In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Democrats Attempt to Pack Supreme Court

Wolf.Wolf. Member Posts: 2,223 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited September 2011 in General Discussion
It looks like the Socialist Party is going after Clarence Thomas. They may try to blow this up into an impeachment proceeding to replace him with another National Socialist (read that, Nazi) Supreme. Either that, or to intimidate him (not likely) into lesening his conservative stance in his opinions ("voting").

Here's the story as copied from the Huff Post Politics site:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/democratic-lawmakers-call-for-investiation-into-clarence-thomas-finances_n_987934.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl18|sec3_lnk1|100301

Look who signed "the letter." These guys wouldn't know ethics if it crawled up their leg and bit them hard on the @$$.

WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers on Thursday called for a federal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars on annual financial disclosure forms.

Led by House Rules Committee ranking member Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), 20 House Democrats sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States -- the entity that frames guidelines for the administration of federal courts -- requesting that the conference refer the matter of Thomas' non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the Department of Justice.

The letter outlines how, throughout his 20-year tenure on the Supreme Court, Thomas routinely checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income. But in reality, the letter states, she earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007 alone.

Slaughter called it "absurd" to suggest that Thomas may not have known how to fill out the forms.

"It is reasonable, in every sense of the word, to believe that a member of the highest court in the land should know how to properly disclose almost $700,000 worth of income," Slaughter said in a statement. "To not be able to do so is suspicious, and according to law, requires further investigation. To accept Justice Thomas's explanation without doing the required due diligence would be irresponsible."

The letter also cites a June report in The New York Times indicating Thomas may have regularly benefited from the use of a private yacht and airplane owned by real estate magnate Harlan Crowe and failed to disclose the travel as a gift or travel reimbursement.
Current law requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General any judge the conference "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."

Slaughter's press statement also notes that the Heritage Foundation was a prominent opponent of the Affordable Care Act, an issue the Supreme Court is expected to rule on by next summer.
"The Attorney General would be the appropriate person to investigate the issue of non-disclosure, and that is why my colleagues and I are making this request today," Slaughter said. "I cannot determine guilt or innocence, but I can request that the government do our due diligence in investigating a situation that strikes me, and many other members of Congress, as suspicious."

Other members of Congress on the letter include Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Pete Stark (D-Calif.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), John Olver (D-Mass.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Donna Edwards (D-Md.), Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.).

Comments

  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 32,669 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thomas uses the same program to do his taxes as Timothy Geithner does.
  • savage170savage170 Member Posts: 37,537 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    charlie Rangell writes the laws and he can't follow them either
  • HandLoadHandLoad Member Posts: 15,998
    edited November -1
    Quietly, behind the Scenes, Without much MSM Coverage, the Demons are packing the "Waiting Line" Appellate Court Positions...There will be few qualified Conservative Candidates for Supreme Court in coming Years.

    They are not "Attempting" - They are Really DOING it!
  • CaptplaidCaptplaid Member Posts: 20,298 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think Clarence Thomas can handle these pissant Democrat socialists.
  • Reaper1862Reaper1862 Member Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's the frickin' huffington post, consider the source.
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 37,717 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    someone noticed ...and our WISE latina judges...horse apples
  • shilowarshilowar Member Posts: 38,811 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am sure this would be a priority to investigate, as apposed to the many scandals and crimes that may have been perpetrated by the Obama White House and thugs.
  • TooBigTooBig Member Posts: 28,559 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    How else would obama get his obamacare thru the SC[xx(][V][:(!]
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    Boys & girls, this should be a line in the sand beyond which "they" will not be allowed to cross.

    If libs are allowed to gerry-mander the SCOTUS, then all else is lost. Obamacare would become the law of the land, you could kiss 2A goodbye, your taxes would go through the roof, and trillions in more debt would be paid for slavery reparations.

    For a long time I have feared that a "conservative" SC justice would meet an untimely death.

    No sir, that scenario cannot play out. I don't know how to go about saying it, but they need to get the message that we consider our 2A right to be endowed by our Creator, and no legislator or law will be recognized that takes that right away. Change the law, makes no difference...it would not have the desire effect.
  • footlongfootlong Member Posts: 8,009
    edited November -1
    Rumor is Democraps will "pack" each other too on occasion [:0]
  • Tech141Tech141 Member Posts: 3,787 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well, Looking at the SF 278 - Financial Disclosure Form, that is 'most likely' being referenced, in the instructions it states clearly "If your spouse has earned income in excess of $1,000
    (other than honoraria) from any one source, identify the
    source but show nothing under amount." (Emphasis mine)

    Until we can view the actual SF 278s that Justice Thomas personally filled out, this is a non-issue. You can file a SF 278 Request Form, that will ask the GOV to release the actual forms in question, but that could take quite a while.

    Personally, I'd say the HuffPo is doing all they can to attempt to discredit Justice Thomas because he's Black and they are savagely Racist.
  • StengunStengun Member Posts: 254 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Howdy,

    Gee. Let's see.........

    Nixon did it.

    Carter did it.

    Reagan did it.

    Big George did it.

    Clinton did it.

    Lil' George did it.

    Obama did it.

    Next POTUS did it.

    Next POTUS did it.

    Next POTUS did it.

    Next POTUS did it.

    Next POTUS did it.

    Next POTUS did it.

    So, what's your point?

    Paul
  • Alan RushingAlan Rushing Member Posts: 8,805 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Wolf.

    So what are you attempting convey? [?]

    Something new? No nothing new.

    Something different? No nothing different.

    Something that you have control over? No, no control.

    Is this news, no nothing new and no news to it, just the samo, samo.

    And so? [?]
Sign In or Register to comment.