(03-30-2022 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 02:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 02:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 01:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Let's agree that a history of failing to disclose a pertinent potential conflict of financial interest places one more under the microscope than one would be if that history was absent.

When and where did he fail to disclose a pertinent, potential conflict of financial interest? Since she was consulting with the White house, one assumes she was paid, whether or not they won.... and them winning wouldn't have gained her any additional money, or is there evidence suggesting that??

https://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/clarence...ed-income/

That wasn't the question.

Did people not know she worked for Heritage?? And this was 11 years ago. I guess he's on an 11 year cycle.

More to the point... please help me with info from your link...

The section starts as follows, but I am rearranging the 3rd and 4th paragraphs to make my question more clear....

Quote:Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas’ omission — which could be interpreted as a violation of that law — could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said.

“It wasn’t a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife’s source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission,” Gillers said. “It could not have been an oversight.”

The Supreme Court is “the only judicial body in the country that is not governed by a set of judicial ethical rules,” Gillers said.

So... is the supreme court bound by these rules, or not?? It seems he's saying Federal judges are, but SCOTUS judges are not. If SCOTUS judges are not, then this actually seems to fit with a lot of Thomas' rulings.... including this specific one.

The 'it could be interpreted as...' comment seems to make it obvious that it ISN'T a violation of the law... but he thinks it should be.

It goes on

Quote:But Steven Lubet, an expert on judicial ethics at Northwestern University School of Law, said such an infraction was unlikely to result in a penalty. Although unfamiliar with the complaint about Thomas’ forms, Lubet said failure to disclose spousal income “is not a crime of any sort, but there is a potential civil penalty” for failing to follow the rules. He added: “I am not aware of a single case of a judge being penalized simply for this.”

So clearly its been done before... and nobody has been charged.... and 680,000 for a pretty powerful DC attorney over 6 years isn't a whole lot. Biden made that in 4 quarterly Burisma board meetings.

That isn't the same as someone working in the shadows or under the radar for a cause... Did people not know she was his wife?

Oh, and they argued the same thing when she worked for the DOL back in 1991, and has worked for Heritage since 2000 when the 2011 allegation came up.

So again... when the case came before the court, are you suggesting that nobody knew that his wife worked for Trump??

I'm not suggesting that.

What I'm saying is that in the area on the required disclosure form in the area under "wife's income" Thomas answered "none". That was clearly erroneous and is a bit of a red flag for me.

That episode does somewhat color further questions about conflict of interest when it comes to CT and wife in my mind. Perhaps not in yours.