Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: If you don't know why these four men REQUIRE you to vote for Obama - don't vote !

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 3, 2012, 12:07 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito

OR

Ask Newt about Citizens United

13 Comments

13 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 11 years ago

Occupy is my party. I'm loyal to Occupy. Fuck the institutions of the 1%!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms. January 22, 2011|By Kim Geiger, Washington Bureau Reporting from Washington — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday. Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records.


Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.


Virginia Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time. Virginia Thomas also has been active in the group Liberty Central, an organization she founded to restore the "founding principles" of limited government and individual liberty.
In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as "none."
Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas' omission — which could be interpreted as a violation of that law — could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said. "It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission," Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight." Without disclosure, the public and litigants appearing before the court do not have adequate information to assess potential conflicts of interest, and disclosure is needed to promote the public's interest in open, honest and accountable government
The allegation comes days after a letter requesting that the Justice Department investigate whether Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have disqualified themselves from hearing a campaign finance case after they reportedly attended a private meeting sponsored by Charles and David Koch, billionaire philanthropists who fund conservative causes such as ALEC. In the case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that corporate and union funds could be spent directly on election advertising. The Koch brothers have been key supporters of the group Americans for Prosperity, which spent heavily in the 2010 midterm election and claims a nonprofit tax status that allows it to avoid disclosing its donors. Clarence Thomas has been the lone justice to argue that laws requiring public disclosure of large political contributions are unconstitutional.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

I've been practically shouting this for days.

Thank you for the post.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

The most dangerous threat to freedom that Bush left us with.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Both Bushes in fact.

[-] 1 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 12 years ago

Ask Ron Paul about Citizens United - "It's corporations' money, they can do whatever they want with it."

http://exiledonline.com/ron-paul-believes-corporate-lobbying-liberty-i-take-the-position-that-you-should-never-restrict-lobbying/

[-] 0 points by lisaCobamarules (2) from New York, NY 11 years ago

I will be voting for Obama! Support our chief or put ducktape on your mouth like Gary Stein. He will be go to jail for opening his big mouth - no questions, just do your job Stein!

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

OR ask the family of any fallen Iraq war soldier about bush V Gore

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

Lucy to Charlie Brown: "Don't worry. Of course, I'll hold the football until you kick it. Trust me this time."

Ha, ha, ha, ha. Obama is such a fraud. Our two party system is such a fraud.

Obama's purpose was to gut the left, and let his puppet masters get away with crimes (and attacks on the constitution) that McCain never would have gotten away with.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I am tempted to some smart ass comment . . .

tempted . . .

tempted . . .

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Please do, I like your comments. I also would appreciate a reply in the other thread if you are interested.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I watched the inauguration of the President by Chief Justice Roberts.

I watched the Chief Justice stumble his way through that process.

I have no doubt his error was deliberate.

I have no doubt the purpose was to provide fodder to the extreme right wing, who already was claiming:

  • the President wasn't born in the U.S.

  • the President is a Muslim

and Roberts intent was to add to this nonsense by creating the opportunity for those same fools to proclaim:

  • the President wasn't even properly sworn in

All of which is utter bushite

Especially when you consider that Bush wasn't even elected

  • he was appointed, by the court

and I've lost the link to your other comment

[-] 0 points by e2420 (-28) 11 years ago

Thanks for the laugh.