quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


I`m not going to explain what conflict of interest means.

It`s a bit above your ability to comprehend.

But the legal system is well versed in what it means and spends quite a lot of time making sure there aren`t any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

at the very least,his wife must disclose the names(now secrete)of the high dollar donors to her "think tank".


"When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife announced in 2008 that she was going to help run Washington operations for a Michigan college once described as “a citadel of American conservatism,” she said the move was her “way of pulling away from politics” and the “safest place for me to be when it comes to conflicts” with her husband’s position on the court."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39426.html#ixzz0tJdxdI4e


"But, less than two years later, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas has returned to partisan politics as a fully engaged opponent of President Barack Obama, whom she has described as “hard left” and steering the nation “for tyranny.” As founder and president of a think tank and advocacy group called Liberty Central, she quickly established herself in the tea party movement by drawing on her longstanding ties to Washington’s conservative establishment and by landing two big donations — one for $500,000 and another for $50,000 —that put her group on the map."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I expect they`ll be some suits claiming this is a clear conflict of interest,which is obviously is.Washing the money by giving it to a judges spouse, has never been legal.

They have two choices to end the conflict of interest,either one is good by me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Oh come on. A conflict of int is just that. So she divests. Happens. Nothing to see here. Standard stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Sure she should.

Just not with secrete donors.

It`s a clear conflict of interest.

You can`t give secrete donations to the wife of a judge.

Period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Is Conyers a sitting judge?

The law is very clear on this.

Judges must not only avoid conflicts of interest but also the appearance of a conflict of interest.

We`ll see how it plays out.Won`t we?[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


She shouldn't have any voice of her own? No career, no opinion, no social life?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Oh come on. A conflict of int is just that. So she divests. Happens. Nothing to see here. Standard stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


She shouldn't have any voice of her own? No career, no opinion, no social life?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Oh come on. A conflict of int is just that. So she divests. Happens. Nothing to see here. Standard stuff.

Being married they are considered one. So in essence he has the conflict as much as she does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/opinion/columnists/x104354886/Press-Justice-Clarence-Thomas-supreme-conflict-of-interest

Most Washington spouses also do a better job of avoiding potential conflicts of interests. Thomas' organization is a conflict-heavy minefield. Consider, for example, the questionnaire Liberty Central circulated to federal candidates seeking their endorsement. It includes the question: "Would you support repealing the Obama health-care bill, including the individual mandate?" Since several state attorneys-general have already filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, that question will eventually be decided by the high court. Will Justice Thomas recuse himself?

Other potential conflicts abound. Candidates are also asked to state their views on the constitutionality of government regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions, Congress's use of the "general welfare" clause, free-trade agreements, enforcement of the border, federal bailouts, the administration's conduct of the war on terror, and federal spending levels - which reads like the list of cases now before court. Is Clarence Thomas expected just to sit out the entire next session?

And then there's the question of money. As first reported by Politico, Ginni Thomas launched her organization in November 2009 with two big donations: one for $50,000 and one for $500,000. They are the only contributions reported so far. Yet, according to rules governing 501 (c)(4) organizations, the donors' identity is not revealed. Only Ginni Thomas and her staff know who they are - and, presumably, Justice Thomas. What happens when one of Mrs. Thomas' secret corporate donors has an interest in a case before the court? We'd have to depend on the honesty of Justice Thomas to make public the connection and step aside.

Conflict? There is none, Mrs. Thomas told World Net Daily, because she and her husband maintain a strict separation between their family and professional lives. In other words, she heads a political organization and he's a Supreme Court justice, yet they never talk politics. If you believe that, I have a CD of Long Dong Silver I'd like to sell you.

Even if Mrs. Thomas sees no conflict, there's an obvious one facing the justice. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads: "Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment." Et tu, Clarence?

So we`ll see.Won`t we?[:D]