I actually think it's not a quid pro quo - it doesn't have to. I doubt Thomas has ever disagreed with anything Heritage has ever said, and that's how he decided. I doubt the money affected him. But, having said that, this is income tax evasion - they won't get jail time, duh, but they WILL get some fines, and no one shall ever speak of it again. Slap on the wrist and a stern warning. I'd place good cash money on it. DeLay took years of prosecution before he went down.
Right, but the appearance of conflict of interest here is mind-blowing, and contempt Thomas showed for the law as a Supreme Court Justice is staggering.
I don't think the issue is that the income wasn't reported to the IRS -- it's that it wasn't disclosed to the Supreme Court, in clear violation of the rules. Or did I miss something?
At any rate, it's pretty rotten. Looks like Mrs. Thomas has decided to clam up after her ill-advised drunk dialing of Anita Hill, so that's a good thing. Still, this sort of in-your-face partisanship undermines people's faith in the impartiality of the SC.
Judges and their spouses don't forfeit their 1st amendment rights upon appointment to the SC, but it seems like there used to be enough respect for the institution that they voluntarily curtailed overtly political activities. Perhaps it was always illusory.
Let's see: there's a claim a Justice on the Supreme Court the liberals hate fails to note money on disclosure papers, liberals freaks out.
Liberals commit income tax evasion, they get appointed to positions in the President's Cabinet, including the Department that runs the agency that handles taxes and prosecutes tax evaders.
Oh, the irony.
January 24, 2011 at 8:00 AM
Jimmi the Grey said...
Shorter SteveAR: Stock answer #3...
But, but, liberals do it too! And Conservatives only get caught when it's a liberal in powah!!!1!11Eleventy
January 24, 2011 at 9:18 AM
innocent bystander said...
@steveAR
3 comments posted before 10am on a monday morning. you're a sad motherfucker. don't you have anything better to do? jeezus h christmas. i honestly feel a little sorry for you.
January 24, 2011 at 11:07 AM
You can start by giving $680,000 to a justice's wife over five years and not reporting the income to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.
Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.
A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday. But Virginia Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time.
Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the "founding principles" of limited government and individual liberty.
In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as "none." Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.
And hey, what do you know, on basically every case Thomas sided with conservatives. I'd like to see Thomas's decisions versus Heritage Foundation position papers and amicus briefs. I bet they're almost an exact match, if not identical.
I'm sure it's just a five-year long coincidence, right? There's no conflict of interest here or anything.
6 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formI actually think it's not a quid pro quo - it doesn't have to. I doubt Thomas has ever disagreed with anything Heritage has ever said, and that's how he decided. I doubt the money affected him. But, having said that, this is income tax evasion - they won't get jail time, duh, but they WILL get some fines, and no one shall ever speak of it again. Slap on the wrist and a stern warning. I'd place good cash money on it. DeLay took years of prosecution before he went down.
January 23, 2011 at 8:46 PM
Right, but the appearance of conflict of interest here is mind-blowing, and contempt Thomas showed for the law as a Supreme Court Justice is staggering.
January 23, 2011 at 8:55 PM
I don't think the issue is that the income wasn't reported to the IRS -- it's that it wasn't disclosed to the Supreme Court, in clear violation of the rules. Or did I miss something?
At any rate, it's pretty rotten. Looks like Mrs. Thomas has decided to clam up after her ill-advised drunk dialing of Anita Hill, so that's a good thing. Still, this sort of in-your-face partisanship undermines people's faith in the impartiality of the SC.
Judges and their spouses don't forfeit their 1st amendment rights upon appointment to the SC, but it seems like there used to be enough respect for the institution that they voluntarily curtailed overtly political activities. Perhaps it was always illusory.
January 24, 2011 at 7:46 AM
Let's see: there's a claim a Justice on the Supreme Court the liberals hate fails to note money on disclosure papers, liberals freaks out.
Liberals commit income tax evasion, they get appointed to positions in the President's Cabinet, including the Department that runs the agency that handles taxes and prosecutes tax evaders.
Oh, the irony.
January 24, 2011 at 8:00 AM
Shorter SteveAR: Stock answer #3...
But, but, liberals do it too! And Conservatives only get caught when it's a liberal in powah!!!1!11Eleventy
January 24, 2011 at 9:18 AM
@steveAR
3 comments posted before 10am on a monday morning. you're a sad motherfucker. don't you have anything better to do? jeezus h christmas. i honestly feel a little sorry for you.
January 24, 2011 at 11:07 AM