tsk Tsk. I expected better.

Politico has a report up that the Left is targeting the right-wing Justices:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50757.html

So perhaps this current story isn't as much in a vacuum as it might first appear?

He'll get off if he uses the Turbo Tax defense.

Seriously, Geithner gets a pass, and Rangel gets censured for more serious violations. The rules don't apply to the political class.

No one should be above the law, even those who make and interpret them. But right now there are no ethics guidelines that apply to the Supreme Court. Seriously, how did we get to be 234 years old without requiring some kind of ethical standard of our highest court?

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has introduced a bill to remedy this, but we still need an investigation into Justice Thomas' failure to disclosure, potential conflicts, and unwillingness to answer questions that, rather than undermining the American way of life, seek to protect it!

BTW, you can help support HR 862 here: http://bit.ly/ia4ZVK.

His wife has hardly been hiding her work. The surprise is that they didn't get caught sooner.

There is exactly one remedy available, and that is impeachment. It's not happening.

To be honest, the fact that it comes from Common Cause makes me want to discount it entirely.

This has been known for a long while. She works in Washington and everyone knows that she's Thomases wife. His filings have been reviewed as well, which is what prompted his clarification. But there's really no evidence that he was trying to conceal anything. It's a bit rich for Turley and Common Cause to feign ignorance on this matter, because everyone has known this all along.

What's happening here is that they're trying to force Thomas to recuse himself from the upcoming case(s) concerning Obama care. They're going after the other conservative justices as well, basically to stack the court in their favor.

@Jonah That this has been known for a while doesn't mean that it isn't wrong and that Thomas should not recuse himself from cases where his wife has a lobbying interest.

I don't expect Thomas to actually do so, as he quite resistant to following public opinion, but his failure to recuse himself seems to be a reflection of the court's ever-increasing politicization, to me a much bigger problem than that of a specific judge ruling in a specific case.

Common Cause? isn't that that liberal think tank that claims to be non partisan, but spends a lot of time pushing the big government agenda of Net Neutrality? i.e. government control over the content of the entire internet?

Common Cause is yet another Soros-financed WWP front group.

In other words, Socialists, in word and deed.

Christopher, if anyone needs to recuse themselves from ruling on Obamacare, it's Elena Kagan. She's the one who was advising Obama and the Democrats on it as White House Counsel.

Thomas is not really a Supreme Court calibre intellect.

In current-day America, the law is whatever the last court that reviews your case says. It can vary from appeal court to appeal court, and the Supreme Court is hopelessly politicized.

If you want justice in this world...well, not from this Supreme Court.

@Isabel1130 - the question is not their politics, but are they correct on the facts. In this case, there's no doubt that Ginny Thomas worked for these organizations and that her income was not reported by Justice Thomas, a violation of the law.

@Brian - I agree that Kagan probably needs to recuse herself as well as Thomas. I suspect neither of them will do so, because there is so much of their respective parties' political interests at stake in the ACA litigation. This is the problem I mentioned above. The Supreme Court has become deeply compromised by partisan politics, and its credibility suffers as a result.

You can blame FDR for that. He's the one who threatened to pack the court to get his way, and from then on the court has been wary of and swayed by political opportunism.

Precisely what the lifetime appointment was intended to prevent.

Christopher. I suspect both Common Causes motives and their characterization of this incident as a violation of the law.
I have worked for the government in a fiduciary position and have had to fill out the form in question. The form is not as clear on is face as it might be and the criminal penalties are not for screwing up the form but for actual criminal conduct such as taking bribes. An example would be, if I as a contracting officer was taking money under the table to skew the bidding process on a multi million dollar contract so I could get it awarded to a company that I had an illicit and unreported business association with.

The purpose of the form is so that my direct supervisor can know if there is a potential conflict of interest and have me assigned to work other contracts where there would be no appearance of a conflict of interest.
This is not an IRS thing where you are lying to avoid paying taxes. The income that Mrs Thomas received was widely known about AND reported on the Thomas's taxes. They were not deliberately hiding anything.
If Dems really think this is a reason to try and force Thomas to recuse himself on the Obamacare case, then there is a much stronger case for the recusal of Elena Kagen, as has already been pointed out here.

If you were not such a democratic hand puppet, you would probably see that. I can smell your desperation and also Common Causes desperation to make something, anything stick in order to get a majority on the Supreme Court to uphold Obama care.

Amy: this article describes the attack on the conservative justices, which may be related to the stuff in your blog post:

Limbaugh: Chicago Politics Targets High Court

(w.r.t. Patrick, if he reads this thread, this is not "Oxycontin Fat@$$." It is a relative of his, however.)

And nobody on Wall Street has gone to prison.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216?hpt=Sbin&page=1

Thomas is not really a Supreme Court calibre intellect.

This. Note that he has not asked a question during a hearing for five years. He is lost, at sea, in over his head. Fact is, he is on the court because he is black, and for no other reason. "Diversity".

If you were not such a democratic hand puppet, you would probably see that. I can smell your desperation and also Common Causes desperation to make something, anything stick in order to get a majority on the Supreme Court to uphold Obama care.

Your perspicacity amazes. I am a handpuppet; nothing else! The other readers here thank you for making clear what was opaque to them, and I feel liberated at the ability to no longer hide who is my true master. A community service was just done. Thank you.

If you actually read what I wrote, you would note that my argument is that both Kagan and Thomas have issues that I think merits their recusal from the case: her work for the Obama administration, and his wife's lobbying against the bill. If I were the handpuppet you think, would I not be arguing that she should stay but he should go?

The other readers here thank you for making clear what was opaque to them,

Isabel actually did clarify the matter for me. I was under the impression that he was being accused of lying on his tax form, which turns out not to be the case.

a_r_g -

not read any of his opinions then, have you? Or are you one of the sheep who kept bleating about Bush's lack of "intellectual curiosity" because he didn't ask enough questions?

The truth of the matter is that Thomas has one of the finer minds on the court. Kagan and Sotomayor on the other hand were pure "fan service" picks. Kagan had no relevant legal experience, and Sotomayor was on the wrong side of too many opinions to count, and mostly because she's just not bright enough to know better.

At least when Bush tried to go the "fan service" route with Harriet Miers, we on the right eviscerated his choice, and he had to withdraw her from consideration.

Christopher there's no evidence that Virginia Thomas had a lobbying interest in any of the cases he's heard or in any soon to be heard. She's not even a lobbyist. I think that you're the one politicizing things.

As for Thomase's intellect, that question had been put to bed years ago, once his opinions began to be published. Whatever you think of his politics, he's proven to be one of the stronger intellects on the court. Stevens acknowledged this directly when explaining his role on the court. The fact that he doesn't ask a lot of questions doesn't really speak to his intellectual ability. You have to look at his writings.

Oh my, I was confused.I thought at first that he hadn't declared the income on his tax returns. (He did do that, didn't he??)

But this is just about as bad.

"As for Thomase's intellect, that question had been put to bed years ago, once his opinions began to be published. Whatever you think of his politics, he's proven to be one of the stronger intellects on the court. Stevens acknowledged this directly when explaining his role on the court. The fact that he doesn't ask a lot of questions doesn't really speak to his intellectual ability. You have to look at his writings."

Oral arguments and the questions that the Supremes ask during them are a dog and pony show. They are meaningless in a legal context, as all the real decisions and questions are in writing behind the scenes.

I give Thomas a lot of credit for not participating in this charade.

First rule for lawyers going into court, and to a lesser extent judges.

Don't ever ask a question that you don't already know the answer to.

@Jonah - She has lobbied against the health care bill. Try Googling next time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09thomas.html

"But this is just about as bad."

Carol,

Please explain in detail, using your extensive knowledge of the form in question, and federal law on the subject of reporting a potential conflict of interest, so we can know how you reached this conclusion. Then define "just about as bad".

I really want to know.

"@Jonah - She has lobbied against the health care bill. Try Googling next time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09thomas.html"

Christopher. I see no evidence in the article that you linked to anywhere of Ginny Thomas being a registered lobbyist.

If you meant to imply that speaking out in public and exercising your first amendment rights, whether on your own or on behalf of a political organization, paid or not, somehow implies that that you are now a "lobbyist", you don't know the meaning of the word.

I have nothing to add to this discussion, since MarkD already said it. Thomas needs to be impeached. It's not going to happen.

Attacking Justice Thomas, eh?

Why do you hate black people, Amy?

@Isabell1130 Starting a lobbying and consulting group where her “experience and connections” help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” is definitely nothing like being a lobbyist. Not at all.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48812.html

Also, as reported in the NYT article, she also previously headed Liberty Central, a Tea Party organization that strongly opposes the ACA. But of course, that's not lobbying – just opposing! She wasn't registered, so everything is cool. Just an ordinary citizen, making her voice heard. And like any other wife, no influence on her husband that might hint at any impropriety in her husband's inevitable vote in favor of ruling the ACA unconstitutional (don't fear, though, as his recent speech to the Federalist Society has made it clear, Thomas has no intention of recusing himself).

Well it may not matter. The defendants have to file an appeal on or before March 10 to not have Obamacare thrown out. (Read the clarifying his order link -- it is great.)

If they don't -- Judge Vinson's declarative judgment stands ruling Obamacare unconstitutional.

I doubt they'll let it go, but.....

I can't believe you missed the chance to call this, "Thomas The Tax Engine"!