U.S. Justice Thomas didn't disclose wife's pay for years

[DJ13]

Sunday, January 23, 2011

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed for at least five years to report on his financial disclosures his wife's income from a conservative policy group, according to the watchdog group Common Cause.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, was paid $686,589 by the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of Internal Revenue Service records. Thomas failed to note the income for those years, choosing instead to check a box titled "none" where "spousal non-investment income" should have been disclosed.

A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment. Mrs. Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well-known at the time.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2011/01/23/copy/u-s--justice-thomas-didnt-disclose-wifes-pay-for-years.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

[WCGreen]

1. and nothing will come of it...

[ThomCat]

6. Of course not. He's a Republican.

If he was one of the Liberal members of on the bench there would be immediate and constant calls for him to step down from every news channel, every news paper, every news magazine, and every talking head.

Further, those calls would not stop until he did step down "in order to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court."

But Clarence Thomas is a Republican, so every "legitimate" news organization and talking head will minimize this and sweep it under the rug. Clarence Thomas will be allowed to ignore this and sweep it under the rug. It will become a non-issue. He probably won't even get audited and ever have to pay those back taxes.

All because he is a Republican.

Does anyone really doubt that these double standards are in place?

[spooky3]

8. +1

[FBaggins]

2. He's not a big fan of disclosure requirements.

And since the USSC has no ethics rules that govern the matter, there's really very little that could be done. He certainly isn't going to be impeached for failing to "disclose" something that was already known.

[chollybocker]

3. Maybe he filed her seperately, as a Corporate Personhood.

I believe it's filed under IRS Form "T-B.ag/cash-cow/w.benefits."

[pscot]

4. This isn't a very forward-looking

post. I hope you're ashamed.

[DJ13]

5. I am

:rofl:

[PinkTiger]

9. Sorry, DJ, I have to know….

What exactly is that on his, uh, thingy? Is it really altoids?

LOL

[davsand]

7. I don't think it rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

He is a huge pussbag that is completely lacking in a sense of ethics, however, we all know that is not grounds enough to remove somebody from office. A failure to report makes you look bad but it is nothing you will ever get impeached for.

Sorry to have to say it.



Laura