What Do Clarence Thomas And Martha Stewart HAVE IN COMMON?

[Segami]

<>



" Should U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas be allowed to amend his financial-disclosure forms and get away with an apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001?


Domestic diva Martha Stewart undoubtedly would answer with a resounding, "Hell, no!"


So, too, would sports stars Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds (baseball), and Marion Jones (track and field). Stewart and the sports stars all ran afoul of 18 U.S.C. 1001, commonly known as "making false statements," and they either have paid a price, or almost certainly will.


So why does it look like Clarence Thomas is likely to get off with amending false statements? We will examine that question, but it should be noted that at least one major editorial voice is saying Thomas should not get off lightly. A watchdog group is calling for Thomas to step down, followed by a criminal investigation. And a lawyer source tells Legal Schnauzer that Thomas could face serious consequences in the legal profession, such as loss of his law license.


Thomas is not off the hook yet, and The St. Petersburg Times says that's the way it should be. In an editorial titled "Lack of Disclosure Should Be Pursued," the Times states:


U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must think it's nobody's business how his wife earns her money. But he is wrong. And his omission of his wife's substantial salary from federal financial disclosures between 2003 and 2009 can be read no other way than a purposeful flouting of the law.


Is the Times buying Thomas' explanation that he "misunderstood" directions on disclosure forms over a 20-year period? Not exactly. In fact, the Times echoes the words of Common Cause, the watchdog group that helped break the Thomas story:


As Common Cause noted, Thomas is "called upon daily to understand and interpret the most complicated legal issues of our day." It is implausible that he "misunderstood simple directions of a federal disclosure form."


The matter, the Times states, should wind up before the nation's top law-enforcement officer, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:


Thomas has expressed opposition to public disclosure in the past. He is the single justice who has argued that disclosure requirements for large political donations violate the Constitution. The disclosure omissions may be a statement of personal principles.


Regardless of Thomas' reasons, there is an important public purpose for financial disclosure laws. They allow litigants before the court to assess whether a justice has a conflict of interest that should disqualify him or her from judgment of a particular case.



cont'



<http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-do-clarence-thomas-and-martha.html>



.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[begin_within]

2. They both have a big dinghy?

[unkachuck]

3. "What Do Clarence Thomas And Martha Stewart HAVE IN COMMON?"

....Uncle Thomas and Aunt Martha are both rich?

[varkam]

4. Even if he could be prosecuted under 1001, he won't be.

I don't think there's ever been any precedent for criminal prosecution of a sitting SCOTUS justice -- not to mention that Thomas is a Republican and...well...this DOJ ain't.

eta: not that it makes it right. It's the height of irony indeed when justices of the Supreme Court can flout the law.

[joentokyo]

8. But they can be impeached.

[varkam]

19. True, but I don't think that's happened since the early 1800's.

[gratuitous]

5. Why would they think it's implausible that Thomas wouldn't understand the forms?

You think he's some kind of super-knowing-stuff kind of guy? Like, he could just read something and magically understand it? This is nothing more than a high tech lynching! Have you seen any opinions Thomas has written? I didn't think so! Now you're trying to say that he's supposed to understand a form.

A brother just can't get a break!

[spooky3]

16. I am just waiting for

very snarky comments that I hope will be offered by Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, or Breyer, when the next non-lawyer woman comes before the court and says she didn't understand that she had to file a discrimination suit by a given time, and Thomas or his friends try to tell her she should have done a better job of reading the law.

[Segami]

20. By the looks of it, not only did he get a break, he also got away with knowingly breaking the law.

[unblock]

6. "serious consequences... such as the loss of his law license"???

but, of course, a law license is not necessary to be a justice on the supreme court.
he could never retire to private practice, but how many justices have ever done that?
i mean, he's got a lifetime gig.

[Frustratedlady]

7. Martha served her time, but how many men are serving theirs?

Just look at the men who have gotten by with practically carrying this country away in their pockets, yet are free to continue working AND collect their bonuses. Look at the politicians who have broken the law and are still walking. How many years will DeLay be on appeal? I'll be shocked if he ever sees the inside of a prison.

Real men, eh?

[emilyg]

9. +100

[Liquorice]

10. I always thought Martha was unfairly prosecuted either because she's

a powerful woman or because of her politics - she's a politically active democrat. I tend to think it's more the former than the latter.

[Raine]

11. Yup first of all a woman and not ony that but a wealthy outspoken Democratic woman. nt

[blondeatlast]

15. I think so too. she made a dandy trophy prosecution. nt

[spooky3]

17. agree. She's not a sweet little woman who "knows her place."

Gotta be punished.

[Segami]

12. This story should be kept front & center on the front pages everyday. I wonder if

Scalia or Roberts also omitted THEIR wives substantial salaries from federal financial disclosures? Do these Justices believe they are ' untouchable ' and ' above such laws '? ANY other person attempting the SAME practices or provided the SAME lame defense excuse that they ' misunderstood simple directions on the federal disclosure form ' would be charged and jailed.

[lonestarnot]

13. Of course they think they're above the law, they are SCOTUS.

[blondeatlast]

14. Word. nt

[fascisthunter]

18. she supported dems... a successful woman. That pisses off righties more than anything

well, a woman or a minority.... well, anyone not like them.