Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/29/2011 1:59:16 PM EST
Twenty House Democrats are demanding a judicial ethics investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas just as the high court is poised to issue a ruling on the healthcare law that could make or break President Obama’s reelection.

The lawmakers on Thursday asked the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the Department of Justice look into Thomas’s failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars his wife has received from groups that want the healthcare law repealed. Their letter comes after 75 House Democrats in February asked Thomas to recuse himself from the case following reports that he’d failed to report his wife Virginia’s income since he joined the bench in 1991.

“Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas’s high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wife’s income for two decades was willful, and the Judicial Conference has a non-discretionary duty to refer this case to the Department of Justice,”
the Democrats wrote in the letter, which was spearheaded by Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.
The letter comes just a day after the Obama administration and 26 states challenging the Democrats’ healthcare reform law asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, all but assuring that the high court will render a decision by next summer.


http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/184693-dems-raise-pressure-on-justice-thomas-as-high-court-ponders-ruling-on-health-law
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:01:21 PM EST
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:06:55 PM EST
What is it about this guy that attracts the witch hunters?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:06:57 PM EST
If this gains any traction at all, the year of 2012 will take more space in the history books than it should.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:07:10 PM EST
I wonder if they're trying to off-set what will happen if Kagan has to recuse herself for Obamacare?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:08:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Treadhead:
I wonder if they're trying to off-set what will happen if Kagan has to recuse herself for Obamacare?

Probably. I'm not sure if the Dems want to play this game, because even if Thomas doesn't hear the case it's quite possible the court will split 4-4 and the ruling (which overturns Obamacare) will stand.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:09:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By Treadhead:
I wonder if they're trying to off-set what will happen if Kagan has to recuse herself for Obamacare?


“I think that Kagan, who was the solicitor general at the time this was all done, probably should recuse herself,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News in February.

Conservative groups have similarly been raising concerns that Kagan might have been involved in crafting the administration’s legal defense for a law she’s now expected to rule on — something she emphatically denied during her Senate confirmation. In particular, they point to an email exchange between Kagan and her subordinate Neal Katyal that suggests she might have gotten involved without leaving a paper trail.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:09:41 PM EST
When/if a precedent is set in today's climate of attacking judges who are poised to rule on legislation you support/oppose, we are screwed. I am NOT an expert, but i "think" that it is up to the judge to recuse or not.

This smacks of threatening relatives and intimidation.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:10:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By pilotman:
What is it about this guy that attracts the witch hunters?


Dems consider him too "uppity", being a conservative and all.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:16:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By pilotman:
What is it about this guy that attracts the witch hunters?

It's the racism of the Left. They like using Blacks, but keep them on the farm.

LBJ: "I'll have those ****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years".
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:18:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By Mazeman:

Originally Posted By pilotman:
What is it about this guy that attracts the witch hunters?

It's the racism of the Left. They like using Blacks, but keep them on the farm.

LBJ: "I'll have those ****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years".


LBJ wasn't bullshitting, that's for sure.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:19:47 PM EST
Kagen should recuse herself. Not Thomas.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:49:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By DonS:
Kagen should recuse herself. Not Thomas.


I wouldn't hold my breath.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 2:52:05 PM EST
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Kagen should recuse herself. Not Thomas.


I wouldn't hold my breath.


Judicial ( or any other ) integrity is not common among leftists.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:24:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:29:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By davisac:
Originally Posted By Treadhead:
I wonder if they're trying to off-set what will happen if Kagan has to recuse herself for Obamacare?


“I think that Kagan, who was the solicitor general at the time this was all done, probably should recuse herself,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News in February.

Conservative groups have similarly been raising concerns that Kagan might have been involved in crafting the administration’s legal defense for a law she’s now expected to rule on — something she emphatically denied during her Senate confirmation. In particular, they point to an email exchange between Kagan and her subordinate Neal Katyal that suggests she might have gotten involved without leaving a paper trail.


All Obama appointee's should recuse themselves for Conflict of Interest.




Impeach Obama for the Good of the Snail Darter.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:37:03 PM EST
And this is how they hope to win the 0care battle.

Disqualifying/removing anyone opposed to their ideology.

Didn't 0 win in Chicago when his opponent was dq'ed?
Didn't 0 beat Hillary for the DNC nom when a number of her votes didn't count (or were lost)?
Lemme looks those up because I'm curious about those rumors...
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:54:57 PM EST
They cannot do a thing about it. Not a thing. The USSCt is a separate and co-equal branch of government. The executive and/or legislative branches can't compel a recusal or punish non-recusal any more than the Court could reverse the elevation of the Speaker of the House or force the President to veto or sign a bill.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:04:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...

What law have they hypothetically broken? Thomas nor any other justice have not made any decisions about the Health care law, yet a bunch of sycophants want to put Thomas on trial. Unless you can prove that Thomas' wife's involvement with anti-Obamacare organizations influenced his decisions, there is no basis for convicting him after an impeachment.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:06:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By skebe:
Didn't 0 win in Chicago when his opponent was dq'ed?


In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago's gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district....

...Obama's challenge was perfectly legal, said Jay Stewart of the Chicago's Better Government Association. Although records of the challenges are no longer on file for review with the election board, Stewart said Obama is not the only politician to resort to petition challenges to eliminate the competition.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/?iref=mpstoryview
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:10:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:14:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
They cannot do a thing about it. Not a thing. The USSCt is a separate and co-equal branch of government. The executive and/or legislative branches can't compel a recusal or punish non-recusal any more than the Court could reverse the elevation of the Speaker of the House or force the President to veto or sign a bill.


The way some make it sound its as if the dems could remove all 3 conservatives and put 3 liberals.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:14:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:15:02 PM EST by mnvwguy02]
How about we probe Justice Bryer then? His books clearly show he distains the very constitution he is to uphold. That alone should get him impeached.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:16:18 PM EST
Originally Posted By DonS:
Kagen should recuse herself. Not Thomas.


It would make for huge hilarity, gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothing were Kagan's significant other/lifemate/carpet cleaner get subpoenaed for any pro-Obamacare activities.


Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:17:39 PM EST
How about we investigate 20 liberals, I wonder how much they have bagged in kickbacks lately?

More importantly, I wonder how much bailout money has ended up in the liberals pockets, and it not a question of IF but How much.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:24:30 PM EST
Good luck with that.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:32:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:

Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...

What law have they hypothetically broken? Thomas nor any other justice have not made any decisions about the Health care law, yet a bunch of sycophants want to put Thomas on trial. Unless you can prove that Thomas' wife's involvement with anti-Obamacare organizations influenced his decisions, there is no basis for convicting him after an impeachment.
Hey they put clinton on trial for less...

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:33:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By pilotman:
What is it about this guy that attracts the witch hunters?


Black Conservatives and Women Conservatives are bad for business...
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:34:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By wunbadweel:
Originally Posted By DonS:
Kagen should recuse herself. Not Thomas.


It would make for huge hilarity, gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothing were Kagan's significant other/lifemate/carpet cleaner get subpoenaed for any pro-Obamacare activities.


Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.


There is, no dykes on the bench....period
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:36:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:

Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...

What law have they hypothetically broken? Thomas nor any other justice have not made any decisions about the Health care law, yet a bunch of sycophants want to put Thomas on trial. Unless you can prove that Thomas' wife's involvement with anti-Obamacare organizations influenced his decisions, there is no basis for convicting him after an impeachment.
Hey they put clinton on trial for less...



I don't think that perjury and contempt of court qualify as "less" than having a spouse who worked for an organization that campaigned against statute a judge is going to review.

If this disqualifies Thomas, Thurgood Marshall should be dug up, impeached, and burned at the stake. If this act will be wrong for Thomas, it was a capital offense for Marshall to hear any case involving race.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:37:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 4:38:35 PM EST by hotbiggun42]
Why did Thomas's wife receive hundreds of thousand of dollars from a group who wants to repeal obamacare?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:38:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Why did Thomas's wife receive hundreds of thousand of dollars from a group who wanted to repeal obamacare?


She was touring the country arguing against it.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:55:11 PM EST
Why is it when you disagree with Obama, you're a racist? Why doesn't the label apply in this case with Justice Thomas?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:01:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By flyguync:
Why is it when you disagree with Obama, you're a racist? Why doesn't the label apply in this case with Justice Thomas?


Because he's Black, but not a liberal. Definitive proof that he is nothing but an Uncle Tom.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:01:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
They cannot do a thing about it. Not a thing. The USSCt is a separate and co-equal branch of government. The executive and/or legislative branches can't compel a recusal or punish non-recusal any more than the Court could reverse the elevation of the Speaker of the House or force the President to veto or sign a bill.


Mhmm. Unless they want to impeach (fat fucking chance), this is political theatre.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:03:05 PM EST
That's Racist!
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:29:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:

Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...

What law have they hypothetically broken? Thomas nor any other justice have not made any decisions about the Health care law, yet a bunch of sycophants want to put Thomas on trial. Unless you can prove that Thomas' wife's involvement with anti-Obamacare organizations influenced his decisions, there is no basis for convicting him after an impeachment.
Hey they put clinton on trial for less...



I don't think that perjury and contempt of court qualify as "less" than having a spouse who worked for an organization that campaigned against statute a judge is going to review.

If this disqualifies Thomas, Thurgood Marshall should be dug up, impeached, and burned at the stake. If this act will be wrong for Thomas, it was a capital offense for Marshall to hear any case involving race.
Perjury is not where it started it was just a result of the investigation. I say investigate away if thomas has nothing to hide he should welcome it right??? clinton did....
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:30:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By Cottonbaler:
That's Racist!


You bet your ass it is. Thomas is hated for three reasons: he respects the Constitution; he's brilliant; and he doesn't act the way Black people are supposed to act. Most of the bitterness directed at him is based on failing No.3. He's off the Plantation and he won't go back.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:30:18 PM EST
This is media battlespace preparation for after the Supreme Court rules the individual mandate unconstitutional.

Obama can run for re-election saying he needs another liberal on the Court, or else.

Plus, some free demonization of Justice Thomas and his wife.


Steve
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:30:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Why did Thomas's wife receive hundreds of thousand of dollars from a group who wanted to repeal obamacare?


She was touring the country arguing against it.

Sounds like a pretty solid reason for recusal...
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:36:05 PM EST
Typical Robert Byrd dimocraps. The only blacks they like are the ones they keep on the plantation (nee, housing projects).
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:36:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:

Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...

What law have they hypothetically broken? Thomas nor any other justice have not made any decisions about the Health care law, yet a bunch of sycophants want to put Thomas on trial. Unless you can prove that Thomas' wife's involvement with anti-Obamacare organizations influenced his decisions, there is no basis for convicting him after an impeachment.
Hey they put clinton on trial for less...



I don't think that perjury and contempt of court qualify as "less" than having a spouse who worked for an organization that campaigned against statute a judge is going to review.

If this disqualifies Thomas, Thurgood Marshall should be dug up, impeached, and burned at the stake. If this act will be wrong for Thomas, it was a capital offense for Marshall to hear any case involving race.
Perjury is not where it started it was just a result of the investigation. I say investigate away if thomas has nothing to hide he should welcome it right??? clinton did....


Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. The impeachment trial in the Senate was the only case against Clinton that went to trial.
The perjury charge arose from false testimony in the Paula Jones case. The Starr investigation, which preceded and contributed to the impeachment, identified that perjury but did not generate it. You are thinking of Lewis Libby, who was tried in criminal court for a process crime like the one you imagine Clinton committed.

When you claim that Clinton welcomed investigation, you compound your customary fuzzy-mindedness with deliberate mendacity.

Feel free to try again, but wait until there's a fair chance that everybody who is familiar with the facts and cares about the truth has gone to bed.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:38:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Why did Thomas's wife receive hundreds of thousand of dollars from a group who wanted to repeal obamacare?


She was touring the country arguing against it.

Sounds like a pretty solid reason for recusal...


I'm sure it does if you know nothing about the standards for recusal and want Thomas off the case. I know several hard right-wing judges whose wives are soft-headed, public, and compensated liberals. Should they be recused from presiding over cases involving their wives' silly lefty causes and employers?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:40:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Why did Thomas's wife receive hundreds of thousand of dollars from a group who wanted to repeal obamacare?


She was touring the country arguing against it.

Sounds like a pretty solid reason for recusal...


I'm sure it does if you know nothing about the standards for recusal and want Thomas off the case. I know several hard right-wing judges whose wives are soft-headed, public, and compensated liberals. Should they be recused from presiding over cases involving their wives' silly lefty causes and employers?


He's among our resident hard-Left Obamabots. Of course he knows that Thomas shouldn't recuse himself; he is just worried that the Obama appointments will actually have to recuse themselves. (Well, at least one.)
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:44:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By pilotman:
What is it about this guy that attracts the witch hunters?


He's black. Black conservatives are EVIL!!!!!!111!!!one111one!!
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:46:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:

Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...

What law have they hypothetically broken? Thomas nor any other justice have not made any decisions about the Health care law, yet a bunch of sycophants want to put Thomas on trial. Unless you can prove that Thomas' wife's involvement with anti-Obamacare organizations influenced his decisions, there is no basis for convicting him after an impeachment.
Hey they put clinton on trial for less...



Perjury = felony.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:48:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By pilotman:
What is it about this guy that attracts the witch hunters?


It is because he is one of the few publicly visible afican americans that worked hard to get a head in life. He did not cowtow to the demicratic welfare slavery ideal of you can't get ahead because the world is racist mentality.

He did not depend on hating america or insulting the inteligence of the US citizen to get more power.

I can say I have respect for him for his hard work that he did to reach his current status.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:58:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 6:00:35 PM EST by raven]

Originally Posted By pilotman:
What is it about this guy that attracts the witch hunters?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin

This a left wing article that refutes years of liberals saying publicly that Clarence Thomas is an idiot, a bad writer, Scalia's puppet and so on. Instead it paints Thomas's legal scholarship and position on the SCOTUS as an existential threat to the Progressives' agenda for America and the welfare state. It cites how Thomas's arguments have basically refuted the idea the 2nd amendment applied to the states and not individuals, and that's not the worst of it (from the liberals' view). He could actually stop nationalization of heath care, something liberals need in order to take over the US.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 5:59:41 PM EST
Good luck with that. Never mess with a SCOTUS Justice. Period.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 6:01:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:

Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...

What law have they hypothetically broken? Thomas nor any other justice have not made any decisions about the Health care law, yet a bunch of sycophants want to put Thomas on trial. Unless you can prove that Thomas' wife's involvement with anti-Obamacare organizations influenced his decisions, there is no basis for convicting him after an impeachment.
Hey they put clinton on trial for less...



Perjury = felony.
Yep. High crimes and misdemeanors. Clinton got off easy, no pun intended.



Link Posted: 9/29/2011 7:39:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 7:44:27 PM EST by JIP]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:

Originally Posted By JIP:

Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
And how bout the two ugly hobbits that Obama put on there during and after this Health Care shit?

Get thomas and them if they are criminals they should be prosecuted...

What law have they hypothetically broken? Thomas nor any other justice have not made any decisions about the Health care law, yet a bunch of sycophants want to put Thomas on trial. Unless you can prove that Thomas' wife's involvement with anti-Obamacare organizations influenced his decisions, there is no basis for convicting him after an impeachment.
Hey they put clinton on trial for less...



I don't think that perjury and contempt of court qualify as "less" than having a spouse who worked for an organization that campaigned against statute a judge is going to review.

If this disqualifies Thomas, Thurgood Marshall should be dug up, impeached, and burned at the stake. If this act will be wrong for Thomas, it was a capital offense for Marshall to hear any case involving race.
Perjury is not where it started it was just a result of the investigation. I say investigate away if thomas has nothing to hide he should welcome it right??? clinton did....


Unsurprisingly, you are wrong. The impeachment trial in the Senate was the only case against Clinton that went to trial.
The perjury charge arose from false testimony in the Paula Jones case. The Starr investigation, which preceded and contributed to the impeachment, identified that perjury but did not generate it. You are thinking of Lewis Libby, who was tried in criminal court for a process crime like the one you imagine Clinton committed.

When you claim that Clinton welcomed investigation, you compound your customary fuzzy-mindedness with deliberate mendacity.

Feel free to try again, but wait until there's a fair chance that everybody who is familiar with the facts and cares about the truth has gone to bed.
Well there really is no need to go over this again but no starr investigation no perjury that's the bottom line. The situation came (no pun intended) about as a result of the investigation THAT IF YOU REMEMBER STARTED OFF AS A LAND DEAL going back to my original statement. So again start the investigations and the recording devices there is a whiff of impropriety and i think it warrants a few million for investigation even though it is pretty cut and dried. His wife therefore he received money to fight this law, he stands to benefit substantially if it is struck down. I know that you want to immediately defend him because he is a republican but I know this would be VERY different had the wife of some liberal justice taken money to help defeat a case in front of her husband.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top