Justice Thomas

Question

Developing. Democratic Senators going after Clarence Thomas. The reason. Not reporting the source of his wife&#x27;s income for the last 15 years or so. The Dems will stoop this low to try to get the tie breaker on Obamacare. Madness in the Beltway!

sundance · Answer

Developing. Democratic Senators going after Clarence Thomas. The reason. Not reporting the source of his wife&#x27;s income for the last 15 years or so. The Dems will stoop this low to try to get the tie breaker on Obamacare. Madness in the Beltway!

kaponofor3 · Answer

He probably screwed up on this one,  it seems. Would not at all be surprised though if I wasn&#x27;t him personally who did this but rather an accountant or CPA that he hired.

starwink · Answer

Impartial jurist with partiality to the Heritage Foundation and the billionaire Koch Brothers. Makes perfect sense. Thomas voted corporations are people with unlimited influence in all elections in the USA.

Well done.

kaponofor3 · Answer

Let&#x27;s not kid ourselves here starwink and act like Thomas isn&#x27;t independently conservative aside from any closeness he has to those individuals. Thomas had a long, long track record of conservative jurisprudence prior to any of the allegations here.

wallstreetcappers · Answer

Looks like a termite treatment is needed at the SCOTUS

starwink · Answer

Now, the same Supreme Court that ruled in favor of corporation&#x27;s unlimited influence in elections, is going to rule on the legality of a national health care program.

starwink · Answer

Did you see Scalia yesterday?  He said the gridlock in Washington was exactly what the founding fathers wanted when they created our government.  A do-nothing Congress!!!

kaponofor3 · Answer

Starwink -- I&#x27;m still not really sure how this failure to disclose would make a difference in the Citizens United ruling or even the "Obamacare" expected ruling?

starwink · Answer

It won&#x27;t have any effect on the rulings.  Only if Thomas is removed from the bench.  He definitely isn&#x27;t impartial, though.  The public deserves at the very least, background on who helps to pay the Thomas family bills.

kaponofor3 · Answer

Hard for me to imagine that this could lead to his removal from the bench. He&#x27;ll likely blame the oversight on a hired professional, which (if true) is a legitimate defense.

kaponofor3 · Answer

He&#x27;s right, Star.

esplanade · Answer

The obama appointees are impartial?Totally bought and paid for.Kagan should recuse herself from any matter that is remotely tangent to Zer0.

kaponofor3 · Answer

There&#x27;s actually real, legitimate grounds IMO for Kagan to recuse herself on the "Obamacare" case that hits the SCOTUS.

drJ · Answer

all of this is being done specifically because of kagan needing to recuse herself from the obamacare hearing

there is no other reason

act 4 of the 5 act play is the scotus ruling on obamacare.

the admin will stop at nothing to alter this hearing....you aint seen nothin yet....although most of the threats intimidation and potential assassinations will never be divulged

drJ · Answer

kagan crafted the entire legal reasoning for obamacare while as solicitor generalseems like a conflict to me

KOAJ · Answer

ill trade you thomas for kaganseems fair right? obama paid kagan&#x27;s rent for 09 and 2010

drJ · Answer

its all because hes not an uncle tom.....oh yeah.....race card baby

rooster010 · Answer

&#xD;&#xA;why in the world do you want any elected officials to do anything given their track record up to this point&#xD;&#xA;you think suddenly they will pass some legislation that will be the panacea to your troubles&#xD;&#xA;big business has had a hold on our legislators ever since the west was won&#xD;&#xA;no legislation from these corrupt bastards is a good thing in my opinion

depeche2 · Answer

How is that stooping low?  Don&#x27;t you believe in the rule of law?  Thomas clearly violated the law, for decades.

Randisist · Answer

I beg to differ with you... His taxes are his responsibility. I do not believe he can delegate the responsibility to a third party. If he did not review his taxes he is incompatant and is not fit to hold a position of authority.

sundance · Answer

The Dems had their feeling hurt because the income of the wife of Thomas is not on some form. Hogwash with the rule of law in this specific case.

Randisist · Answer

I agree  we should be able to file tax forms with whatever errors we wish and it be accepted without question, in my specific case, in my neighbors specific case, and in the specific cases of my kin folk...

rooster010 · Answer

&#xD;&#xA;dont forget the secretary of the treasury

depeche2 · Answer

So the rule of law only applies when it&#x27;s convenient to you politically?  Isn&#x27;t the whole point of &#x27;rule of law&#x27; is that it is absolute and not only when convenient?

sundance · Answer

I have not seen the rule of law applied to Charlie Rangel. A perfect example of political convenience. The perpetual double standard always appllies to the Left.

Justice Thomas

Hot Forum Topics