Skip to main content

The Democrats still don't get they are dealing with gangsters, gangsters whom the public wants out of Congress, off Wall St., and in jail.

I will be the first to laugh at the absurdity of Scott Brown's ridiculous claim that Elizabeth Warren should be investigated for legally checking a box twenty years ago. But, the Democratic response to this patently manufactured "outrage" has been typically defensive, almost reflexively ceding the initiative to the sneer-and-smear artists of the GOP.

The Democrats need to be of the Sean Connery (Untouchables) school of politics:

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.
Below the fold, you will find my suggestion for an offensive response to the Brown campaign's crapola.

Scott Brown took office on February 4, 2010. A year later (only 15 months ago) there was a controversy about a different political figure's problem with a check box:

February 10, 2011 04:30 PM
Clarence Thomas "Forgot" 20 Years of Disclosure? Really?
By karoli

- Crooks and Liars

This issue was still being ignored as late as September, 2011:
Slaughter, 19 Colleagues, Call for Investigation into Justice Thomas's Non-Disclosure

Under Law, Judicial Conference Must Refer Issue to US Attorney General

WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, together with 19 Members of Congress, today sent a letter to the Judicial Conference, requesting that the Conference follow the law and refer the matter of Justice Clarence Thomas's non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the Department of Justice. Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas has checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone.

Slaughter said, "To believe that Justice Thomas didn't know how to fill out a basic disclosure form is absurd. It is reasonable, in every sense of the word, to believe that a member of the highest court in the land should know how to properly disclose almost $700,000 worth of income. To not be able to do so is suspicious, and according to law, requires further investigation. To accept Justice Thomas's explanation without doing the required due diligence would be irresponsible."

Section 104(b) of the Ethics in Government Act requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General of the United States any judge who the Conference "has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported."

Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone. The Heritage Foundation was a prominent opponent of the Affordable Care Act, an issue that is expected to be considered by the Supreme Court in the near future.

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter

This entire ethics scandal unfolded while Brown was in the Senate. But, do a google search for "Scott Brown" and "Clarence Thomas". All you will find are random pages where both men's names appear in different stories or lists. Scott Brown has said nothing about Clarence Thomas's check boxes.

So, Senator Brown, how is it that you have no problem with a Supreme Court justice illegally checking a box, when that illegality covers up non-payment of tax on $700,000 plus a monstrous conflict of interest regarding his wife's paymasters and his court rulings?

You are so scrupulous about one twenty year old check box; but you can't do jack about a festering scandal by a disgraceful, venal bum who soils the court robes he wears.

You, Senator Brown, are a hypocrite; you are a partisan jerk; you throw mud because you are too much of a lightweight to fight fair against Ms. Warren.

Tell us what you think about Justice Thomas's check boxes. Are they a "character issue".

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the justice Thomas issue is with mis-reporting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in financial disclose forms, which are unrelated to any IRS filings.  There has been no government assertion that he and his wife did not pay income taxes appropriately.

    If you can provide a link to an article saying otherwise from a major newspaper (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. ), please do so.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:10:28 PM PDT

    •  that don't matter, his ethics are the question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drawingporno, arendt

      you can try to protect the lying fucker all you want but the truth is Thomas was both unethical and a liar. His ass is a blight on the Court and until he leaves every ruling he participates in will be tainted the color of shit.

      If you can produce any reliable source which proves Thomas isn't an dumb, lying, unethical piece of shit we'd all like to see it.

      We're waiting....

      Still waiting.....

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Mon May 07, 2012 at 10:01:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was not protecting Thomas (0+ / 0-)

        just highlighting a factual error in the diary.  When Democrats repeat statements that are simply not true, their credibility is damaged.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Tue May 08, 2012 at 07:18:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Lie! Scott Brown's pants on fire! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's how you respond to that horse$h!t. That we continue to cede anything to these futhermuckers says more about us than them. They bring horse$h!t we bring a flamethrower.

  •  Did anyone actually ask Brown about them? (0+ / 0-)
    •  Way to miss the point (0+ / 0-)

      If he's such a moral guardian, how did he miss serial ethical violator Clarrence Thomas?

      Politics ain't beanbag. His lack of outrage definitely can be used against him.

      •  Do you think such blatant outragemongering (0+ / 0-)

        will work given that no one cares about Clarence Thomas? Creating fake outrage is fine if it's a hot topic but this is not.

        •  Where do you get that "no one cares about CT"? (0+ / 0-)

          The man has been a disgrace since he before he was appointed to SCOTUS. He is the poster child for GOP mendacity, malfeasance, and corruption.

          There is no time when it is "fake" to be outraged at this poisonous carbuncle on our judicial system.

          The fact that the media and the PTB choose to ignore this bum does not mean that people don't care. It means the media doesn't care. Certainly Congresswoman Slaughter, and before her, Congressman Weiner care. They just can't get at the bum.

          IMHO, the more we drag Thomas and  Scalia out into the daylight, the  clearer it will be who to blame when SCOTUS torpedos Obamacare and green lights AZ fascism.

          So, no. I reject your claim that outrage against Thomas is ever "fake". He gets away with criminal behavior, and its getting worse. He needs to be in the spotlight 24/7.

          •  We are talking not about outrage against Thomas (0+ / 0-)

            but about outrage against Scott Brown for not denouncing Thomas.

            •  The point is to use Brown's trash as a springboard (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              You are right. I am not necessarily going after Brown. It all depends on how he responds.

              One response does give the Dems a hook to drag Thomas back out from under a rock. Others don't.

              But, whatever Brown responds with, there is a reply.

              If he says "none of my business", then blast him for hypocrisy about Warren.

              If he says, I support CT, blast him for that.

              If he says, I want CT investigated, run with that quote.


              My point is that playing offense creates "horns of a dilemma" situations for the other side. The team on offense controls the tempo, the topics, etc.

              My gripe is that the Dem team completely blew this golden opportunity. Instead they just wimped around defending themselves.

              Do you get my point?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site