Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
First, I am not making excuses for Thomas, but I am looking at the issue from a broader perspective.
In today's world it is easily possible for a husband not to know his spouses income. To me the thought that one spouse has to be responsible for the other in this regard is presumptuous and clearly does not take into consideration other types of relationships that are comparable to marriage.
Thomas may be guilty of not properly answering the question, it is possible that he lied (versus making an error, guessing, etc.), but does the question serve a valid purpose? If so, why not be consistent?
|
The question serves the most valid of purposes: determining the truth. I find it unlikely that one of the keenest legal minds of our time failed, 6 years in a row, where TaxAct succeeds. Because of this, I believe he did this intentionally, and you don't do something like this intentionally without reason. Why would a Supreme Court Justice who's wife works for active political organizations in line with his political views choose not to include his wife's income? The answer to that question is the reason for my (I believe valid) concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Again, how far are you willing to take your position? You say Thomas is using his title to influence politics, does that mean that a Supreme court Justice no longer has a right to free speech?
|
This isn't a free speech issue at all. This is fundamental judicial responsibility, impartiality. The fact that Thomas' speaking engagement was funded by people who stood to gain a great deal with Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest. The fact that his wife's employer pushed for Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Even passively a Supreme Court Justice may influence politics, for example if a justice is observed driving a hybrid car, that would have influence politically. do you expect Judges to live in a vacuum? What is your standard?
|
My standard is being paid by people who gain directly from your decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Also, one doesn't have to give much thought to some inconsistencies, for example did you study the forms of other Justices for errors or inaccuracies? What is your view on the Treasury Secretary and his tax issues?
|
Tu quoque, ace.