Citizens United and Clarence Thomas Go Way Back
Posted: February 15, 2011 Filed under: Action Memo, right wing hate grouups, SCOTUS, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd | Tags: Antonin Scalia, Citizen's United, Clarence Thomas, Common Cause, Protect Our Elections, U.S. Supreme Court, Virginia Thomas 11 CommentsThanks to the way-back machine, researchers at the watchdog organization “Protect Our Elections” dug up this 1991 article from Time Magazine.
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. Not coincidentally, the ad was produced by the same people who launched the 1988 Willie Horton spot….
President George H.W. Bush, his chief of staff John Sununu, and Clarence Thomas himself denounced the ads and demanded they be pulled. But the sponsors of the ads kept right on running them.
Can you guess who paid $100,000 for those ads in support of Thomas’ nomination to SCOTUS?
Clarence Thomas didn’t include wife’s income on SCOTUS disclosure forms
Posted: January 23, 2011 Filed under: just because, SCOTUS, U.S. Politics | Tags: Clarence Thomas, dishonesty, judicial ethics, Virginia Thomas 12 CommentsSupreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife’s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.
Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed.
A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday. But Virginia Thomas’ employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time.
Common Cause also claims that Virginia Thomas was paid for her work for the right wing group Liberty Central, which she founded; but Clarence Thomas did not report any spousal income for 2009.
Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas’ omission — which could be interpreted as a violation of that law — could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said.
“It wasn’t a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife’s source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission,” Gillers said. “It could not have been an oversight.”
Unfortunately, according to the LA Times article, Thomas is unlikely to be disciplined in any way for his latest ethical misstep. It seems that people of his class can get away with such infractions.
Common Cause has also requested that the Justice Department investigate whether Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United decision after they participated in a private meeting sponsored by the ultraconservative, tea-party funding Koch brothers.
This is an open thread.
Mrs. Clarence Thomas asks Anita Hill to Apologize
Posted: October 20, 2010 Filed under: SCOTUS, U.S. Politics | Tags: Anita Hill, bizarre behavior, Clarence Thomas, Virginia Thomas Comments Off on Mrs. Clarence Thomas asks Anita Hill to ApologizeIn a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times.
“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”
Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”
What possible explanation could there be for this? Was Virginia Thomas:
A. Drunk?
B. Temporarily insane?
C. Sick and tired of Clarence obsessing on what happened and whining about it constantly?
D. ______________________________________ (Fill in your own wild guess)
What do you think?








Recent Comments