quote:

In March 2010, Slaughter proposed that a House rule be passed to expedite the passage of health care reform legislation. The rule allows the House to deem the Senate version of the health care reform bill "already passed" by the House without the House holding a recorded vote on the bill. Critics, who called the strategy the "Slaughter Solution", charged this proposed strategy was an affront to democratic principles and challenged its constitutionality. Supporters observe that the courts have affirmed the rule's constitutionality, and that Republicans have used the rule repeatedly to pass major legislation such as the Patriot Act and the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

Dirty lying SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagen (appointed by Obama) lied during her Senate confirmation hearing that as Obama's Solicitor General she wasn't involved in formulating the Administration's defense of Obamacare. Because of that she needs to at least recuse herself from the Obamcare case, if not resign/be impeached from office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Please note that subrob's cited WSJ article does not address Slaughter, but is intended as a reference point on recusal.  IMO, it is not pertinent because the WSJ article was written regarding Kagan recusing herself based on prior opinions she had issued.  The situation erieangel describes is a Congresswoman pushing for an ethics investigation of a SCOTUS judge.

subrob, there is a huge difference between the actions of a judge and those of a Congressperson.  A judge is supposed to be impartial, and Congresspople are supposed to not be.  They are elected for their stances, not their lack of them.  AFAIK, there has never been an incident where a lawmaker recused themself.  Maybe you thought that Slaughter was a judge?

Boiling down erieangel's post:  Thomas did not declare income that was required to be reported for years.  Slaughter is pressing for an investigation, and I can't see how it can be avoided.  Clear violation of the law and possibly ethics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

subrob, Thomas withholding the information isn't some new concern.  It hit the media in January and Thomas immediately amended the reporting forms.  What is of concern, is why was he even permitted to amend the forms? It isn't like those forms are difficult to fill out and as a judge, he should know how to complete them.  So, another question becomes, why did he withhold that information??  I think that is the question Slaughter (and some other congress critters) would like answered.

quote:

Thomas never reported that his wife had been earning an income, as is required under the law. Instead, in the part of the form requiring each justice to report whether their spouse had any income, Thomas repeatedly checked the box next to the word “None.”

quote:

Boiling down erieangel's post: Thomas did not declare income that was required to be reported for years. Slaughter is pressing for an investigation, and I can't see how it can be avoided. Clear violation of the law and possibly ethics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

really?

typical fucking presumption with no evidence entered into the record.

prove it was income.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

subrob, Thomas withholding the information isn't some new concern.  It hit the media in January and Thomas immediately amended the reporting forms.  What is of concern, is why was he even permitted to amend the forms? It isn't like those forms are difficult to fill out and as a judge, he should know how to complete them.  So, another question becomes, why did he withhold that information??  I think that is the question Slaughter (and some other congress critters) would like answered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so now theres a time limit on tax fraud? since when?