SCOTUS judge Thomas received $100k from Citizen United and ruled in their favor

Yeah totally not corruption there.

Press Release: POE Calls for Investigations Into Justice Thomas in Light of New Financial Disclosures

First, the organization alleges, Justice Thomas falsified 20 years of judicial financial disclosure forms by denying that his wife had income sources;

Because you know, he's SCOTUS, but apparently he can't pay an accountant to do this for him or understand a disclosure form... yeah it was totally a mistake... NOT.

second, he engaged in judicial corruption by receiving $100,000 in support from Citizens United during his nomination and then ruling in favor of Citizens United in 2010 without disclosing that fact or disqualifying himself;

Of course.

and third, he apparently conspired with his wife in a form of "judicial insider trading" by providing her with information about the result of the Court's decision in Citizens United prior to its issuance, which she then used to launch a new company to take financial advantage of that decision to benefit her and her husband.

Congress is exempt from insider trading. Wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme Court judges were too.

Remember Citizen United ruling :

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited — because of the First Amendment.

The New York Times stated in an editorial, "The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election."[60] Jonathan Alter called it the "most serious threat to American democracy in a generation".[61] The Christian Science Monitor wrote that the Court had declared “outright that corporate expenditures cannot corrupt elected officials, that influence over lawmakers is not corruption, and that appearance of influence will not undermine public faith in our democracy.”[62]

Would that SOB voted for this anyway if he hadn't received the money? He certainly would have since he's a corporate sellout.

if true then hang em and thats a big if.

is union financing a first ammendment right as well?

corporate sellout or union sellout cant win.

Originally posted by neo96
if true then hang em and thats a big if.

is union financing a first ammendment right as well?

corporate sellout or union sellout cant win.

That's not a big if.

The info is true.
Clarence Thomas Fails to Disclose Citizens United In-Kind Contributions

Clarence Thomas is falling into a deep, deep ethical hole, deeper even than the one he dropped into when he failed to disclose his wife's income for 20 years. As more facts come to light, it's obvious he failed to disclose quite a bit, including the $100,000 Citizens United spent on his behalf in 1991 to support his nomination. That would be an in-kind contribution which should have been disclosed as such.

A Time Magazine article from 1991 has the details:

Washington-area television viewers were startled last week to see three familiar senatorial faces pop up on their screens above the words WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGE? The follow-up question -- "How many of these liberal Democrats could themselves pass ethical scrutiny?" -- was hardly necessary, since the faces were those of Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden and Alan Cranston, all scarred veterans of highly publicized scandals, from Chappaquiddick to plagiarized speeches to the Keating Five.

The ad, produced by two independent right-wing groups, was intended to bolster Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas' confirmation chances by pointing the finger at three liberal Democrats who seemed likely to oppose him.

reply to post by Vitchilo


i am wondering if this was a setup to stack the scotus with more left leaning judges so that obama care will never get stopped.

alright so its true then so who will obama appoint and then those consequences will be even more disastrous for us.

its all a plan.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Calling for an investigation and alleging crimes does not make a crime. Given this is regarding a Supreme Court Justice, the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is extremely relevant. Most importantly, so much disinformation has been put out regarding the Citizens United ruling that people actually think this ruling was about corporations instead of a resounding rebuke of Congress for violating the First Amendment. No one cares that the Citizens United ruling is a victory for the First Amendment, and only care that it was a corporation that brought the suit forward. To hell with freedom, knee jerk reactions are what count!

Well, in my opinion this doesn't really matter. He made the right vote no matter what, congress considers corporations ``persons`` so any vote against their free speech is a vote against ours. We need to get congress to exclude corporations from their definition of a person.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


And will you tell me sir, SINCE WHEN those fascists bastards at the Supreme Court EVER vote in favor of the bill of rights? They never do.

Yeah it's free speech alright, free speech for CORPORATIONS... which means they can spend unlimited money on elections because it's ``free speech`` and whoever have the most money wins most of the time because the sheeple vote.

reply to post by Vitchilo

And will you tell me sir, SINCE WHEN those fascists bastards at the Supreme Court EVER vote in favor of the bill of rights? They never do.

I just pointed out that they did just exactly that with the Citizens United ruling. Of course, I actually bothered to read that ruling, instead of rely on Huffington Post and silly blogs to "inform" me on what was ruled.

Yeah it's free speech alright, free speech for CORPORATIONS... which means they can spend unlimited money on elections because it's ``free speech`` and whoever have the most money wins most of the time because the sheeple vote.

The ruling is applicable to us all. The Bipartisan Finance Reform Act endeavored to, as the SCOTUS put it, "chill" speech, not just for corporations but across the board. The First Amendment begins as such; "Congress shall make no laws...." The BPFA was precisely that which they are expressly forbidden from doing.

Of course, I have actually bothered to read the First Amendment and not rely on Huffington Post and silly blogs to "inform" me what it says.

The Citizens United ruling was not about corporations, it was about freedom of speech. You know that thing you think is just a bunch of yadda yadda yadda.

So, an advertisement campaign from back in 1991, who's sponsors were published in Time magazine at the time, is somehow hidden? I have a feeling this is just 'sour grapes' from the left against the Supreme Court for upholding the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

i am wondering if this was a setup to stack the scotus with more left leaning judges so that obama care will never get stopped.

alright so its true then so who will obama appoint and then those consequences will be even more disastrous for us.

its all a plan.

So since Thomas was appointed during the Bush (1st) admin, - why wouldn't this have been an issue during the Clinton admin? It *might* have been useful long before Obama...

Just a logical question if you please....

reply to post by userid1


i was thinking the same thing

when things like this are brought up after the fact to me it means like everything else

dirt is only useful at certain times.

Thomas is a curious Justice. There is trail that says he was picked to be a justice way, way before he was anything at all - if he was anything at all; he was groomed from day one. In a New Yorker article some time back it was C Boyden Gray, council to the Pres, went to him while he was a no nothing, low level bureaucrat and told him his time to be justice was coming, but he'd have to wait until the current selection was made first - he was next. Now, why on earth would the counsel to the pres go and speak to an idiot and tell him that he'd be a justice at all, let alone have to wait? With hundreds of actually qualified folks available, why was a totally unqualified person told by tptb that he didn't have to be upset, his turn was coming?

If this is true, the Justice Thomas should have excused himself from the ruling on the Citizens United case.

I think that ruling was the unltimate nail in the coffin as far as the citizens Unitied Case is concerned.

Many pundents at the time framed the ruling as a First Ammendment issue, but I think that is a load of

malarky. Corprations and Unions funding political outcomes in such a direct way is not ethical, it creates

a conflict of intrest. I think the results of lobbying money are all around for everyone to see, this makes matters

much worse.

The ruling was 5-4 in favor of Citizens United. If he had recused himself it would have been a tie. If it had been 4-4 it would likely have been ruled as the next lower court ruled. The lower court did rule against:

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.

The above is from the Wikipedia link.

This is daunting. Judge Thomas has been one of the "less activist" judges since he has been a SCOTUS judge. If he has to step down that would be a Progressive dream.

/TOA

reply to post by Vitchilo


Interesting, Citizens United is like a war supporting conservative, pro corporation, big government contract type of organization. That would make sense to have this group paying off judges to continue to allow corporate interests to rule our elected leaders.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I just pointed out that they did just exactly that with the Citizens United ruling. Of course, I actually bothered to read that ruling, instead of rely on Huffington Post and silly blogs to "inform" me on what was ruled.


I think you are very wrong, Citizens United is not constitutional unless you apply personhood to

corporations or unions or any group.

Call me old fashioned, but I think applying personhood to things that are not human beings

is a great perversion. Thomas Jefferson or even Thomas Mifflin would not

stand for such an idea. All the people who comprise these government sanctioned groups retain their

rights as people. But when these individuals act as agents, does not mean that their rights are transfered

to the ficticious group, those groups are subject to rules, laws and regulations, just like they were in the late

1700's. If the premise of Fictious personhood shows that they are not breathing persons, then logic should hold

that a constitutional standard does not apply to that group. Nobody is going to convince me that a handful

of people should get some special consideration for some paper work, licenses and fees, hell, they already get

special concideration over the individual man as an incentive to go into business or whatnot. I hope you

young folks screw your heads on straight, there are too many company men acting like they work for some

company that never even hired them in the first place. This country is out of control, the last thing any good

American should do is let some aristocratic suits buy up politicians on the legal straight and narrow, like they

say, don't cry about your burnt face if your are playing with matches and gasoline. So I am sorry to get all

flustered on you but I hope you think about it more, what is the point of this place if money can buy policy?

edit on 4-6-2011 by beefsteaktwin because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Interesting, Citizens United is like a war supporting conservative, pro corporation, big government contract type of organization. That would make sense to have this group paying off judges to continue to allow corporate interests to rule our elected leaders.
Exactly the point there!

Politicians get paid by the tax money, but they get their orders from the people who pay for their campaigns.

If a man can't see the crookedness in that I suspect that man is crooked in his own heart and will never see

anything as crooked.

congress, the president and the rest of high level government are exempt from a lot of things. if they weren't, there would be no government.

apparently, it's cool to be a politician and admit you've done coke or smoked marijuana and still be legally qualified to hold the position.

but if i put i smoked a joint on a resume, i'd never get hired. if customs official asked me if i ever did drugs and say yes, i could be denied entry.

I did NOT know Congress is allowed to do insider trading. How'd I miss that?
www.freerepublic.com...

WTF? No wondor these guys all retire millionares. What a GREAT fricking PERK!

You get all the inside data on IPO's and get to go BUY them on the front end?

How wrong is THAT???? Hmmmm I've never heard ONE candidate say they should abolish that little signing bonus when elected.

I guess that's just one entighlement that you get for being elected.

I am SHOCKED I didn't know this! I knew I hated politics..now I hate them more.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Citizens United ruling was not about corporations, it was about freedom of speech. You know that thing you think is just a bunch of yadda yadda yadda.

Didn't I, as an individual, already have the right to free speech? How exactly did citizens united benefit me as a person?