Clarence Thomas' ethical problems

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is coming under increasing demands that he be investigated for failing to report his wife's income as required on the annual financial disclosure forms. In the past, Thomas has checked "none" in answer to sources of spousal income.

When questioned about it in light of his wife's well-publicized six-figure salary from the conservative foundation she started, as well as her tenure for several years at the Heritage Foundation, Thomas said that he had misunderstood the instructions for filling out the form.

U. S. Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has written to Chief Justice John Roberts with additional information that seems incriminating that this could not have been an oversight or a lack of understanding of instructions.

It turns out that Thomas did report the sources of his wife's income from 1987 to 1997, first as head of the EEOC and then from 1991 through 1997 as a Supreme Court Justice. But since 1997 he has checked "none."

So how did he understand the instructions from 1987 to 1997, and then lose that understanding for the next 13 years? Could it have something to do with her political activities becoming more blatant and the fact that questions began to be raised about her husband's potential conflict of interests based on her work and her financial interests?

There are very important practical implications. Now that the Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of Obama's health care reform, Thomas' vote on that case could be decisive. And one of the issues Virginia Thomas has been most involved in opposing is this very bill.

Not just opposing, as in expressing her opinion. She created a foundation dedicated to working against just such legislation, and was paid a six-figure salary by the foundation -- until the spotlight of publicity made that untenable and she stepped out of the nominal leadership position of the foundation. That does not remove the conflict of interest, in my opinion.

Clarence Thomas should voluntarily recuse himself on this case. If he does not, he should be investigated by the only group authorized to do so, the Judicial Conference of the U. S. The only other recourse would be impeachment.

Ralph