Imagine if you failed to report $1.6 million in income on 1040 form, or Insurance Application forms -- how long do you think you would be able to get away with it?
Do you think you could shrug it off -- and just say "Ooops -- my bad. Here let me 'amend' those years of reported income."?
Only if you were part of that Top 1 Percent, could you just "shrug it off".
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Democrats, demand ethics probe of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
by Charles Pope, The Oregonian -- October 05, 2011
WASHINGTON -- A group of liberal Democrats, led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, will formally ask the House Judiciary Committee today to investigate “ethical lapses” by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
At issue is Thomas’ failure to report "at least $1.6 million" in earnings by his wife Virginia for her work at the conservative Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Virginia Thomas has been one of the most vocal critics of the federal health care law. The Supreme Court will hear a case this term determining the law’s constitutionality.
[...]
In January, Thomas eventually amended several years of financial disclosures he is required by law to file after media reports raised questions about the omission. Simultaneously he released letters saying his wife's income was "inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."
He called the omission “inadvertent.” In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, Blumenauer and the others said Thomas’ “ethical lapses” are serious enough to require a full and serious investigation.
Come on, we all make mistakes right, sometimes you forget your spouse is trashing Health Care Reform, and making a stellar living at it. All those new crystal vases and art collectibles, "she found them at yard sales" -- yeah that's the ticket: "Ginni's just being super-frugal."
You see how easy it is to "inadvertently" think your Spouse "has No Income".
Rep Slaughter (D-NY) has a different take on Clarence's "inadvertent misunderstanding" over multiple years -- she calls it nothing less than Ethics violations, and Law breaking.
Oh my, did she just step on a hornets' nest now ...
Rep. Louise Slaughter exploring ‘retroactive recusal’ of Justice Thomas in old cases with conflicts of interest
CurrentTV, Countdown -- October 4, 2011
Rep. Louise Slaughter and other members of Congress are exploring the failure of Justice Clarence Thomas to disclose that his wife made millions of dollars from clients whose cases were decided by the Supreme Court. Slaughter revealed on “Countdown” that she’s exploring “retroactive recusal” in cases like Citizens United, which would nullify Thomas’ vote and overturn the ruling.
http://current.com/...
Rep. Louise Slaughter about Justice Clarence Thomas:
There were years he did disclose her income. And then he took what I think is affirmative action to mark none, the rest of the years. It's not that he ignored anything -- he took affirmative action to mark none. That's against the law, you can't do that. That's against the Law of 1978, the Ethics Law. [...]
Does putting the brakes on an ultra conservative, activist Supreme Court matter -- Oh, it matters. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and a liberal Justice "forgot" to their report income. Imagine how far, their Ooopsie excuses would fly ...
The GOP can impeach a sitting President, they can spend Trillions in Debt on unending wars, they can look the other way as millions are made homeless under their Laissez faire policies -- but they can't be bothered to stop billionaires from buying OUR Elections!
That's because this untrackable Citizens United money, is their meal ticket to the Top 1% too.
And Clarence Thomas will help to insure that Status Quo, that the GOP keeps getting the lion's share of the Billionaire Loot:
Political Front Groups Have It Backward
U.S. Political front groups that don’t have to disclose donors’ identities are inherently unethical.
Pro: An Un-American Affront
by Gary McCormick, Public Relations Society of America
Political front groups, which prosper by misleading the public on their true motivation and intent, corrupt U.S. politics and are a disservice to the electorate. Without full disclosure of donors’ identities or of the motivating factors behind specific attacks and messages, front groups represent an insidious attack on the public’s trust.
The core issue is not the legality of front groups -- both Congress and the Supreme Court permit their existence -- but rather the ethical implications they pose.
[...]
Wrapping themselves in a cloak of anonymity may work for front groups while they have the law on their side, but it can lead to radical action and inflammatory comments that only serve to diminish the public’s esteem for politicians and the American political system.
Would front groups advance such extreme, and often misleading, positions if those providing the funding had to disclose themselves and their motivations? With the names of donors publicly disclosed, would they vet information more closely, thus better serving the public’s interest?
American Taxpayers have to "disclose ourselves" every year, when we file our Tax Forms; We have to "disclose ourselves" every time we donate to worthy political causes.
Shouldn't we expect, and demand, the "same disclosure" from our political and judicial leaders?
Shouldn't we expect, and demand, the "same disclosure" from Billionaires who would attempt to buy and influence our political and judicial leaders -- through anonymous donations to unaccountable Front Groups. Often fly-by-night, ad-hoc Front Groups.
Front Groups accountable to No One -- except that Top 1 Percent, and their gravy train million dollar donations ...
Where are the brakes, on this Political-power conveyance?
The 99% of the rest of us, seriously, want to know.