It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clarence Thomas releases details of wife's past employment

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Justice Thomas reveals wife's employer's benefited from his rulings


edition.cnn.com

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has released newly corrected financial disclosure forms showing his wife's past employment, blaming a misunderstanding for years of omissions of Virginia "Ginni" Thomas' salary at a conservative think tank and other jobs.

...

The updated records go back 13 years and confirm Mrs. Thomas has worked for the Heritage Foundation, the Republican leadership in the House and Hillsdale College in Michigan.
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 25/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Fixed title








edit on 1/25/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: edited title to same as source




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
This seems like yet another instance of corruption inherent in the system...

Of course, it's from a Republican, so I'm sure there will be screams that the left is equally or more corrupt, so the Republicans are slightly better.

My personal take on this is that we should most definitely be keeping a closer eye on the Justices, especially the finances of their relatives. We should make sure that nobody they know is directly benefiting from their rulings. In this case, Justice Thomas' wife and her employers were benefiting from rulings for many years.

Just sickening.

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You act like the other side does not partake in the same mischief? Just in recent memory, Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner, got caught red-handed cheating on his taxes. That did not stop his appointment to his current position. Still, I don't see what Justice Thomas's wife's employment history or political affiliations have to do with his rulings or judgeship in the US Supreme Court?

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. If he has any personal relationship with said conservative organizations, then that could be considered a conflict of interest if a case arrives involving them. The bipartisan garbage is getting beat into the ground like a dead horse. Perhaps, we can all agree on one thing, both sides are as crooked and conniving as the other?
edit on 25-1-2011 by Jakes51 because: grammatical errors and removed a sentence because of redundancy



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
If the justice system is to clean up its act then I expect a few more conflicts of interest to be exposed. While the events surrounding this are bad, it is good that it has been released and some attempts are being made to return some integrity to the system. As for how far it goes and how much is changed, time will tell.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I didn't say it doesn't happen on both sides, but I've never heard of a liberal SCOTUS Justice in this sort of situation in my lifetime. I said it was a problem with the system that needs to be stamped out.

As for what her employment has to do with anything...she was employed by Conservative think tanks and groups that directly benefited from his rulings...and to the tune of $700,000....



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Has American morality gotten to this point...it's only wrong if you get caught. Back in the late 1980s-early 1990's, Republicans were encouraged to be "stealth candidates" when running for non-partison offices, hide your politics until you get into office.

If Justice Thomas intentionally, stealthily, left out declarations, that could be grounds for impeachment.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. If he has any personal relationship with said conservative organizations, then that could be considered a conflict of interest if a case arrives involving them.


Ah but he has:


information has come to light that raises serious questions about the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the Citizens United case. It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision. With respect to Justice Thomas, there may also be an undisclosed financial conflict of interest due to his wife’s role as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.




SOURCE


Using your logic I suspect Mt. Everest is just a molehill?


And I'd be remiss not to point out:

Scalia appears at 'tea party' House meeting



SOURCE

So much for unbiased decorum and adherence to impartiality.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


I'll give you a star for digging up the extra material. Still, in the case of Justice Thomas I see a wife doing their own thing, and Justice Scalia being invited and appearing at a speaking engagement that was put together by a Tea Party member. Everyone knows what their political leanings are. All we can hope for is that it does not influence their interpretation of the law.

However that should not deter them from speaking about judicial matters at any gathering. Whether it be a university law school or some organization. I did find it suspicious that the occasion was closed to the public? Still, the article cited mentions that both parties were encouraged to attend. Some Democrats did in fact attend. Moreover, it said that he was informing them about the Constitution and reinforcing his legal philosophy. As far as I am concerned, they should do their best to stay away from politics. In the case of their wives, wives are gonna do what wives do. Interesting articles though. Very informative. We don't need the Justices moonlighting as legislators.







 
6

log in

join