Quantcast
Home / Congress / Rep. Weiner Twitter blasts Justice Thomas over pre-holiday disclosure (access required)

Rep. Weiner Twitter blasts Justice Thomas over pre-holiday disclosure (access required)

The simmering controversy over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' financial filings and the financial interests of his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, heated up over the Memorial Day holiday weekend. It began when Thomas publicly released his financial disclosure filing on Friday afternoon. That move irked Rep. Anthony Weiner, who has has been pushing Thomas to recuse ...

3 comments

  1. Well in America all is fair in love and war, similar to being a Klu Klux Klan (KKK) member, but have a lifetime membership to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), so just because a person is in the KLAN does not mean they have no interest in seeing African Americans advance, Justice Clarence Thomas is living proof of that!-Born to do battle, drafted at birth.a.k.a.Warrior Breed!-Michael E. McKinzy, Sr.-05-31-2011

  2. As recent stories note congressmen do much better on their investments by using inside information of the laws the intend to pass, a clear conflict of interest and a crime if committed by others. If Weiner wants to clean up government conflicts of interest he should look at his own Democratic associates. But then Weiner’s argument is not about conflict of interest, but is an attempt to rig the outcome of a Supreme Court case. I wonder if Weiner has investments in firms that benefit from Obamacare?

  3. If a justice’s spouse is paid by a PAC, in part, to campaign for the repeal of a given law, wouldn’t the conflict of interest naturally manifest itself in that justice voting to UPHOLD that law so as to bolster the spouse’s job security? How is it that Justice Thomas would benefit financially from invalidating the PPACA? If anything, perhaps Liberty Cental should be calling for his recusal. Of course, I’m being facetious; but, with financial benefit off the table, the case for recusal loses much of its heft. And in any event, as a practical matter, the justices are answerable only to themselves, their consciences, and their colleagues’ opinions for their decisions on whether or not to recuse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 
Scroll To Top