Export thread
Supreme Court Justice doesn't report spouses income
#1
Krisken
Krisken
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose his wife's income while working for The Heritage Foundation.
It's an interesting story. On his IRS forms the income was included, but on the Judicial Disclosure forms he checked NONE.
Should a Supreme Court Justice follow the law all other judges are required to follow? Should they have an Ethical board? How does one regulate the Supreme Court?
It's an interesting story. On his IRS forms the income was included, but on the Judicial Disclosure forms he checked NONE.
Should a Supreme Court Justice follow the law all other judges are required to follow? Should they have an Ethical board? How does one regulate the Supreme Court?
#2
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Putting an Ethical Board on the Supreme Court would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? They aren't supposed to be beholdened to anything except the Constitution and the Law, but introducing someone else to watch over their moves would bring all of their decisions into doubt. You'd never know if it was their actual opinions or if the Ethics board was pressuring them for a decision.
#3
Krisken
Krisken
Right, but who holds them accountable when they don't follow the law?
#4
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Which is the exact reason why ethics boards are never given any kind of jurisdiction over the actual rulings or decisions. For example the congressional ethics commitee can't call for an investigation just because the congressman voted for healthcare reform. But if they are cheating on their taxes or taking expensive gifts that's when the ethic commitee takes over.Putting an Ethical Board on the Supreme Court would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? They aren't supposed to be beholdened to anything except the Constitution and the Law, but introducing someone else to watch over their moves would bring all of their decisions into doubt. You'd never know if it was their actual opinions or if the Ethics board was pressuring them for a decision.
#5
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
No one, as they are considered to be the final say on legality in this country, which is why they are appointed for life (or until they retire). The only countermeasure I'm currently aware of is the fact they need a simple majority vote to actually make a decision which is usually enough as most of the judges tend to be alpha types anyway.Right, but who holds them accountable when they don't follow the law?
True, but if the Ethics committee was ALREADY investigating one of them for something, and found sufficient cause to remove them, said information could be used to extort a decision out of them.Which is the exact reason why ethics boards are never given any kind of jurisdiction over the actual rulings or decisions. For example the congressional ethics commitee can't call for an investigation just because the congressman voted for healthcare reform. But if they are cheating on their taxes or taking expensive gifts that's when the ethic commitee takes over.
#6
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
So, they can do anything they want?
#7
Covar
Covar
The Police.Right, but who holds them accountable when they don't follow the law?
#8
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
As far as ruling what is and isn't constitutional? Pretty much. It's so they can make unpopular, but necessary decisions. If they had people they reported to, they'd never be able to make a decision period.So, they can do anything they want?
#10
strawman
strawman
You guys fail at teh google.
A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.
Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.
In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.
In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it's not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.
The Impeachment Process
Impeachment is a two-step process; the impeachment phase is similar to a Grand Jury hearing, where charges (called "articles of impeachment") are presented and the House of Representatives determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If the House vote passes by a simple majority, the defendant is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.
The House of Representatives indicts the accused on articles of impeachment, and, if impeached, the Senate conducts a trial to determine the party's guilt or innocence.
The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice, the President (or another officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.
At the trial a committee from the House of Representatives, called "Managers," act as the prosecutors. Per constitutional mandate (Article I, Section 3), the Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court) must preside over the Senate trial of the President. If any other official is on trial, an "Impeachment Trial Committee" of Senators act as the presiding judges to hear testimony and evidence against the accused, which is then presented as a report to the remained of the Senate. The full Senate no longer participates in the hearing phase of the removal trial. This procedure came into practice in 1986 when the Senate amended its rules and procedures for impeachment and has been contested by several federal court judges, but the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the process, calling the issue a political, not legal, matter.
At the conclusion of the trial, the full Senate votes and must return a two-thirds Super Majority for conviction. Convicted officials are removed from office immediately and barred from holding future office. The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice, the President (or another officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.
Impeachment and Near Impeachment
Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.
In 1957, at the height of McCarthyism, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for "The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices" believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for "...[usurping] the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution."
#11
Krisken
Krisken
Ugh, no read tonight. I'll get back to ya.
#12
strawman
strawman
So, if what he did is a felony, and he is convicted, then he will very likely be impeached without much argument. If it is not a felony, or he is not convicted of it, then they may choose to impeach him, but it would likely be a long, hard process, and even if impeached may not end with his removal from the bench. Keep in mind that even Clinton lied under oath, was impeached, but was not removed from office.
I imagine a lot of people will be 'encouraging' him to retire early.
It would be a major coup for the democrats if they could get him (one of the most conservative members of the court) out and replace him during Obama's term. Even if he did commit a crime, the reason to get him to leave is hardly due to that.
Also keep in mind that he was bitterly fought over when he was initially appointed due to the Anita Hill sex scandal.
I imagine a lot of people will be 'encouraging' him to retire early.
It would be a major coup for the democrats if they could get him (one of the most conservative members of the court) out and replace him during Obama's term. Even if he did commit a crime, the reason to get him to leave is hardly due to that.
Also keep in mind that he was bitterly fought over when he was initially appointed due to the Anita Hill sex scandal.
#13
SpecialKO
That said, even a right-leaning moderate would be a fairly leftward movement compared to Thomas.
SpecialKO
True, but I doubt Obama would do so with anyone that is considered particularly left-leaning. He just doesn't have enough political capital at the moment to manage it without getting hammered.It would be a major coup for the democrats if they could get him (one of the most conservative members of the court) out and replace him during Obama's term.
That said, even a right-leaning moderate would be a fairly leftward movement compared to Thomas.
#14
@Li3n
@Li3n
Sounds like a job for the IRS....
Seriously, why use 2 forms in the first place? Just get the one from the IRS for everything else... though i guess that would require an efficient bureaucracy between government agencies...
Seriously, why use 2 forms in the first place? Just get the one from the IRS for everything else... though i guess that would require an efficient bureaucracy between government agencies...
#15
strawman
strawman
The IRS form doesn't give the kind of information required to determine if there's a conflict of interest of not.
All in all, it doesn't sound like this is a huge infraction, or in other words it's not going to result in a felony conviction even if he did admit to it. I would be surprised if someone didn't enter a bill into the house to consider impeachment, but I'd be very surprised if it got to the floor.
All in all, it doesn't sound like this is a huge infraction, or in other words it's not going to result in a felony conviction even if he did admit to it. I would be surprised if someone didn't enter a bill into the house to consider impeachment, but I'd be very surprised if it got to the floor.
#16
Krisken
Krisken
I agree, FLP. I'm not exactly looking for an impeachment, but I would like some sort of middle ground in which some form of punishment can be levied.
#17
@Li3n
@Li3n
Then i guess they should just compare the two at some point...The IRS form doesn't give the kind of information required to determine if there's a conflict of interest of not.
#18
Adammon
Adammon
Could erase the national debt with the amount of tax cheaters in congress, the white house, and now apparently the supreme court.
#19
strawman
It would be even more interesting if they were evading taxes as well.
strawman
The reports don't say anything about cheating on taxes - have you read that somewhere? The current issue is that there are forms the judges fill out that help determine conflicts of interest while serving on the supreme court. Thomas filled out a particular form indicating that his wife had no income for several years, when in fact she did, and further the income may have (weak?) ties to cases he has ruled on.Could erase the national debt with the amount of tax cheaters in congress, the white house, and now apparently the supreme court.
It would be even more interesting if they were evading taxes as well.
#20
Krisken
Krisken
What is weirder is that for years he filled it out correctly, filling in her income as it was supposed to be, then suddenly stopped.
#21
strawman
strawman
I'm curious how much of this paperwork he leaves for his minions, er, clerks, and simply signs without consideration. I can imagine the possibility of some new intern tasked to fill out the boring financial forms, and asking if Mrs. Thomas works, and someone else saying "no" without thinking.
Who knows. The important question is whether the stuff she was making money on had any relation to the cases that came before him, and further if the relationship was strong enough that he should have recused himself.
Who knows. The important question is whether the stuff she was making money on had any relation to the cases that came before him, and further if the relationship was strong enough that he should have recused himself.
#22
Krisken
Krisken
I'd imagine a persons personal income is something you don't leave for minions to fill out.
#23
strawman
strawman
Perhaps. I dunno. I'm not rich enough to hire minions, although if I do things right my little batch of minions I'm growing will serve me well in my later years...
"It fills out the 1040 or it gets the grounding again. Hisssssss..."
"It fills out the 1040 or it gets the grounding again. Hisssssss..."
#24
Covar
Covar
Really? People have accountants do their taxes all the time. Other than where the paperwork ended up is there really that much difference?I'd imagine a persons personal income is something you don't leave for minions to fill out.
#25
Krisken
Krisken
When you fill out a job application, do you have someone else do it for you? For anyone who missed it, I'll put it in bold- This wasn't on his tax form, it was on a form required to be filled out by all Federal Judges.
Not the same thing.
Not the same thing.
#26
Covar
Covar
Its not a Job application (and there are resume writing services) it's an accounting form.
Has anyone tried to reach Justice Thomas about this yet? Certainly the LA Times article didn't seem to care.
Has anyone tried to reach Justice Thomas about this yet? Certainly the LA Times article didn't seem to care.
#27
Krisken
Krisken
The report says that his spokesperson could not be reached for comment. So yes, the L.A. Times tried to get a comment from them. Did you read the first link in the thread? It wouldn't seem like it if you are questioning if the Times even tried to get get his thoughts on the matter.
#28
Covar
Covar
I must have missed that. The only part in the article I saw where they tried to reach someone was here:
Ah I see it now. Ctrl-F for the win.
A spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which oversees the financial disclosures, could not be reached Friday night to comment on what actions could be taken. In most cases, judges simply amend their forms when an error is discovered.
Ah I see it now. Ctrl-F for the win.