Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2011, 04:09 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,381,429 times
Reputation: 18436

Advertisements

There is a God. This shameful member of the SC is facing a possible ethics violation. I hope it escalates to uncontrollable proportions and this intellectual lightweight iis thrown off the Court. He has been an embarrassment! His departure would signal the beginning of real progress and offset the regressive tendencies of right-wing Justice Roberts.

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Admits 'Inadvertent' Error
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2011, 04:23 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,354 posts, read 60,546,019 times
Reputation: 60938
You really need to calm down. This isn't a major violation, it's the failure to report a spouse's income, which under the attached guidelines is usually only required if the spouse's company is doing business with the government or if the spouse is employed by a government entity. If anything the only penalty will be a "Bad Boy" letter saying don't do it again.

I'm currently working on my MD disclosure, which is much more stringent than the Federal one and requires me to disclose my adult, not living with me, children's income in addition to my wife's, from whatever source.

Last edited by North Beach Person; 02-06-2011 at 04:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,697 posts, read 6,447,121 times
Reputation: 5047
According to the article:
Neglecting to disclose this information would violate the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which requires all federal officials, including Supreme Court justices, to disclose their spouse’s income. Thomas indicated “none” under the latter category on his disclosure forms from 2003 to 2009.
Whether this is a "major" or minor" violation, well, I checked the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Title I, Section 101 Persons Required to File:
(11) a judicial officer as defined under section 109 (10);
And under Section 109 (10):
(10) “judicial officer” means the Chief Justice of the United States, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the judges of the United States courts of appeals, United States district courts ...
Title I, Section 102 Contents of Reports:
(e)
(1) Except as provided in the last sentence of this paragraph, each report required by section 101 shall also contain information listed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a) of this section respecting the spouse or dependent child of the reporting individual as follows:
(A) The source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceed $1,000 and the source and amount of any honoraria received by a spouse, except that, with respect to earned income (other than honoraria), if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession need be reported.
Section 104 Failure to file or filing false reports:
(a) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to section 102. The court in which such action is brought may assess against such individual a civil penalty in any amount, not to exceed $10,000.

(b) The head of each agency, each Secretary concerned, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, each congressional ethics committee, or the Judicial Conference, as the case may be, shall refer to the Attorney General the name of any individual which such official or committee has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported. Whenever the Judicial Conference refers a name to the Attorney General under this subsection, the Judicial Conference also shall notify the judicial council of the circuit in which the named individual serves of the referral.

(c) The President, the Vice President, the Secretary concerned, the head of each agency, the Office of Personnel Management, a congressional ethics committee, and the Judicial Conference, may take any appropriate personnel or other action in accordance with applicable law or regulation against any individual failing to file a report or falsifying or failing to report information required to be reported.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 06:05 AM
 
Location: Columbus
4,877 posts, read 4,506,523 times
Reputation: 1450
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
There is a God. This shameful member of the SC is facing a possible ethics violation. I hope it escalates to uncontrollable proportions and this intellectual lightweight iis thrown off the Court. He has been an embarrassment! His departure would signal the beginning of real progress and offset the regressive tendencies of right-wing Justice Roberts.

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Admits 'Inadvertent' Error
Translation: Liberals can't stand it that a black person is a conservative (and didn't use government programs to get where he is). We can't have this because it makes it harder to make our boorish and childish clamis that the right is racist. So let's search for anything, or just make stuff up, blow it out of proportion, and hope that we can keep brainwashing minorities to get their vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 07:06 AM
 
Location: South East
4,209 posts, read 3,588,739 times
Reputation: 1465
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
Translation: Liberals can't stand it that a black person is a conservative (and didn't use government programs to get where he is). We can't have this because it makes it harder to make our boorish and childish clamis that the right is racist. So let's search for anything, or just make stuff up, blow it out of proportion, and hope that we can keep brainwashing minorities to get their vote.
Exactly!!

And brainwashed those poor idiots are. You summed it up perfectly - "liberals can't stand it that a black is conservative and did not use government programs to get where he is." That defeats their whole purpose for entitlements and fleecing the rich so the lazy can do nothing but put their hands out for something that belongs to someone else.

The crazy lefties also learn from birth to lie and deflect. And right now they need to deflect to try to cover up a host of things their party is doing. They hope if they start a little fire in the wrong place, the right will spend time putting out the flames and therefore will not be able to concentrate on exposing their lies and bad deeds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Chicago
4,085 posts, read 4,334,647 times
Reputation: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
Translation: Liberals can't stand it that a black person is a conservative (and didn't use government programs to get where he is). We can't have this because it makes it harder to make our boorish and childish clamis that the right is racist. So let's search for anything, or just make stuff up, blow it out of proportion, and hope that we can keep brainwashing minorities to get their vote.
This thread is finished!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Reeds Spring, MO
974 posts, read 1,587,160 times
Reputation: 455
Hmmm health care bill is going to the SC. Now a Right leaning SC Judge is under investigation and potentially removed from the SC? A little fishy don't ya think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Reality
9,949 posts, read 8,850,246 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
There is a God. This shameful member of the SC is facing a possible ethics violation. I hope it escalates to uncontrollable proportions and this intellectual lightweight iis thrown off the Court. He has been an embarrassment! His departure would signal the beginning of real progress and offset the regressive tendencies of right-wing Justice Roberts.

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Admits 'Inadvertent' Error
You really need to deal with this deep seated racism, it's offensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 07:47 AM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,470,730 times
Reputation: 4265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciaerin View Post
A little fishy don't ya think?
No, it's just politics as usual and both sides are guilty of playing the same game. It's neither a left or right issue.

This is not "made up" and it's not a lie. That's a fact. Unfortunately, extremists can't see that and resort to their usual tired insults. Justice Thomas committed a violation of the ethics rules. That's another fact.

I agree with North Beach Person. This doesn't seem like a big deal to me - and I'm no fan of Justice Thomas. It would be incomprehensible to think that Justice Thomas omitted his wife's income on purpose, having known that every move he makes will be scrutinized. It's more a silly error than a deliberate attempt to defraud the government ~
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,464,288 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciaerin View Post
Hmmm health care bill is going to the SC. Now a Right leaning SC Judge is under investigation and potentially removed from the SC? A little fishy don't ya think?
Yet nothing about Kagan and her history with advising Obama on the healthcare bill.

Someone trying to stack the deck before it gets there ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top