Community | March 16, 2011 | 113 comments

Clarence Thomas Faces Disbarment Complaint In Missouri

Image
bambuu
The group Protect Our Elections is looking to get Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas disbarred in Missouri. He would still be on the court, but face a possible investigation by the justice department.

POE attorney Kevin Zeese says Thomas committed multiple violations of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. (See full complaint here.) Zeese asks the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel to take immediate action against Thomas, including disbarment.

The accusation is that Thomas willfully failed to report income.

The complaint alleges that Thomas breached his duty and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly and willfully failing for 20 years to state truthfully his wife’s income. The complaint also alleges that Thomas also labored under a financial conflict of interest by failing to disclose $100,000 in support of his nomination by the Citizens United Foundation when he heard the now-infamous Citizens United case. Finally, the complaint alleges, Justice Thomas made ruling that his wife benefited from financially and professionally and that, by extension, benefited him.

A bill targeting Thomas that would require Supreme Court justices to reveal more information about potential conflicts with cases before them has been introduced by Democratic congressmen Anthony Weiner (NY) and Chris Murphy (CT).

“Every week it seems, we have a new reason for this Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to take seriously the growing problem of potential conflicts of interest on that court, especially as it seeks to take on some of the most important legislative acts passed by this Congress,” said Murphy.

He was also referring to reports about Justice Antonin Scalia’s outside activities.

http://www.alan.com/2011/03/16/clarence-thomas-faces-disbarment-complaint-in-mis...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   US Politics,   Progressive America,   11 more
  2. tags:
    Law Justice SCOTUS Clarence Thomas 1 more
  3.     
    |

113 comments // Clarence Thomas Faces Disbarment Complaint In Missouri

  • therealpixie
  • MotherForTruth
  • nanac
  • bike10
  • Mark701
  • EmileZ
    • +1
      EmileZ [removed]  
    • RE: "The complaint also alleges that Thomas also labored under a financial conflict of interest by failing to disclose $100,000 in support of his nomination by the Citizens United Foundation when he heard the now-infamous Citizens United case."

      This portion of your article confuses me. I don't know all the ins and outs of a supreme court nomination. Perhaps there is some way of donating large sums of money in support of a supreme court nominee which I am unfamiliar with. If this is true, I would like to know more.

      Clarence Thomas became a supreme court justice long before the Citizens United case. Does the citizens united organization go back that far???

      In any case, I believe the conflict of interest involving his, and his wife's political activities AFTER he became a supreme court justice should be more than enough to impeach him.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • p122345
  • jennilamb007
  • cherry5000
  • wolfess
  • Seauvan
    • -1
      Seauvan  
    • p122345:

      YOU KNOW WHAT MAKES A BLACK PERSON?! YOU KNOW WHAT MAKES A WHITE PERSON?! ARE YOU SAYING THOMAS ISN'T ACTING AS SOMEONE WITH HIS SKIN COLOUR SHOULD BE ACTING, ASSHOLE? GOT ANY OTHER RACIST PEARLS OF WISDOM YOU WANT TO PUT OUT IN A PUBLIC FORUM?

      YES, PUNK, FACE IT! YOU ARE A RACIST!

      I don't like Clarence Thomas either. But I don't like the content of his character, my feelings have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COLOUR OF HIS SKIN!

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • +1
      jubal  
    • Its so typical of the brood from which Thomas clucks from to be having these financial conflicts of interest. I am glad to see that someone is finally doing something about the corruption on the bench.

      Its like an old ventriloquists trick where you make the voice seem like its coming from somewhere else, they cry that "activist judges" are in the court making rulings that don't abide by the constitution, and yet they themselves have their highest members sitting on the bench making rulings that benefit their "brood". That is corruption and it needs to be exposed and stopped.

    • 1 year ago
  • cherry5000
  • cherry5000
  • Leen61
    • +7
      Leen61  
    • Take this sorry excuse for a justice and boot him off the court. Between him and his cohorts Roberts, Scalia and Alito, they are no more than paid whores for corporate America.

    • 1 year ago
  • cherry5000
  • Leen61
  • BigAL72
    • +5
      BigAL72  
    • Instead of making his people proud of being the first AA Supreme Court Justice, he prefers to be the Court Clown of the tea party.

    • 1 year ago
  • cherry5000
  • cherry5000
  • samthesixth
  • Milieu
    • +1
      Milieu  
    • BigAL72:

      Anne Arundel County?

      I that where he's from and why you call him an AA?

      When I googled AA I either got Alcoholics Anonymous or Anne Arundel County.

      Surely, you don't mean.........naw.......you couldn't possibly mean Anti-American?

    • 1 year ago
  • cherry5000
  • Milieu
    • +1
      Milieu  
    • cherry5000:

      Yes, I know => being sarcastic. On a normal day, 50 -70% of the people I spend time with are AA, they DO NOT claim him. They often use terms that have something to do with, I believe, a famous.......... uh....... cookie, I think.

    • 1 year ago
  • ThresholdBroken
  • wtthfkovr
    • +5
      wtthfkovr  
    • He should be impeached, if he had a real job and his performance was evaluated he would be fired. Plus the fact that if his back ground would'nt have been washed over he wouldn't have been hired in the first place

    • 1 year ago
  • mii
    • +5
      mii  
    • Clarence Thomas is a blight on the Supreme Court already
      tainted by John Roberts corrupted, activist values and the
      other Citizens United jokers who so nobly allowed that
      legislation to pass.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • Mayeffie
    • +3
      Mayeffie  
    • Anita Hill didn't lie on his ass and that tired ass wife of his knows it. She has more nerve than a brass ass monkey.

      How dare her make a call to Anita Hill to help ease her mind about her triflin husbands behavior. I delight in the fact that she will go to her grave knowing what he is.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kitten_of_D00M
  • telcod
    • +3
      telcod  
    • Kitten_of_D00M:

      Was that a reference to Thomas' fondness for pubic hair on the coke can slime bag harassment thing? I remember the Anita Hill hearings. That pig was guilty and all Biden could do was look for opportunities to crack a joke. He's a pig also. Impeach Thomas.

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
  • dinm76
    • +20
      dinm76  
    • The supreme court is the first mess that needs to be cleaned up before we can ever hope to reverse the hell the republicans have saddled this country with.

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
  • August_K
  • mapczar
    • +2
      mapczar  
    • telcod:

      When the game is rigged, stop playing the game. Look at what is happening in Michigan and you may agree that we have gone over the top and I doubt that it can be fixed from within the system.

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  
    • August_K:

      Our Forefathers overthrew the English elites to found this country. They would be disgusted with us for letting it happen and allowing it to continue.

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
    • 0
      telcod  
    • mapczar:

      That's right brother. Today Michigan, tomorrow the rest of the states. Seems to be a democracy movement, world-wide. Can't wait for the movement to reach all of America. I think our politicians will look more and more like Qaddafi dolls without the cool uniforms. Wait, wait, they kinda do remind me of Qaddafi right now.

    • 1 year ago
  • Mark701
  • Mark701
  • ampersand
    • +6
      ampersand  
    • Is Impeachment of Clarence Thomas Possible?
      Theoretically possible, but not at all likely, given the House O Representatives is controlled by Rethuglicans

      From Wiki:
      "Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.
      A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

      Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

      In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

      In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it's not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.

      The Impeachment Process
      Impeachment is a two-step process; the impeachment phase is similar to a Grand Jury hearing, where charges (called "articles of impeachment") are presented and the House of Representatives determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If the House vote passes by a simple majority, the defendant is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

      The House of Representatives indicts the accused on articles of impeachment, and, if impeached, the Senate conducts a trial to determine the party's guilt or innocence.

    • 1 year ago
  • cherry5000
  • samthesixth
  • August_K
  • ampersand
    • +1
      ampersand  
    • August_K:

      Yes, anything IS possible if the will of the people is strong enough. Where can that unyielding pressure be brought to bear? Write letters, speak out, get involved with Representatives on the House Judiciary Committee. It won't happen with Rethuglican control of the House, but that could change in the next election.
      If that doesn't change in the next election you can kiss this tragic and failing experiment of a democratic nation, good-bye.

    • 1 year ago
  • cherry5000
    • +8
      cherry5000  
    • he should be investigated. He has the follow the same rules and ethics as any federal judge on the bench. scalia should be next.

    • 1 year ago
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
  • cmc101
  • telcod
  • PoliticalAmazon
    • +12
      PoliticalAmazon  
    • Ah, jeeze. Wouldn't it be a pisser for Thomas if, after all of these years playing Scalia's silent puppet, he ends up being a world-reknown loser anyway?

    • 1 year ago
  • TommyNY
  • twinite
  • ampersand
  • telcod
  • Littlewolf
  • samthesixth
  • samthesixth
  • Debra_
  • twinite
  • mapczar
    • +9
      mapczar  
    • Debra_:

      Hanging? A bit too close to lynching for me to stomach Debra.

      "Uncle Tom." You have bought into the southern rewrite of Uncle Tom's Cabin. In fact, Tom gave his life to protect others from the abusive overseer in the book but in the "plays' that were acted out throughout the south, he was portrayed as subservient to the white man in every manner to discredit that a black man could do the right thing.

      The whole concept of an "Uncle Tom" is the south rewriting history to put down the race. Too many people, including misinformed black people use this term in error.

      Moral: often the movie [or play] is nothing like the original book.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • madammarsh
    • +4
      madammarsh  
    • Debra_:

      I was opposed to Thomas's confirmation to the Supreme Court from the time that Anita Hill came forward and I've been appalled at his unethical behavior since then, but your comment is revolting. Your words imply that you consider "Uncle Toms" fair game for lynching. This makes you superior to racial and political bigots how???

    • 1 year ago
  • ampersand
  • Debra_
    • 0
      Debra_  
    • mapczar:

      Let's not get over sensitive, remember what this man represents: He is a traitor to the African-Americans, the poor, the working class, and liberal values.

    • 1 year ago
  • outofyounothingmuch
  • telcod
  • telcod
    • +3
      telcod  
    • Debra_:

      Well, I guess OK then. We hang them all, Debra. But the guillotine would be more humane. Viva la Revolution. See you under the colors at the head of the next charge.

    • 1 year ago
  • carmalite
  • mapczar
    • +4
      mapczar  
    • Debra_:

      On the contrary, let's not get over emotional. "Hang him" you say; I say that term is way over the top and suggestive of the word many on the right might use: lynch.

      I strongly support that an investigation is called for. If he is guilt of tax evasion then action must be taken. If found to be guilty of criminal activity then he should be impeached -- not hanged.

      If impeached he will no doubt go back to the Country Club that he came from. I see no evidence that he is a "traitor" [emotionally charged word] to any of those groups you listed. We are not born with allegiances to anyone. This is the exact argument that the right looks for; an irrational assumption that all blacks must be liberal. True, he came from humble beginnings but he was also raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools including college. He may in fact have turned his back on his roots but traitor is not a word that is appropriate, nor is hanging him for any failure to declare income.

      We have the better argument. We should use them and avoid the hyperbolic.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • samthesixth
  • twinite
    • +16
      twinite  
    • Our Supreme Court was set up to be entrusted with the most important decisions for our country, and because of that it was important to set it up with justices who's ethics are above reproach. What we have is Thomas and Scalia secretly attending functions, then refusing to recuse themselves when voting on pertaining issues and we have Thomas who is lying about his wifes income. Seriously...these activities are NOT above reproach and need to be dealt with accordingly.

    • 1 year ago
  • mapczar
    • +4
      mapczar  
    • twinite:

      What we are missing is a set of USSC Ethics standards. There are none. Congress should supply them if they will not self-police [a concept among "professionals" I find amusing and oft abused, especially among lawyers].

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
    • +2
      telcod  
    • mapczar:

      Kinda like trying to get the foxes to swear off chickens. Or the flies to swear off shit. Ethics is, regrettably, a theoretical discipline, understandable to most as much as quantum physics, I suspect.

    • 1 year ago
  • carmalite
    • +2
      carmalite  
    • twinite:

      Roberts the ex 2 million a year corporate lawyer was Bush's straw on the back on the fairness of the Court. Now its a corporate court and corporations don't really care for the rule of the people.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • chew_chew
  • telcod
  • Jeremy_Benson
  • chew_chew
  • Wicks934
  • wyndesonge
  • telcod
  • BenjaminDover
  • SFirman
  • telcod
  • Mayeffie
  • Marshalddog
  • TommyNY
  • cherry5000
  • mapczar
  • Littlewolf
    • +5
      Littlewolf  
    • Marshalddog:

      As a self-proclaimed "eugenics czar" you make it clear that you're from the shallow end of the gene pool. It takes people like you to be so proud that Thomas is Scalia's lapdog!

    • 1 year ago
  • Roldan
    • +2
      Roldan  
    • Marshalddog:

      Hey, that's not true: If Obama keeps on doing as he's doing, he'll run on the Conservative ticket come 2012, and that should be enough to make you guys run for the hills, right?

    • 1 year ago
  • wyndesonge
  • Mayeffie
  • samthesixth
  • samthesixth
  • Mayeffie
  • samthesixth
1 - 100 of 113
more from Community:

top videos