More

Democrats Ramp Up Calls For Ethics Probe Of Clarence Thomas


First Posted: 10/05/11 06:32 PM ET Updated: 12/05/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are ratcheting up the pressure for a formal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for failing to disclose information relating to his wife's earnings -- as much as $1.6 million over the past 13 years -- on his annual financial disclosure forms.

House Rules Committee ranking member Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) on Wednesday sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee calling for hearings "on the pattern of potential ethical lapses" by Thomas, who, after years of filing his financial forms properly, stopped disclosing his wife Ginny's employment status every year between 1997 and 2011. During that time, the letter states, his wife made at least $1.6 million, based on reports from outside groups.

"Public records clearly demonstrate that Justice Thomas has failed to accurately disclose information concerning the income and employment status of his wife, as required by law," reads the letter to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.). "In addition, news reports indicate that Justice Thomas may have also failed to report gifts from wealthy supporters and inappropriately solicited donations for favored non-profit organizations."

The Huffington Post later caught up with Conyers and asked if he supported the idea of holding hearings to examine Thomas' disclosure practices. "I'm open to that," he said.

Thomas' disclosure errors first came to light in January, when he sent a packet of letters to the Committee on Financial Disclosures requesting amendments to his disclosure forms for the past 21 years. He wrote that he "inadvertently" left out information about his wife's employment during those years "due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."

In his letters, Thomas lists all of his wife's former employers and the years that she worked for each one. Most notably, her past employers included The Heritage Foundation, where she made hundreds of thousands of dollars between 2003 to 2007 alone. Democrats have noted that The Heritage Foundation was a major opponent of the Affordable Care Act, an issue the Supreme Court is expected to rule on by next summer, and have suggested Thomas may need to recuse himself from related cases that come before the court given his wife's activities.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told The Huffington Post that Thomas' errors were "inadvertent" and that he, like other justices, isn't required to report how much money his wife makes, only where she makes it.

"Please note that the financial disclosure forms require only the source of a spouse’s income, and not the amount of that income," Arberg said in a Wednesday statement. "The Justice has had no further comment."

But Democrats say the point is that Thomas may have deliberately withheld information required by federal ethics laws, and because the high court isn't subject to a comprehensive code of judicial ethics, there is no recourse for investigating the matter.
Slaughter and Blumenauer are both cosponsors of legislation that would apply the code of judicial ethics for federal courts to the Supreme Court, and set up a formal system for recusal by Supreme Court justices.

"We're talking about breaking the law," Slaughter said Wednesday of the gaps in Thomas' disclosure forms. "We're not trying to adjudicate his innocence or his guilt. But we want the people who are capable of doing that to get to it."

Wednesday's letter is just the latest effort by House Democrats to build momentum for a formal probe of Thomas. Last week, Slaughter and 19 other Democratic lawmakers called for a Justice Department investigation on the matter. On Tuesday, Slaughter sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging the panel to raise the issue of ethics when two justices testified before the committee on Wednesday on an unrelated issue.

As of Wednesday morning, Slaughter only had 10 signatures on her letter seeking a House Judiciary Committee probe on Thomas. But among them, for the first time, were two members of leadership: House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) and Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.).

Democrats are certainly feeling emboldened by the recent momentum on the issue.

"I, in recent months, have been asking myself... why isn't something happening?" Blumenauer said at a Wednesday press conference. "In recent weeks, we have gone ahead and just taken action ourselves. ... It's part of a process that I think is going to build and should build because there is a disturbing pattern here. Nobody is unaccountable in our system of government."

Government watchdog groups are also gunning for an investigation. Common Cause and Alliance for Justice on Wednesday sent a joint letter to the Judicial Conference urging the matter be referred to the attorney general for possible action under the Ethics in Government Act. The Judicial Conference is required by law to refer matters to the attorney general when it has “reasonable cause” to believe any judge or justice willfully failed to make required disclosures.

"There is now more than enough evidence to merit a formal inquiry as to whether Justice Thomas willfully failed to make legally required disclosures, perhaps for as long as 13 years,” Common Cause president Bob Edgar said in a statement.

Common Cause has been pressing the Judicial Conference for some kind of action on the issue since February, to no avail. But after it sent a letter last month that included details from newly-found copies of Thomas' old disclosure forms showing that he previously filled out the forms correctly and then stopped doing so, the Judicial Conference replied on Sept. 26 that it was referring the matter to its Committee on Financial Disclosures.

"This new evidence makes the case for a formal investigation compelling," Edgar said. "We believe the Judicial Conference will act."

This article has been updated to include comment from John Conyers.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are ratcheting up the pressure for a formal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for failing to disclose information relating to his wife's earnings -...
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are ratcheting up the pressure for a formal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for failing to disclose information relating to his wife's earnings -...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,893
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (41 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CoronaDischarge 07:29 PM on 10/05/2011
"Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told ..."

This seems itself a murky area for any official spokesperson to be involving themselves in presenting defenses for a Justice's personal shortcomings. Thomas should retain independent staff to deal with these issues, not be afforded taxpayer resources.

As to Thomas himself, the real victim here is Jurisprudence. It is unimaginable to me  Read More...
08:03 PM on 10/11/2011
Impeachment is in order.

THis court has no credibility any longer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WSAY
Res ipsa loquitur
05:06 PM on 10/10/2011
What does it take for Democrats to have the balls to actually do the right thing? This guy is corrupt. Impeach him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
11:20 PM on 10/09/2011
In "CAPERTON ET AL. v. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO., INC., ET AL." Thomas sided with the dissent:

"Today, however, the Court enlists the Due Process Clause to overturn a judge’s failure to recuse because of a “probability of bias.” Unlike the established grounds for disqualification, a “probability of bias” cannot be defined in any limited way."

They wanted to allow “probability of bias” because they thought they would otherwise have to precisely and exhaustively quantify what that meant.

While the majority did not accept such a low ethical bar as consistent with due process, we are now talking about Thomas' personal ethics - and he went with the low threshold.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
juicybrisket
dont start none, wont be none
05:03 AM on 10/07/2011
it should be done!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:34 AM on 10/07/2011
Justice Thomas was a beneficiary of a racial preference - both at Holy Cross and Yale.
Why?

Because he is black and those schools rarely if ever had blacks in them until there was a commitment made to add more blacks than had ever been at these schools in their history.

I find interesting is that George Bush clealry benefited from affirmative action for children of alums and donors and for people who went to prep school, but clearly he does not feel that it was a bad thing for him;

he sent one daughter to Yale &certainly having a dad who was Governor of Texas/President of the United States was a plus in the admissions process.

If it were not for affermative action he would probably be in prison since that is the only full time work many black can get since we gutted the economy..
Say thank you Justice Thomas.
09:50 PM on 10/06/2011
Why is THIS supreme court justice being harassed by Democrats? The answer has to be racism.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:23 AM on 10/07/2011
Just to make it perfectly clear...

So you have no problem with him withholding financial connections that may have a predudicial effect on cases he decides?

You dont think its important for him to either REPORT financial TIES or to recuse himself from cases where those ties might bind?

The kind of country you people want is so corrupt it defies description.
07:32 PM on 10/06/2011
Spinning Ginny and long d0ng Sliver, "The Supremes".
06:48 PM on 10/06/2011
So we are being asked to believe that for 5, 10 or whatever amount of years it came to that Justice Thomas was filling out the annual financial forms properly and then between 1997 and 2011 he "inadvertently" erred and neglected to include vital information regarding over 1 million dollars of his wife's earnings from various sources. An inadvertent error is overlooking one year, perhaps two but THIRTEEN YEARS??!!! It sounds and smells very fishy opposed to it being an "inadvertent error" as presented by the Supreme Court spokeswoman, Kathy Arberg. Did Mr. Justice Thomas suddenly have a total lapse of memory at the same time each year when he was required to complete the financial declaration forms??

Since the form in question is generated by the Federal government for it's use and requires the signature of the individual completing the form I imagine it also has that paragraph declaring the penalties that will befall the individual if he or she neglects to truthfully answer the questions. As many times as I have completed various Federeal forms when arriving at that particular paragraph I always make sure to carefully review each and every one of my answers, apparently Justice Thomas has the ability to "inadvertently" err for thirteen years and avoid paying the dreaded consequences a Mr. John Q Public would be made to pay for erroring a far shorter period of time.
How do we see to it that this entire situation is not swept under the rug?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nypapajoe
06:34 PM on 10/06/2011
A supreme court justice that is married to an extremist right winger who is getting paid huge sums of cash to advocate hatred and sedition! What has this country come to? I believe in free speech but he's a justice of the highest court in the nation for life! There's something wrong with this picture! Better yet we have the chief justice who was the person behind corporations having the same right to participate in our political process! How can we compete with multi Billion dollar entities that can buy our nation's politicians out right, which they currently own! Impeach them now!
05:53 PM on 10/06/2011
For years, Clarence was making and therefore was conscious of, the declaration. Then he stopped.

Clarence, WHY did you stop!?

Snerd
photo
andrc657
Andrew J. Cook is a freelance writer currently liv
05:24 PM on 10/06/2011
Clarence Thomas is not above the law because he is on the Supreme Court. He needs to be fully investigated to clear his name of these very serious charges.
05:58 PM on 10/06/2011
His name will never be cleared because he is profiting from his vote. What education and training does Giny Thomas have that would warrant getting paid 1.6 million dollars? I suspect none.
04:58 PM on 10/06/2011
They know this is the only way they can stack the court in favor of the obviously Unconstitutional Obamacare bill...they will use any lowdown dirty underhanded trick to so this.....not at all surprised.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christopher Wyskowski
05:19 PM on 10/06/2011
there there... let's not pretend you understand the Constitution. Maybe the point is that a judge shouldn't preside over a case in which he has a vested interest.
photo
FightingTheRight
That isn't God's voice in your head.
05:24 PM on 10/06/2011
Hmmm...Clarence Thomas's wife was paid almost $700,000 by the Rightwing Heritage Foundation.

But let's blame the Democrats, because the Heritage Foundation couldn't possibly have an agenda.
06:29 PM on 10/06/2011
Hmmmm. So CTs wife got a grant from a RW foundation. And Tom DeLays wife was a lobbyist. I collect shoes and spend a lot of money on them. My husband hates shoes...he collects motorcycles, instead.This is a non issue.
photo
camelias and sweet tea
Small drinking village with a shrimping problem
04:54 PM on 10/06/2011
Didn't, Ginny received over $700K from the Heritage Foundation???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
towny
The GOP clown car runs on hot air
04:51 PM on 10/06/2011
He needs to GO!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
porsche996
an inelastic scattering of photons
04:42 PM on 10/06/2011
Associate Justice Samuel Chase....His political views changed over his lifetime and in the last decades of his career he became well-known as a staunch Federalist, and was impeached for allegedly letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions.