All that money just slipped her mind, right?

[the_archfiend]

I'm sure the photo of a dour Clarence Thomas at the top of the CNN.com link quoted here is just so charming to so many of you. He does have good reason to look like a man who just ended up finding a burning bag of dog crap on his front porch, though:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has released newly corrected financial disclosure forms showing his wife's past employment, blaming a misunderstanding for years of omissions of Virginia "Ginni" Thomas' salary at a conservative think tank and other jobs.

Thomas was required to report the information on the annual disclosure forms all federal judges must file. The forms did not disclose how much money Mrs. Thomas was paid.

Well, sure they didn't. That's the point (along with Thomas and Antonin Scalia's political association with the Koch brothers) behind Common Cause's letter to Attorney General Holder:

Federal law requires a justice to recuse himself when:

 He knows that…his spouse…has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy…or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4). As CEO of Liberty Central, Ms. Thomas clearly had an interest that was substantially affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. Although the law requires knowledge on the part of the judge, it also states that “[a] judge should…make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse.” § 455(c). Given the high public profile of Ms. Thomas and Liberty Central, it would strain credulity for Justice Thomas to claim that he was not aware of this interest.

Anyone still alive who was an observer of the USSC during the Abe Fortas scandal might have reason to be a bit shocked, albeit for different, much more political reasons. Or very, very angry. Or more likely, both.