Throw Thomas Off the Bench

[FourScore]

Throw Thomas Off the Bench
by Paul Campos
The Supreme Court justice broke the law by not disclosing his wife's $700K think-tank payday. Paul Campos on Clarence Thomas' "preposterous" defense and why he likely won't be punished.

The criminal-law scholar George Fletcher once quipped that the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is one of the few fundamental principles of law that most people actually know. As harsh as this principle may sometimes be when applied to ordinary citizens, applying it to justices of the Supreme Court seems only reasonable.

Thus it's difficult to feel sympathy for Clarence Thomas, as he finds himself embroiled in a controversy over his failure to reveal the sources of his wife's non-investment income (or indeed that she even had any such income). The 1978 Ethics in Government Act requires all federal judges to fill out annual financial-disclosure forms. The relevant question on the disclosure form isn't complicated: Even if Justice Thomas wasn't a lawyer, he shouldn't have needed to hire one to explain to him that the box marked NONE next to the phrase "Spouse's Non-Investment Income" should only be checked if his spouse had no non-investment income.

In fact 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...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-04/clarence-thomas-criminal-behavior-on-financial-disclosure/?cid=hp:mainpromo3

[FSogol]

1. K &R. Impeach the tax cheat. n/t

[mrmpa]

10. Impeachment won't happen, because it would have to go before congress...

and that ain't gonna happen. What can and should happen is that he be disbarred, this can occur if the Bar association he is a member of hears the charges and disbars him. Then what should happen is that he resigns from the SCOTUS and then criminal charges be filed against him.

[opihimoimoi]

2. That Gross Idiot who contributes shit to the system...more like a leech

he just sits there collecdting our tax monies

He is not earning his keep

Worse...he is a puppet of the GOPers

[Ernesto]

3. K&R........nt

[hlthe2b]

4. Of all the fully qualified and competent African Americans that..

could fill that slot on the Court, having this lazy, incompetent, arrogant, and unethical man continue is the ultimate insult.

[enough]

7. I remember during his confirmation hearings there were numerous African American law professors who

testified. The level of their discourse and their thinking was so much higher than that of Clarence Thomas. The travesty was heartbreaking.

[DirkGently]

5. Moreover, Thomas knew that this situation is the EXACT reason for the rule.

His wife wasn't making her bones at an office job. She was quite literally, selling implied influence to a conservative propraganda manufacturing facility. What other qualifications does she have to pull down that kind of money? What other "credentials" does she possess?

[Graybeard]

6. The Repub controlled House will not impeach him.

But I understand that States can disbar him as I believe Missouri has begun to do. Public outcry should force him to resign in disgrace.

[DirkGently]

8. Too bad bar membership is not a requirement for justices though.

[liam_laddie]

9. Thomas might be accused of felonies...

I don't think the disbarment suit is the right way to get him off the SCOTUS. An indictment from the DoJ (we can dream, can't we?) is the better path to his demise. :nuke: