There is no excuse, the justices Alito and Thomas are way outside the reporting and ethical standard for legal practice.
...The two principal statutes most relevant to the Thomas situation are:(click here)
...The two principal statutes most relevant to the Thomas situation are:(click here)
The 1978 Ethics in Government Act is a wide-ranging post-Watergate, anti-corruption statute. One provision directs government officials, including justices and judges, to report annually “all gifts [above a certain amount] received from any source other than a relative. . ., except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.” The “personal hospitality” phrase is key to the Thomas controversy.
The 1989 Ethics Reform Act seeks to reduce conflicts of interest, in part by barring government officials, including justices and judges, from “accept[ing] anything of value from a person . . . seeking official action from the individual’s reporting entity [or] whose [financial] interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individual’s official duties.” Conference regulations specify that “anything of value” includes most “gifts,” but they exclude various items from the definition of a “gift”, including “social hospitality based on personal relationships.”...
...First, the statutes apply to members of Congress and “officer[s and] employee[s]” of all three branches; they do not exclude supreme court justices. Second, the Conference’s financial reporting regulations include the justices by defining them as covered “judicial officer[s].”
But the regulations on gifts and outside income exclude justices from their definitions of “judicial officer.” Instead, those regulations delegate to the Chief Justice the Conference’s administrative and enforcement authority as to the Court. In 1991, the justices by resolution agreed to comply with the “substance of” the gift and outside income regulations. In his “2011 Year-End Report,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that the justices “[f]or purposes of sound administration,” file their annual financial disclosure reports with the Judicial Conference Financial Disclosure Committee, and, referencing the 1991 resolution, “agreed to follow the [gift and outside income] regulations as a matter of internal practice.”...
...First, the statutes apply to members of Congress and “officer[s and] employee[s]” of all three branches; they do not exclude supreme court justices. Second, the Conference’s financial reporting regulations include the justices by defining them as covered “judicial officer[s].”
But the regulations on gifts and outside income exclude justices from their definitions of “judicial officer.” Instead, those regulations delegate to the Chief Justice the Conference’s administrative and enforcement authority as to the Court. In 1991, the justices by resolution agreed to comply with the “substance of” the gift and outside income regulations. In his “2011 Year-End Report,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that the justices “[f]or purposes of sound administration,” file their annual financial disclosure reports with the Judicial Conference Financial Disclosure Committee, and, referencing the 1991 resolution, “agreed to follow the [gift and outside income] regulations as a matter of internal practice.”...
...c. Enforcement
Enforcement mechanisms in the 1978 Ethics in Government Act come into play for individuals who “willfully failed to file a report or . . . willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported” under the Act. The relevant provisions authorize the Justice Department to bring civil actions against such a person. They also direct various agencies, including the Judicial Conference, to report such individuals to the department if they have “reasonable cause to believe” the individuals willfully falsified or failed to file required reports...
Both Alito and Thomas willfully left information blank on their reporting forms. Omitting information is as much a violation as any false statement. There is no going back to correct an "oops." These are people at the highest legal office in the land. Do they look the other way when reporting information in any of the cases before the justices?If the justices don't fill in all the blanks it is willful. Oops is not in the vocabulary of these eminently qualified justices. That is what the public trust expects and both these justices have fallen woefully short of the standard.
