Two words, Clarence. Abe Fortas.

[deminks]

Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/19/248151/clarence-thomas-resign/

(snip)

If this sounds familiar, it’s because America has seen this movie before. Indeed, the Thomas scandal is little more than a remake of the forty year-old gifting scandal that brought down Justice Abe Fortas. Like Thomas, Fortas liked to associate with wealthy individuals with potential business before his Court. And like Thomas, Fortas took inappropriate gifts from his wealthy benefactors.

Fortas’ questionable gifts first came out when President Johnson nominated him for a promotion to Chief Justice of the United States in 1968. Fortas had accepted $15,000 to lead seminars at American University — far more than the university normally paid for such services — and the payments were bankrolled by the leaders of frequent corporate litigants including the vice president of Phillip Morris. Fortas survived this revelation, although his nomination for the Chief Justiceship was filibustered into oblivion.

Just a year later, the country learned that Fortas took another highly questionable gift. In 1966, one year after Fortas joined the Court, stock speculator Louis E. Wolfson’s foundation began paying Fortas an annual retainer of $20,000 per year for consulting services. Fortas’ actions were legal, and he eventually returned the money after Wolfson was convicted of securities violations and recused himself from Wolfson’s case, but the damage to Fortas — and the potential harm to the Supreme Court’s reputation — were too great. Fortas resigned in disgrace.

(end snip)

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[WhiteTara]

2. Thanks. I hope nothing derails the train

of justice to roll over Clarence Thomas who is a tax cheat.

[leveymg]

4. Clarence committed a federal crime, but not tax fraud: False Statement, 5 USC App. 104.

Please, see, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/570

[WhiteTara]

9. thanks for the correction

I don't like to look like a teabagger with wrong "facts"

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. just to be clear: Thomas is guilty of failing to DISCLOSE on a disclosure form..

...not failure to report income to the IRS. Though it wouldn't surprise me if cheats on his taxes - I hope some IRS agent is taking a peek.

[WhiteTara]

10. Thanks for pointing out my error

I wouldn't be surprised either, but now I will use the correct terminology.

[leveymg]

3. Two differences: Fortas broke no laws; Thomas will not resign, and will have to be Indicted

Indict Clarence Thomas.

[Hawkowl]

7. Fortas ( D) vs. Thomas ( R.)

That. Is. The. Difference. Rethuglicans get to do what they want, and Democrats help the Rethuglicans (That is Obama's policy written in stone.)

[Zoeisright]

12. Exactly.

It's OK If You're a Republican.

IOKIYAR

[Cirque du So-What]

6. Yes, but...

Abe Fortas was a reliable liberal vote on the SC, so the hatchet job performed upon his political career was sanctioned and heartily endorsed throughout the right wing. However, you'll observe the wingers rally 'round Clarence Thomas ferociously.

[Fumesucker]

8. Why would the wingers need to rally?

The Democrats will do nothing to Thomas, it's not even on their radar.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. as in, "off the table?" the only things that are on the table seem to correspond with

the republican agenda

thank GOD we reauthorized the PATRIOT Act, and the bush tax cuts

I love my country

[hootinholler]

11. But to resign in disgrace

One needs a conscience.

I'm hoping for a Thomas perp walk. Let them take cases to Leavenworth for him to hear them.

-Hoot

[monmouth]

13. Wouldn't you think Justice Roberts would have a discussion with

him regarding this? Maybe he has and we just don't know it. I'd love to see this guy gone.

[leveymg]

14. I think they had that discussion many months ago. Clarence refuses to resign.

We have to build public pressure on the Justice Dept. to Indict him. Once indicted, Roberts and the others who currently don't want to force Clarence out will have to do just that.

Another added wrinkle of complexity, which may explain a great deal. More than likely, there's some sort of closed-door Washington deal that was made that Rep. Weiner violated by making a fuss and drawing public attention to Clarence's high crimes and misdemeanors. Whether he got the memo or not, Weiner paid the ultimate penalty for speaking out of turn. The time has come for Thomas, nonetheless:

Indict Clarence Thomas

What could possibly be at stake that the Democrats would throw Weiner under the bus, if there were such a deal? A hint may come from one of the usual suspects. Get a load of this headline from Fox Noise:

June 19, 2011
NYT Tries Trashing Clarence Thomas Ahead of Obamacare Ruling

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2011/06/19/nyt-tries-trashing-clarence-thomas-ahead-obamacare-vote#ixzz1PkwSo0Qc

Also, consider this:

Supreme Court won't jump into health care fray -- for now
April 25, 2011|By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer


The justices usually like to have these kinds of petitions fully analyzed and decided by lower courts before tackling them.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to jump into the controversial national debate over health care reform at this stage, rejecting a plea from Virginia for a judicial end-around -- an expedited review over whether the sweeping federal law is constitutional.

As expected, the justices without comment on Monday declined the state's "petition for certiorari before judgment."

Various state and private challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are now before federal appeals courts across the United States -- meaning it could take several months, at least, before they would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unusual requests such as Virginia's, to have its appeal move to the head of the line, rarely succeed since the justices traditionally like to have these kind of petitions fully analyzed and decided by lower courts before tackling them. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/justice/scotus.healthcare.reform_1_appeals-court-affordable-care-act-health-care?_s=PM:CRIME

It is not really so clear why certiorari was not granted, but the calculation was no doubt political on both sides. Four Justices at Conference ("Rule of four") will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. I can see why the leadership might have been upset when, in late January when Rep. Weiner jumped on Thomas after Common Cause released its report about Thomas' criminal violation of law, such a deal was still in the works.

But, what now? Does Clarence's day of reckoning wait until after that vote? Why would any Democrat want Clarence Thomas on the Court to decide that and dozens of other cases in the meantime?

Geez. This is almost as much fun as the Kremlin Watching of the Bush years.

[monmouth]

15. Many thanks for that explanation. Now I need another shower...n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

20. do you really think so? you're much more attuned to all this than I, but my impression is

that SOP for these guys is to stonewall, lie, obfuscate, do whatever is necessary to further their agenda

how in the WORLD does Scalia get off with just about ZERO repercussion, media-wise, or politically, for that crap about the energy meetings after he goes off on a duckslaugter with the Crashcart?

they don't seem to have the slightest compunction over the most brazenly illicit behavior, because they KNOW they can't be touched

do they have some sort of J. Edgar Hoover-esque hold over EVERYbody?

ask Weiner

[robertpaulsen]

16. K & R! I hope Keith Olbermann takes this ball and runs with it.

Start his inaugural show on Current TV with a bang.

:kick:

[Gabi Hayes]

19. hey, man. appreciative, as always, of what you've contributed. as such we

are forever bonded:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1331790&mesg_id=1331919

[Uncle Joe]

17. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, deminks.