for being willing to have a responsible dialog that holds BOTH sides accountable. The fact is, DEMS ARE FULLY COMPLICIT IN EVERY ISSUE THAT CURRENTLY IS CREATING “CHALLENGES” FOR OUR NATION!
Most superblogs outright ban any discussion on holding obama and dems accountable – DISGUSTING.
When obama threw his base under the bus, capitulating to “blue dogs” and repugs, he got back NOTHING in return.
This is why we saw historic losses in 2010 elections – obama and dems stand for nothing.
Today, even political hack KOS is full of comments that challenge obama and dems – this was totally unheard of/not allowed even a few weeks ago.
Brad and friends – you are ahead of the curve here. Ernest has important things to say and share.
PLEASE KEEP CARRYING THE MESSAGE BECAUSE OUR NATION NEEDS TRUTH AND NOT MORE LIES FROM EITHER SIDE!
An excellent, in-depth article on the issue Brad, well done as always.
It’s well past time for Americans to learn how to Walk Like an Egyptian!
Let’s not forget that this 20-year violation of financial disclosure laws was committed by one of two Supreme Court Justices (Scalia being the other) who appeared to have violated the Judicial Code of Conduct when they attended a seminar sponsored by Koch Industries which was advertised as seeking “to change the balance of power in Congress” and which was attended by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
As Jonathan Turley observed,
But then, the core tenets of the Robert Bork-founded Federalist Society, to which Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts are all connected, is misuse of the courts for the benefit of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. Ma.) perhaps best summed up the opposition to the Bork nomination during the floor debate:
Unfortunately, Bork was not “unique,” though Thomas, Alito and Roberts effectively evaded that truth at their confirmation hearings by way of deceptions and refusals to answer appropriate questions during their confirmation proceedings — a strategy that had become so adroit as to prompt U.C.S.D. Law Professor Peter Irons to liken questioning Roberts to trying to “nail Jell-O to a wall.”
Having elevated these scam artists to the highest court in the land, despite their evasiveness and deceit, should we really be surprised now when we find them disregarding the Canons of Judicial Ethics and lying on disclosure forms? Should we really be surprised that they rewarded their billionaire benefactors with Citizens United?
i wonder where doug holder and barrack obama are
in regards to this! looks like its not the
empirical imperative to move on this. just one
more example of the tyranny in place today.
in other news obama is prosecuting extraordinary
amount of illegals. the poor are always the scapegoats!
Clarence Thomas must be really, really confident in his job security. Falsely filling out these forms for twenty years???
Wow, I wonder if the Tea Bagging Right Wing nutjobs would be up in arms right now if this was one of the non-conservative judges. Sonja for example. They would be loosing their collective hive mind. This is crap!u
New York Times hits it twice today.
Editorial – Politics and the Court
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/opinion/05sat1.html?_r=1&hp
Justice Thomas’s Wife Sets Up a Conservative Lobbying Shop
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/politics/05thomas.html?hp
I have been anti-Clarence since the days of law school when he was sworn in, he was intellectually dishonest then as well.
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2007/12/kingcast-provides-clarence-thomas.html
Seems the active link to the FCC coverup is dead now but I shall replace it.
Christopher King, J.D.
KingCast.net — Reel News for Real People
Can a federal judge or executive branch officer be tried criminally at the federal level, without either first resigning his office or being impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate?