SCJ Thomas Fails to Report Wife's Income

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by LC_Sulla

Tilted,

Thanks for the info. You are a shining light in the dark.

v/r,
LCS

You're welcome.

I checked out Common Cause's press release and letter to the Judicial Conference, and they refer to the payments as salary, which would mean, with very little quesiton, that they should have been reported. The Judicial Conference is required by law to "refer to the Attorney General the name of any individual which [it] has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported."

Another group, Protect Our Elections, apparently sent this letter to Attorney General Holder urging him to bring criminal charges against Justice Thomas. Who knows what will happen, but my hunch is that AG Holder will try to avoid pushing the situation very far, fearing that it would just look like a politically motivated attack on an ideological opponent and an improper use of his power to intimidate a coequal branch of the government. I especially think that's true in light of the news that came yesterday that Justice Thomas has filed amended disclosure reports showing his wife's income from the Heritage Foundation.

Thomas Cites Failure to Disclose Wife’s Job

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures listing Mrs. Thomas’s employment in that time with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, and Hillsdale College in Michigan, for which she ran a constitutional law center in Washington.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Common Cause's characterization of his explanation as "implausible". I struggle to think of a reason why Justice Thomas would have previously failed to report this income that isn't at least a bit disconcerting. It's not like her employment by or association with the Heritage Foundation was a secret. It doesn't make any sense - and that, in and of itself, is mildly troubling.

[JoeRider]

I think there is more concern over Obama's birth certificate than this.



I think it was common knowledge who she worked for.

"It has come to my attention that information regarding my spouse's employment required in Part III B of my financial disclosure report was inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions," Thomas wrote in a letter to the committee that handles the reports. (anyone seen the letter or the form?)

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires all federal judges to disclose their spouse's employer. They are not required to list the total income.


Justice Thomas Corrects 20 Years of Disclosure Forms - Capitalbay News

Chances are his account or aid failed to do it. Give me a break.


I am skeptic of Common Cause. Anything with Barbara involved in it is a mess.


Big liberal institutional donors to Common Cause include Arca Foundation ($1,395,000 since 2000), Carnegie Corp. of New York ($1,360,000 since 2001), Beldon Fund ($1,300,000 since 2005), and Joyce Foundation ($570,000 since 2002). Before he became U.S. president, Barack Obama served on the Joyce Foundation's board. The Barbra Streisand Foundation gave $7,500 in 2000.


At least four members of George Soros's Democracy Alliance, the billionaire socialists' club, have also given big to Common Cause, which suggests that Common Cause is a Democracy Alliance-approved grantee. The list includes Soros's Open Society Institute ($1,225,000 since 2001), Lewis B. & Dorothy Cullman Foundation Inc. ($75,000 since 2004), Rutt Bridges Family Foundation ($23,000 since 2004), and Gill Foundation ($20,000 since 2004).

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Soros-Funded Liberal Group Common Cause in Deep Financial Trouble

[JoeRider]

Originally Posted by LC_Sulla

[url=http://www.fox43.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0122-thomas-disclosure-20110121,0,5735004.story]

Wow! I want that consulting job! Let' see, 686,589 divided by 5 years = 137,317.

Get yourself a law degree and maybe you can. A step 3 GS 15 makes 132K a year. I think most lawyers with over 20+ years of experience should be making 137K. Actually I think she is underpaid considering her name recognition.

http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/pdf/DCB.pdf

From the U.S. Department of Labor:
In May 2008, the median annual wages of all wage-and-salaried lawyers were $110,590. The middle half of the occupation earned between $74,980 and $163,320.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_a_lawyer_earn#ixzz1C3oa0hEQ



In actuality your salary depends on your experience. 1 year of experience normally pays from 40k-80k 1-4 years pays about 60k-90k 5-9 years pays about 80k-120k 10-19 years pays about 80k-140k 20+ years 85k-157k (Although it is true that some lawyers get payed much more than this these are a very few kind of like Bill Gates vrs every other entrepreneur that has ever failed.) Also all of these figures are based off of my resource-http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary/by_Years_Experience

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_a_lawyer_earn#ixzz1C3opuwdC

[JoeRider]

Originally Posted by Lurk

So, let me get this straight. You are unequivocally confirming the rumors of their lesbianism by telling us they have wives? Just to be sure of your intent in posting this controversial statement.

LOL, I wonder if they reported their partners employer on their form?

[JoeRider]

Originally Posted by LC_Sulla

Yes, just like other federal judges, if it affects their ability to impartially preside over a case.



Yes, exactly, if. But we may never know.

I'm glad this thread will reside on these forums for future reference.

Well gee, that would exclude Ginsburg from about everything. I bet 80 % of the people that read this forum could not name all nine judges and I bet 99% of the population could not name more than 2 sitting judges. It is a quiz I like to give people who claim to be in the know.

[JoeRider]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Common Cause's characterization of his explanation as "implausible". I struggle to think of a reason why Justice Thomas would have previously failed to report this income that isn't at least a bit disconcerting. It's not like her employment by or association with the Heritage Foundation was a secret. It doesn't make any sense - and that, in and of itself, is mildly troubling.

Tilted, it disappoints me that you would rely on the Common Cause site and the NYTime's as your source of reference. You are not living up to your reputation in my book. What is mildly troubling is the spin on it.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JoeRider

Tilted, it disappoints me that you would rely on the Common Cause site and the NYTime's as your source of reference. You are not living up to your reputation in my book. What is mildly troubling is the spin on it.

I've not relied on Common Cause's site or the New York Times as my sources. I've relied on U.S. Code and Justice Thomas' actual financial disclosure reports. It just so happens that my own assessment of the situation is the same, in some regards, as that of Common Cause. I researched the situation for myself before I even visited the Common Cause site, and it wasn't until Justice Thomas himself acknowledged that he should have reported his wife's income from the Heritage Foundation that I concluded the same definitively.

I already commented about Common Cause having a thing against Justices Scalia and Thomas and on the silliness of another issue it recently raised in an effort to impugn their ethics. I did so before anyone else here did - I had already been aware of their efforts as regards those Justices and their ongoing criticism of the Citizens United ruling.

I apologize for my ability to be objective, my commitment to understanding the issues I discuss reasonably well (or, in the alternative, my tendency to note that I don't), and my willingness to acknowledge realities that I'd prefer not exist or which reflect poorly on people or positions that I like or agree with.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Tilted

...
I apologize for my ability to be objective, my commitment to understanding the issues I discuss reasonably well (or, in the alternative, my tendency to note that I don't), and my willingness to acknowledge realities that I'd prefer not exist or which reflect poorly on people or positions that I like or agree with.

Take that apology back.

This is what makes you by far the most credible contributor in the news/politics forums. Plus, I love it when you pop the balloons and expose the BS political spinjobs, strawmen, and straight up lies for what they are.

Hopefully you don't come to the conclusion you're wasting your time here, and move on.

[n0n1m0us3]

Originally Posted by Baz

Take that apology back.

This is what makes you by far the most credible contributor in the news/politics forums. Plus, I love it when you pop the balloons and expose the BS political spinjobs, strawmen, and straight up lies for what they are.

Hopefully you don't come to the conclusion you're wasting you're time here, and move on.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Baz

Take that apology back.

This is what makes you by far the most credible contributor in the news/politics forums. Plus, I love it when you pop the balloons and expose the BS political spinjobs, strawmen, and straight up lies for what they are.

Originally Posted by n0n1m0us3

Thanks. It's nice to know I can still fool a few people some of the time.

Originally Posted by Baz

Hopefully you don't come to the conclusion you're wasting your time here, and move on.

Pfft. Where would I go?