|
Last night Rachel Maddow had a fascinating conversation with Rep Louise Slaughter from NY about legally pursuing Justice Clarence Thomas for what appear to be deliberate attempts to hide his wife's salary on his income tax returns over the last several years.
Apparently Ginny Thomas,as head of right wing lobbying group, "Liberty Central," is paid handsomely by the Koch Brothers but this salary (around $700K) has not been reported on her husband's tax returns for some years. The whole issue of a Supreme Court Justice's "not understanding instructions on the form" stretches credulity, of course, but the implications go beyond questions of his culpability on tax matters. The SCOTUS Citizens United decision is chief case in point.
There are formal expectations (if not laws) against a member of a SCOTUS Justice's family being involved in matters that could come before the court. The Thomas's have been violating this convention or law for many years. The Citizens United case in particular is in the cross hairs. While Clarence was involved in deciding the case, Ginny was involved in lobbying for the Koch Brother's position that corporations are people and should be allowed to give as much money as they want to candidates.
The Thomas's behavior suggest a clear violation. It turns out that Clarence could be required to recuse himself from that decision. The law provides for him actually recusing himself retroactively. If that were to happen, the decision would be overturned since it was a 5-4 vote with Clarence as the deciding vote. Is it too grandiose to say that overturning Citizens United could shift the advantage in 2012? A lot of freaking money would be out of the picture...!
I do not understand who has legal standing to bring this charge and establish a finding, but this is pretty blatant and could fall to the Chief Justice. Of course the Justice Department can pursue the tax issue but I don't think they have jurisdiction over SCOTUS conflict of interest/recusal matters. Anyone know who does?
UPDATE: My error: This was actually discussed initially and, again, tonight, on Countdown,not RMS. Keith O. interviewed John Dean on the legal machinations involved in retroactive recusal. Dean said the action would have to be initiated by the injured party; in the case of Citizens United, it would be whomever was on the losing side of the case. There is a one year statute of limitations, though. His take was that it was highly unlikely to happen at this point in the process. Retroactive recusal has never been applied to SCOTUS, only to lower court rulings.
However, there could be a better shot at removing Thomas in the upcoming HCR case that SCOTUS will hear in this term. In this case the pro-HRC forces can begin now to marshal evidence that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself because his wife has taken lots of money from the anti-HCR forces over the past years. This could go somewhere but only if the other Supremes pressure Thomas. It might actually require a majority of the high court to force him off the case. Not crystal clear on that part of the process. But the Dems in the U.S. House of Representatives are all over this scandal and this rather obscure remedy. It seems they will continue to pursue all options.
Stay tuned...
|
