How to save health care reform, overturn Citizens United, and restore the rule of law to SCOTUS

The Hitman

(477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:15 PM
Original message

How to save health care reform, overturn Citizens United, and restore the rule of law to SCOTUS

Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/02/01/clarence-thomas-has-violated-federal-law-every-year-for-two-decades/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:18 PM
Response to Original message

1. For failing to fill out a form correctly?

It isn't like it was a secret. Is there anyone out there who thinks he was trying to hide his wife's employer?

We're really going to convince 2/3 of the senate to vote to convict on that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

prairierose

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. For 20 years?....

he failed to report any of her income on that form for 20 years. It's not like he just forgot it one time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #2

10. And what's the theory for his motivation?

Edited on Tue Feb-01-11 09:12 PM by FBaggins

Crimes always have a motive.

He's got plenty of bad decisions to criticize, but this is just juvenile.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

prairierose

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #10

16. My theory is that like many neo-cons...

he believes that the law does not apply to him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #16

19. That's certainly possible.

Or, more likely, he thinks that such disclosure laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable... particularly if applies to SC justices. But then he would have been lying in his more current statements.

It doesn't make sense as an intentional act OR as a mistake. I'd be interested to hear what his colleagues think of the whole thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arcane1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. For intentionally filling out a form incorrectly n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #4

11. Intentionally?

And what was that intention?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arcane1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #11

13. It doesn't appear to be accidental

It's hard to believe anyway. At the very least, this deserves to be looked into further, under oath.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. But that wasn't the question.

Edited on Tue Feb-01-11 10:02 PM by FBaggins

If it's intentional... What's the intent? It couldn't profit him at all... It wouldn't hide something that everyone already knew...

I don't get it either way... But also can't see how we can make a federal case out of it (pun intended).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arcane1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #14

15. I'm guessing it's to hide a potential conflict of interest

if nothing else, he should be asked questions, since he did technically violate rules.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #15

17. How?

Edited on Tue Feb-01-11 10:28 PM by FBaggins

That presumes that people who would raise that conflict (attorneys arguing cases before the USSC) didn't already know that she worked there.

They did. It was very common knowledge. He couldn't possibly hide it by filling out a form deceptively.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ineeda

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:34 PM
Response to Original message

3. tax evasion is no small matter.

Isn't that what Capone was nailed for? Throw the book at him. Ordinary people wouldn't get any slack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WCGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. It's not tax evasion....

It's an ethical violation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DearAbby

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. A set of laws for the elites

and another set of laws for the rest of us. Do you believe the average American could get away with failing to file for 20 yrs?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WCGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. It's not a tax situation.....

The Legal profession has a standard of ethics and part of that is full disclosure. It's also applicable to elected and appointed officials including Supreme Court Justices.

He didn't disclose his wife's income and where it came on his yearly ethical form in fact he checked no so at the very least he is guilty of perjury.

It's still against the law and I would hope that someone who is in charge of deciding how the laws in this country are enforced or not enforced would be forced to suffer the consequences of his actions...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The Hitman

(477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #9

20. Are those forms made under oath?

If not, then its not perjury.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DCKit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #3

12. It's not the money, it's where the money came from.

RW groups she may not even have done any work for. They reported the income, but not the source.

However, given his position, a money laundering/bribery investigation could be in order.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SugarShack

(979 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #3

18. Look what they did to Rangel for failure to report rental income

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

postulater

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:40 PM
Response to Original message

6. But he's soooo important.

We don't bother important people with the trivia that we hold other people to.

He's too important. And that's what counts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

glinda

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 08:42 PM
Response to Original message

8. K & R n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Brother Buzz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-01-11 11:51 PM
Response to Original message

21. I'm all for it if it also also puts the kibosh on Monsanto�

Impeachment isn't going to happen with a republican controlled house, but I'm fine with simple old fashioned criminal charges. Where is the federal prosecutor with a spine when you need one?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 03:53 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.