Justice Thomas owes some answers on ethical questions

Last month, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took some heat when it was discovered that he had not disclosed — as required by federal law — income-producing jobs held by his wife Virginia dating back 20 years. From 1998-2003, for example, Mrs. Thomas had worked at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which paid her a total of $686,589. But the job was never disclosed on federal documents.

It wasn’t merely a passive oversight. Each year, when filling out the form asking for disclosure of “spousal noninvestment income,” Thomas had checked a box labeled “none.” He had also failed to disclose paid work done by his wife back in the ’90s for then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now a Tea Party leader.

Since then, new questions have popped up regarding Thomas’ attendance three years ago at a seminar of conservative leaders sponsored by David and Charles Koch. In one invitation to such retreats, which typically run four days, Charles Koch wrote that “twice a year our network meets to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it.”

When questions were raised last month about Thomas’ attendance at the January 2008 retreat, a Supreme Court spokesman said “it was a brief drop-by. He was not a participant.”

“In his financial disclosure report for that year, however, Justice Thomas reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him an undisclosed amount for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat….

Arn Pearson, a vice president at the advocacy group Common Cause, said the two statements appeared at odds. His group sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “further clarification” as to whether the justice spent four days at the retreat for the entire event or was there only briefly.

“I don’t think the explanation they’ve given is credible,” Mr. Pearson said in an interview. He said that if Justice Thomas’s visit was a “four-day, all-expenses paid trip in sunny Palm Springs,” it should have been reported as a gift under federal law.”

Hmmm. “A brief (four-day) drop-by”? On whose dime?

Imagine, if you will, the reaction of conservatives if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had failed to disclose her late husband’s employment at MoveOn.org, had attended and spoken at private affairs sponsored by George Soros, and had apparently been less than honest with the American people about what had taken place. The impeachment hearings in the House would be starting any day now.

– Jay Bookman

350 comments Add your comment

Kamchak

February 15th, 2011
11:52 am

larry

February 15th, 2011
11:58 am

Justice Thomas along with Scaila think they are above the law. Impeachment hearings should be started for both of them but i know it will not happen.

Conflict of interest means nothing to them , or most Republicans for that matter. Much like the state of Georgia.

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
12:03 pm

“Justice Thomas along with Scaila think they are above the law”

A sense of entitlement is only bad if you’re poor

Bosch

February 15th, 2011
12:04 pm

And no people Ginsberg’s husband did not work at MoveOn.org, it is the liberal equivalent to the Heritage Foundation….

Bosch

February 15th, 2011
12:05 pm

Jay,

You might wanna rethink that moveon.org reference — the wingnuts heads are gonna splode just seeing that.

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:07 pm

But the job was never disclosed on federal documents.

I wonder if her job and the money she earned was disclosed on that ultimate tax document , form 1040?

Hello? IRS??

jm

February 15th, 2011
12:07 pm

Here’s a better question. How did a minority, a man who grew up in abject poverty, in Savannah, become such a conservative? One can throw Uncle Tom BS at him all day if one wants.

But I think the better answer is that he is someone who learned about the shortcomings of government, and the benefits of individual hard work, and took those lessons to heart.

I’m not saying the issue Jay brings up doesn’t deserve merit. Sure, hack away at the guy for non-disclosure. But I’m more curious how a man, who by all liberal accounts should probably be a Democrat leftist, became so conservative. I need to go read a Thomas biography, if a good one exists.

Plus, sorry, I’m a bit of a “native son” supporter…. (Southside Savannah!) :D

TaxPayer

February 15th, 2011
12:08 pm

This is a travesty. A true injustiice that must be corrected. I say we dig up Mr. Ginsburg’s bones and put them on trial right now!

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:09 pm

I wonder if her job and the money she earned was disclosed on that ultimate federal document , form 1040?

Federal , not tax is what i meant.

jm

February 15th, 2011
12:09 pm

BTW, Pin Point was still scary, even when I was growing up. A bad bad place to be around…. avoid at all costs. Hopefully different now.

SOUTHERN ATL

February 15th, 2011
12:11 pm

I hope that his attendance does not interfere with his decision making when it comes to cases that he will hear…what a conflict of interest!!!!

TaxPayer

February 15th, 2011
12:11 pm

But I’m more curious how a man, who by all liberal accounts should probably be a Democrat leftist, became so conservative.

Maybe it had something to do with his Heritage.

Mr. Right

February 15th, 2011
12:11 pm

the reaction of conservatives if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had failed to disclose her late husband’s employment at MoveOn.org, had attended and spoken at private affairs sponsored by George Soros, and had apparently been less than honest with the American people about what had taken place. The impeachment hearings in the House would be starting any day now.

On the other hand, what would your reaction be? I don’t think we would have heard a peep out of you!

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:12 pm

I hope that his attendance does not interfere with his decision making when it comes to cases that he will hear…what a conflict of interest!!!!

Sorry, it already has. The Citizens United case.

JohnnyReb

February 15th, 2011
12:12 pm

I would love to comment, but my head is exploding!!

barking frog

February 15th, 2011
12:13 pm

I believe that kind of stuff cost Charles Rangel his dignity,
if nothing else….

jt

February 15th, 2011
12:13 pm

Silly rabbit,
federal tax laws are for the commoners, not the federal ruling class.

As per Charlie Rangel,or Geithner, or ad naseum…., just censor him.

Bosch

February 15th, 2011
12:14 pm

“On the other hand, what would your reaction be? I don’t think we would have heard a peep out of you!”

Hmmmmm…..criticizine Jay over a hypothetical instead of defending a position based on something real.

You just can’t make up this stuff.

jm

February 15th, 2011
12:14 pm

“Maybe it had something to do with his Heritage.”

True, like being a descendant of slaves and a very poor family and knowing the price of economic and political slavery…. (and the value of economic and political freedom).

JohnnyReb

February 15th, 2011
12:16 pm

OK, the fit of my Rush Limbaugh hat contained my brain explosion and I can, after all comment.

You Lefties have reason to be concerned of Thomas, I must admit. I just wish you would not salivate when doing so. Obviously, if he were to exit the court while Barry is POTUS, the Liberal World would shut down for a day due to mass orgasmic activity.

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:16 pm

You just can’t make up this stuff.

Bosch, you know better than that.

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:19 pm

I just wish you would not salivate when doing so.

Im not salavating, i just think its sad. I mean Scaila went hunting with Cheney several years ago when Cheney had a case before the court.

They can sit there and say it does not influence them all they want. I , for one , do not believe them.

USinUK

February 15th, 2011
12:20 pm

what Kam said.

USinUK

February 15th, 2011
12:21 pm

JohnnyReb – no, we would save that for Scalia

we have our standards.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

February 15th, 2011
12:23 pm

JohnnyReb

February 15th, 2011
12:24 pm

In otherwords, you guys will only be happy when every memeber of the court is a Liberal.

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:24 pm

Even our own ethically challenged governor put all of his earnings on his disclosure form.

Okay , so it took him five tries but i think he got it all on there. I think.

Tall

February 15th, 2011
12:25 pm

“Imagine, if you will, the reaction of conservatives if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had failed to disclose her late husband’s employment at MoveOn.org, had attended and spoken at private affairs sponsored by George Soros, and had apparently been less than honest with the American people about what had taken place. The impeachment hearings in the House would be starting any day now…..

Yeah. If Justice Thomas is guilty of not reporting income…he should face the charges….blah..blah…blah…

USinUK

February 15th, 2011
12:25 pm

Johnny – “In otherwords, you guys will only be happy when every memeber of the court is a Liberal.”

no, just when they’re not effing wankers like Fat Tony

JohnnyReb

February 15th, 2011
12:26 pm

Larry, I agree certain behavior and relationships should be off limits to SCOTUS, however, they can’t be locked up in solitary when not on the bench. They have opinions no doubt formed by living a life.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

February 15th, 2011
12:29 pm

Johnny….actually a recent study of the Court has shown that even so-called “liberal” members are moving to the right and unfortunately will likely continue that way until a President decides to truly provide some balance.

USinUK

February 15th, 2011
12:29 pm

heck, as I think about it, I’d be willing to trade – you can keep Thomas, just get rid of Scalia (of course, that’s killing 2 birds with 1 stone as Thomas can’t write his own decisions without cribbing from Big Ton)

JohnnyReb

February 15th, 2011
12:30 pm

BTW Jay, good subject to get the crowd off the story of the day. That is, Obama finding instant rebuke to budget and having a news conference to try and convince people that when he buys a Chevrolet instead of a Cadillac he saved the 20 grand difference.

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:31 pm

They have opinions no doubt formed by living a life.

I agree, but i would not have any connection to someone who will have a case before the court.

After the case is over, maybe . But not before. Even if they are a good friend to me.

USinUK

February 15th, 2011
12:32 pm

wow – the GOP didn’t like his budget cuts?

next thing you’ll tell us, the sun rises in the east …

is water wet, too???

RW-(the original)

February 15th, 2011
12:32 pm

What a cheap, transparent smokescreen. This whole poutrage over Thomas is just to take the heat off Kagan when the calls for her to recuse herself begin after Obamacare gets to SCOTUS.

/d b

JohnnyReb

February 15th, 2011
12:32 pm

Good Fight – I liiiike it, mmmmumm, I liiiike it.

jt

February 15th, 2011
12:33 pm

Only frightened naive people pay attention to these guys anyhoo.

“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”

~ Thomas E. Wood

FOURTEEN, that is 14 (FOURTEEN)
new nullification laws are being passed as we speak….And the great sovereign state South Carolina is mulling over a state currency. Georgia will not be far behind.

Pass all of the laws you want and rule until your eyes are blue. We will ignore you and them.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/10-amendment-nullification-movement2.html

JohnnyReb

February 15th, 2011
12:34 pm

Larry – no debate on that. I agree. And, Thomas is stupid for putting himself in the current position. Very disappointing.

pn

February 15th, 2011
12:34 pm

There is a Code of Conduct for United States Judges found at

http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx

But, alas, the U.S. Supreme Court has no adopted code of conduct and there is no formal mechanism for review of conflicts of interest.

Which is probably why the U.S. Supreme Court Justices feel themselves above the law–quite literally.

Scary, eh?

TaxPayer

February 15th, 2011
12:36 pm

“Maybe it had something to do with his Heritage.”

True, like being a descendant of slaves and a very poor family and knowing the price of economic and political slavery…. (and the value of economic and political freedom).

I was thinking something a little more Foundation-al. And organized. And right wingish. And Libertarianish. Aw heck. Heritage Foundation. All Right!

buck@gon

February 15th, 2011
12:38 pm

Imagine, if you will, the reaction of conservatives if _______________

Charlie Rangel
Nancy Pelosi
Timothy Geithner
Vann Jones
Harry Reid
…….

You wanna go there Bookman? I’m fine with that. Let’s go! Let’s sweep them all out.

Stop picking on Thomas all by himself. You are a racist!

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
12:38 pm

“wow – the GOP didn’t like his budget cuts?”

Neither do some Democrats…so I figure he’s probably got it about right.

Granny Godzilla

February 15th, 2011
12:39 pm

ANd of course we all know that Justice Thomas has just celebrated an unusual and frankly creepy anniversary….

No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 12, 2011

A week from Tuesday, when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.

If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.

In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.

From the NYT

What the hell are we paying this guy for?

TaxPayer

February 15th, 2011
12:39 pm

How long before some right winger gets on here and attacks Kagan even though Kagan clearly does not have these conflicts of interest hanging over her past decisions or have clear ethics violations hanging over her.

USinUK

February 15th, 2011
12:39 pm

“Stop picking on Thomas all by himself.”

leave Thomas alooooooone!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:40 pm

Thanks for the link pn, i saved it to my favorites file to read later. Interesting reading so far.

USinUK

February 15th, 2011
12:40 pm

Doggone – you got that right

larry

February 15th, 2011
12:43 pm

If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.

Used to work with someone like this. Of course ,he got promoted . Stupid me asked questions, sweated over spreadsheets etc, etc.

@@

February 15th, 2011
12:44 pm

Well, I know what progressives wanna do with Justice Thomas…

Kill him?

Put him back in the fields?

String him up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc

jm

February 15th, 2011
12:47 pm

Taxpayer 12:36- :) I got it the first time…

jt

February 15th, 2011
12:51 pm

The sheep accepted a Tax cheat to be in CHARGE of the Tax code in the LEGISLATURE.(Rangel).

The sheep accepted a Tax cheat to be in CHARGE of tax collecting in the EXECUTIVE.(Geithner)

The sheep should except a Tax cheat to rule over the tax code in the JUDICIAL.

If not……………..I call racism.

UGA graduate

February 15th, 2011
12:51 pm

Justice Thomas and Scalia should be impeached now, before they do any more damage to this country. It really started with installing that imbecile George W. Bush. How did his four years of conservative rule work out? Two endless wars and the biggest economic bust since the great recession. Now we have Alioto and Roberts who will be on the court forever.

The right-wing trifecta of pompous Bill O’Reilly, windbag Rush Limbaugh, and crazy Glen Beck would be calling for the impeachment of any moderate justice with ties to any liberal organization and had secret speeches to such groups. They offer nothing positive to further the American agenda and keeping taxes low for people with the highest incomes.

pn

February 15th, 2011
12:52 pm

Here is the revised list of ethics canons, which for some reason, have not been updated on the U.S. Courts website (above) Still mandatory on federal judges–but not Supreme Court Justices.

And why don’t they apply to Supreme Court Justices?

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in
All Activities
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and
Diligently
Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That Are Consistent with
the Obligations of Judicial Office
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

jm

February 15th, 2011
12:54 pm

The liberals have the most liberal president in office since Jimmy Carter. And they’re still upset. Unbelievable.

See UGA Graduate’s post….

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
12:57 pm

“The liberals have the most liberal president in office since Jimmy Carter. And they’re still upset. Unbelievable”

Not quite correct. Not all “liberals” are as “liberal” as you’d maybe like to think.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
12:57 pm

The Idiot Messiah wants to spend $3.7 trillion next year, and his parasite base will scream if Republicans cut a measly $100 billion.

$3.7 trillion comes to about $12,000 per person. Are you paying your fair share?

Cryos

February 15th, 2011
12:59 pm

So to those commenting on Citizen’s United are you even aware democrats argued the law gave them the right to ban books and pull them off the shelves.

Maybe you ought to think about that instead of blindly buying the “corporations are people now” propaganda.

the watchful eye

February 15th, 2011
12:59 pm

Dick Armney, Tea Party Leader. The Tea Party as we are all aware are great believers in the Constituion and some members although not lawyers are experts on the Constituion. A little known fact, the framers of the Constitution did not see fit to make provisions that the members of the Supreme Court be only lawyers. They deliberately left it open to people of other learnings than the law. We should be looking at candidates for the Supreme Court from areas outside the legal profession. Then there would be fresh insight into what the citizens really think and have them represented like for example, the tea Party themselves.

It is becoming increasing apparent that the Supreme Court Justices, like Clarence Thomas, are listening and even attending polically oriented events.

Granny Godzilla

February 15th, 2011
12:59 pm

Lil Barry

You must agree with Jay on Thomas…..as you are silent on the topic.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:00 pm

Amen to that, Doggie. For example, a whole bunch of “liberals” want to require all Americans to buy certain products.

Those kinds of “liberals”: Fascists.

Granny Godzilla

February 15th, 2011
1:01 pm

“”So to those commenting on Citizen’s United are you even aware democrats argued the law gave them the right to ban books and pull them off the shelves.”"”

Boy can’t wait to see you back that one up.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:01 pm

No, I just find the topic boring and hypocritical.

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:02 pm

“Fascists”

Fascism is not a liberal philosophy

JohnnyReb

February 15th, 2011
1:03 pm

jm – obviously you did not receive the memo declaring Barry a moderate. And, some nut on Matthew’s show this past Sunday pointed out that Obama knew just how to handle Egypt because he grew up in Kenya. I was soooooooooo impressed.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:03 pm

Democrats arguing in Citizens United wanted to prevent a movie from being shown.

Such a proud moment for the “liberals”.

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:03 pm

“No, I just find the topic boring and hypocritical.”

Blogspot is ready whenever you are, go for it

Larry

February 15th, 2011
1:04 pm

pn – what part of those ethics has Juatice Thomas violated? Possibly #2 but that has yet to be proven. Let’s see what happens before you lynch a man. Obama has lied several times, has proven himself to be incompetant and yet you hear nary a word of him from Jay.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:04 pm

Fascism IS a neo-liberal philosophy.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sean walker, sean walker. sean walker said: Justice Thomas owes some answers on ethical questions: Since then, new questions have popped up regarding Thomas… http://bit.ly/hEypaS [...]

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:05 pm

Doggie, if you feel the need to go off topic, might I suggest blogspot?

Granny Godzilla

February 15th, 2011
1:05 pm

“Democrats arguing in Citizens United wanted to prevent a movie from being shown.”

how incredibly shallow and vapid.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:07 pm

Johnny, I’m not sure the Idiot Messiah was ever in Kenya before taxpayers paid to fly his sorry arse there a while back.

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:07 pm

“Fascism IS a neo-liberal philosophy”

Ummm, hmmm…because liberals, and especially neoliberals, are just SO right-wing:

fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm)

— n
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

AmVet

February 15th, 2011
1:07 pm

So, a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America is a tax dodger and serial liar.

To quote Captain Renault from the film Casablanca, I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

The worst government that tons of dirty money can buy.

“…one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for some (usually the wealthy).” …

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:08 pm

You’re welcome to your opinion, Granny, but not to your own facts.

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:08 pm

“if you feel the need to go off topic, might I suggest blogspot?”

No need. Already got a blog there…but might I point out that I’m not stupid enough to come HERE and complain about the subjects that Jay chooses?

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:10 pm

Your definition doesn’t have much to say about the manifestations of fascism. Neo-liberals are fascists because the effects of their policies are fascist. They desire state control of private enterprise.

Neo-liberals: Fascists.

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:11 pm

“They desire state control of private enterprise”

Proof?

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:13 pm

If you have a blog on blogspot, why are you hypocritically going off-topic here, not to mention complaining about others going OT?

No one’s forcing you to read my posts. You just can’t resist.

Granny Godzilla

February 15th, 2011
1:13 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:08 pm
You’re welcome to your opinion, Granny, but not to your own facts.

No doubt, however the FACT remains that your summation of the Citizens United is indeed shallow and vapid.

USinUK

February 15th, 2011
1:13 pm

Neo-liberals are fascists because the effects of their policies are fascist.

yay!

I’ll play!!

the sky is blue because the sky is blue

water is wet because water is wet

rocks are hard because rocks are hard

boy, howdy, can’t beat his logic

AmVet

February 15th, 2011
1:13 pm

“Huckabee: Abortion issue trumps all”

Seldom does one see somebody give themselves the political kiss of death…

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:14 pm

“They desire state control of private enterprise”

Oh, and BTW, fascism doens’t desire state control of private enterprise – it’s more the other way around.

It’s communism that desires public control (owenership) of production.

Can’t you keep your insults straight?

Granny Godzilla

February 15th, 2011
1:14 pm

clean up on aisle BARRY

“They desire state control of private enterprise.”

now I don’t care who you are, that there’s funny.

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:15 pm

Exhibit A is, of course, Obozocare.

jm

February 15th, 2011
1:15 pm

JohnnyReb 1:03 – Obama is as much a moderate as Scalia is a liberal. Obama is bought and paid for by the Unions and Retirees. And if there’s two groups I despise, its those two.

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:15 pm

“not to mention complaining about others going OT”

I wasn’t complaining about it…just pointing out that if you don’t like the subject’s Jay chooses you are at perfect liberty to start your own blog…where YOU can choose the subjects.

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:16 pm

“Exhibit A is, of course, Obozocare”

Exhibit A of WHAT? Government ownership of private enterprise? You don’t even get an E for effort for that one.

barking frog

February 15th, 2011
1:18 pm

I believe I see a high tech lynching not too far down the road…..

Granny Godzilla

February 15th, 2011
1:18 pm

I think Barry you shouls just call the folks you don’t like and are afraid of “ists”, since you obviously don’t understand the first parts of those big words.

i’m godzilla-ist

Lil' Barry Bailout

February 15th, 2011
1:19 pm

USinUK
boy, howdy, can’t beat his logic
———————

But you were perfectly happy with the argument that neo-liberals can’t be fascist because not all neo-liberals are Italian.

Doh!

larry

February 15th, 2011
1:20 pm

Good gosh, someone despises retired people?

I guess Bosch is right, you cant make this up.

jm

February 15th, 2011
1:24 pm

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:25 pm

“neo-liberals can’t be fascist because not all neo-liberals are Italian”

Since you don’t appear to know what either “fascism” OR “neoliberal” actually mean…it’s a little hard to understand your “logic”

jm

February 15th, 2011
1:25 pm

larry1:20 I’m not the only one

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/06/us-economy-usa-commission-idUSTRE7151VN20110206

Former Senator Alan Simpson, Republican co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also trashed certain critics as “jerks” and compared the United States to “a milk cow with 300 million teats.”

Originally this was a reference to Social Security with 300 million t-ts.

Vinny

February 15th, 2011
1:26 pm

Keep swinging at the wind, Jay.

Obama-care WILL be repealed.
Obama WILL be a one-termer.

Get used to it.

jm

February 15th, 2011
1:27 pm

“Obama WILL be a one-termer.”

One hopes so, but conservatives are going to have to work overtime in 2012.

Dave R.

February 15th, 2011
1:27 pm

“A brief (four-day) drop-by”? On whose dime?”

Hey, a “three-hour tour” turned into years of syndication on Gilligan’s Island. Things get extended.

And in case you psedo-geniuses missed it, his oath is to uphold the Constitution, and there is nothing in the workings of either the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society that would conflict with that oath.

Would you like some cheese with that whine, Jay?

Doggone/GA

February 15th, 2011
1:29 pm

“And in case you psedo-geniuses missed it, his oath is to uphold the Constitution, and there is nothing in the workings of either the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society that would conflict with that oath”

Then why didn’t he report it, as he is required to do?