Skip to main content

View Diary: This week in the War on Workers: Huge Amazon wage theft case goes to Supreme Court (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the Democrats' fault (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Janet 707, happymisanthropy

    that we have a silent toad like Thomas sitting on the SCourt.

    Supposedly there was a 2nd woman ready to testify against him at his confirmation hearings, but the Democrats decided against it. (Somebody tell me if I'm wrong on this one.)

    The Republican played the race card, big time (Remember "high-tech lynching"?); quite a change from when they'd accuse the Dems of it to stifle discrimination debates.

    It worked though - enough Democrats, scared of being called racists, voted for confirmation (I still can't believe Ted Kennedy was one of them) when they probably could've come up with a half dozen black jurists who were way more qualified to be on the Court.

    And just a few years ago it turned out Thomas fudged some serious information on his tax return, claimed ignorance and got away with it. If he'd been nominated by a Democrat you know the GOP wouldn't have hesitated for a second running him off the Court, accusations of racism be damned - but there wasn't a peep about it from the Dems.

    Of course this is all academic; if Thomas had been rejected Daddy Bush would've nominated someone every bit as dependably reactionary.

    You can't stop progress (or is that "profit"?)

    by Miscweant on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 11:51:47 AM PDT

    •  Miscweant - please stop spreading false (0+ / 0-)

      information. No one has any idea what Justice Thomas has filed in his tax returns because those returns are confidential. Everyone's tax returns must be kept in confidence unless the taxpayer makes them public (as most candidates for POTUS do) or the IRS brings a criminal matter to court. Any unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony.

      All federal judges file annual statements for the purpose of assisting counsel in filing conflict of interest motions. In those forms judges list the employers of their spouses. NO INCOME information is required, nor is there even a place on the form to list any income information. Justice Thomas failed to list the employers of his spouse. Mrs. Thomas' employers were widely reported in the DC press, and none of her employers were parties to any cases that appeared before the Court while she was an employee. Justice Thomas was asked to amend his forms and include the names of his spouse's employers, which he has done.

      This was never an issue of reporting income, and was never an IRS issue as those returns are highly confidential. The actual facts have been outlined by many of the lawyers who blog here. Please stop spreading false information.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Mar 16, 2014 at 07:56:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site