I wrote about Justice Thomas and his omission of all his wife’s income from reporting forms back in January.
Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.
I was surprised that he was apparently unable to parse a straightforward question on a federal form.
I’m not on Twitter and I don’t follow Anthony Weiner in the news, so I was not aware that Weiner was raising questions about this. I thought the questions that were raised were good ones back in January, and I still do. Whatever I think about the Weiner Tweet, I’d still like the questions answered or at the very least discussed.
This is the report Justice Thomas completed on May 13, 2011. In this report, he reveals an investment in Liberty Consulting.
If you scroll down and read the report, you’ll find a letter designation for investment amounts. His investment in Liberty Consulting has the letter “J”, so that means it was at or less than $15,000, according to the key at the bottom of the form. You’ll also note that he has placed an “X” after the name “Liberty Consulting”. That X means that he didn’t have to reveal this investment in the last reporting period.
You can certainly talk about Anthony Weiner or the 21 year old woman who is being pursued by media in the comments, if you want. I’d rather you didn’t, because you can read and comment on that at every commercial media outlet, and those people aren’t the subject of this post. Justice Thomas is the subject of this post. Just like the last one, back in January.
I had questions then and I have questions now . I don’t think there’s anything in the Big Rule Book For Citizens that forbids my questioning of Supreme Court Justices on ethics and conflicts. I simply don’t buy that they, alone among judges or lawyers, are due an enormous amount of deference on compliance with simple reporting rules, or on anything else, really. I think his not reporting income when there obviously was income is a problem, and I’d like to see some public discussion of what seems to be an investment in a lobbying shop.