Justice Clarence Thomas "erred" on Disclosure Form

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Jan 24, 2011.

  1. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #1
    NYT

    Is there any provision for removing mentally feeble Supreme Court Justices?

    I am utterly astonished that two people who have thrown their weight behind tearing down the US government as we know it, could have misunderstood such a simple question.

    Justice Thomas seems to think that the US Constitution is something that only the commoners should heed, not the Justices nor their slimy wives.
     
  2. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #2
    There is impeachment. As I understand it, it was tried once, but failed. It would also fail here, as it must be backed up with a conviction in the House.

    The lifetime appointment was originally intended to free the justices from political influence. That was back in a day when a spouse's extracurriculars would not have been a serious concern.

    We are stuck with this lump until he retires or drops.
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  4. redshift1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    #4
    Seems like a simple mistake only a few hundred thousand or so
     
  5. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #5
    Yawn. You all act like the things he ended up disclosing are things that were previously unknown to the populous. Clearly it was an error and not a purposeful mistake as the disclosures in question were already well known.

    For the record, Clarence Thomas is a brilliant constitutional scholar. Far more knowledgeable on the constitution and U.S. Law than probably every single person in this forum combined. Unlike a few other select justices, he actually thinks the words of the constitution mean something and that changing that meaning requires amendment. What a concept.
     
  6. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #6
    Typical scoundrel.

    And not surprising that his wife worked for an organization of the puppeteers of the Tea Party.
     
  7. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    I call BS. Judges at all levels are REQUIRED to avoid not just impropriety, but appearances of impropriety. They are supposed to avoid pre-judging cases, they are to consider the evidence of each case, and rule on that case alone. Justice Thomas' wife was working for a group that formulated and promoted the very conservative policies her husband was ruling on. That's not, in my opinion, just an appearance of impropriety, but actual impropriety. In addition, his attempt to conceal this is borderline criminal. I would not be surprised if there were a criminal investigation for tax fraud. (If so, it would have to be absolutely NON-political. e.g. I couldn't do it because I don't like the guy.)

    (EDIT) I call double BS. Justice Thomas may be very knowledgable, but then again, it might just be his clerks or his wife... we don't know. Why? Because he NEVER says anything.

     
  8. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #8
    He is very polarizing. Why do you prefer our country at each others throats?

    Can we put you on the record that you would have the same response to a left leaning SCJ?
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10

    How is it tax fraud? This was a financial disclosure, not a Form 1040.
     
  11. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #11
    Well, considering his position, I would hope so.

    But, then again, I wonder how many people on this forum would have been "confused" about the filing instructions on a federal disclosure form.
     
  12. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    My bad. However, that does call into question whether he broke a different federal law, as those types of financial reports are mandated.

    (edit) My bad again, I think the disclosure rules aren't mandated by the legislature, but by the judiciary. (edit2) Wrong again!
    This has happened before. For an interesting discussion about some appellate court judges and the reasoning behind the disclosures, take a look at this article from the star tribune
     
  13. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #14
    Looking over the constitution that he knows so well, "spouse" or its equivalent does not appear anywhere in there. That must be why he passed over that line, he did not know what the word meant.
     
  14. Ugg thread starter macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #15
    It's mind boggling that he would use such an incredibly flimsy excuse. It's a seven page form that is very, very easy to read.

    Considering that he "erred" for a number of years, the only possible conclusion is that he was intentionally shielding his wife's activities. Even though her activities were a matter of public record.

    He's even more feeble minded than I thought.
     

Share This Page