Impeach Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas was in the court majority in the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which overturned a century’s worth of regulations barring unlimited spending by corporations in political campaigns. Virginia Thomas, Clarence Thomas’s wife, is preparing to take advantage of this SCOTUS ruling to start her own Tea Party group, which will take corporate donations to spend on support of political candidates.
She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.
In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative “core principles,” she said.
The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources — including corporations — as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.
…
Justice Thomas, 61, recently expressed sensitivity to such concerns, telling law students in Florida that he doesn’t attend the State of the Union because it is “so partisan.” Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, has been a reliable conservative vote since he joined the court in 1991.
Experts say Virginia Thomas’ work doesn’t violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses. The couple have been married since 1987.
Gee, I’m glad he’s “sensitive.” If he really cared, he’d give up his Supreme Court seat or ask his wife to stay on the sidelines. I think we’ll need to watch this group very, very closely – I’d certainly like to know who’s funneling money to the wife of a Supreme Court justice. Will Thomas recuse himself from decisions affecting these clients and these groups associated with her politics?
Tags: Clarence Thomas, SCOTUS, Teabaggers
Aw geez, she couldn’t just raise capital for a hospital wing or something. Good work UI.
“Aw geez, she couldn’t just raise capital for a hospital wing or something.”
Since when should a husband’s career limit the potential of his wife?
Since the 50’s, maybe … Very progressive of you, Joanne.
Especially when there is wingnut welfare to be had.
Easiest way imaginable to pay off a judge.
Miscreant: “Judges are supposed to recuse themselves from cases when personal conflicts of interest may arise.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
Good work? I think that you have officially gone mad. The lady is heading a non partisan orgainization. According to rules, she could run for office. She is not bound by judicial constraits or do you think women are only an extention of their husbands?
Remember Ed Rendell’s wife? Bill Roth’s wife? We could go on, but the point is that spouses are expected to have their own lives and do not give up their constitutional rights in any area. We have lots of precedent. There is no Hatch Act applications for spouses. A wife of a military officer does not give up her rights. The husband or wife of a judge does not either. There is no special rules for conservative supreme court justice’s spouses. Roberts’ wife heads a right to life group. It is not unusual in the scheme of the courts.
Non-partisan candidates that happen to be anti-Obama. Right. It’s about as non-partisan as the Caesar Rodney Institute.
Ed Rendell’s wife is a judge and was one before Fast Eddie became Governor. She certainly is not taking money from companies who may have business before her husband. It isn’t what they do, it is the money and where it comes from.
But we already knew that he would torture all good sense and good government to make sure that someone he approved of got as much wingnut welfare as she could get.
Republican David: If Clarence recuses himself from any case involving any donor to his wife’s slush fund, he might have a defense. Don’t count on it.
Changing the subject: 100 years ago, the forerunners of the Tea Party made Ulysses Grant Hatred a central credo of political thought. A big hat tip to Sean Wilentz for summarizing the increasing recognition of Ukee’s fine legacy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/opinion/14wilentz.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/opinion/14wilentz.html
Rendell is a political figure. He was one before she became a judge. He raised money for the Democratic party and his campaigns. She has no involvement in his campaigns. Thomas’ wife is getting involved with a non partisan educational non-profit organization. She is not raising money for the Justice or for herself. It should be far less problematic than Roth or Rendell. At the state level, a lot of judges raise campaign money. How you can pretend there is even a problem? The justice is not his wife. She has all of the rights of any American and she does not have to divorce him to exercise them. I was about to right a post musing about this issue then I checked your website and it is even worse than I thought.
You all have Thomas Derangement Syndrome.
He has no need to recuse himself because someone gave some money to an organization that his wife was a part of. If that group is a major funder, of the organization such that it could be seen as having a major impact, then the case could be made. If I give 1000 dollars to a ten million dollar organization, will it bias her husband in favor of me– that is a joke. He wouldn’t even know my name.
And Rendell had to raise that money in a regulatory framework — circumscribed and above board. He had to spend that money in the same regulatory framework. None of that applies to this new teabagging thing financed by money that no one has to know where it came from or how it is spent.
Wingnut welfare at its finest and nowhere near the circumstances of women who are working at their own careers while their husbands hold office. You can get your equivalence when you can demonstrate that any of these women had access to unlimited funds, from unknown purposes that could be spent for unknown reasons.
Until then, you are working at making the usual dishonor over taking bag money into a virtue. Which isn’t much of a surprise, really.
“Judges are supposed to recuse themselves from cases when personal conflicts of interest may arise.”
No shit, genius.
“Experts say Virginia Thomas’ work doesn’t violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses.”
Should there be an actual conflict, Thomas should recuse himselp. If not, I see a problem. Until then, I guess we’ll continue to hear the usual bullshit and politics from the libs. Exactly what are the “norms for judicial spouses”?
If Virginia Thomas wasn’t married to Clarence Thomas not only would we never hear of her forming a Tea Party group but the odds of it instantly succeeding and becoming financially viable would be pretty slim. So, yeah, she’s using her husband’s career, her husband’s name, to launch her own.
And for a Supreme who tells law students in Florida that he doesn’t attend the State of the Union because it is “so partisan” this move by his wife is striking.
And can we please stop pretending that spouses do what’s best for them without considering how it effects their partner’s careers/lives.
I think there are many, many concerns here.
My first concern is how much salary Mrs. Thomas will take from this political committee. If she’s taking any salary, that means that Thomas made a Supreme Court decision that benefitted him personally financially.
My second concern is who is giving money to this committee. Will Thomas be ruling on cases that directly affect these donors who are giving money to his family? What about candidates that receive monies from Thomas’s political group? Will Thomas be making decisions that directly benefit them as well?
“So, yeah, she’s using her husband’s career, her husband’s name, to launch her own.”
I suppose this could be said of any *First Lady* (past and present… cough, cough … Hillary) as well, or is this rule that only applies to conservatives?
‘A Threat to Our Democracy’
• “Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, any lobbyist could go into any legislator and say, if you don’t vote our way on this bill, we’re going to run a million-dollar campaign against you in your district. And that is a threat to our democracy. It’s going to further reduce the voice of the American people, and it’s something we have to push back vigorously on.”–White House aide David Axelrod on ABC’s “This Week,” March 14
• “At the same time, Obama intends to lobby wavering House Democrats to vote for a Senate version of the [ObamaCare] legislation and to support the subsequent reconciliation process, which Republicans have characterized as an unjustified use of majority power. Among the rewards Obama is ready to offer, White House officials said, are election-year visits to competitive congressional districts, where a presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds.”–Washington Post, March 11
wsj.com
Should Judge Rendell be impeached because of her husband’s political activity. After all, that serving as governor thing seems to create a bigger potential problem than merely exercising one’s rights as a citizen to engage in freedom of speech!
Tom Daschle (then senate Majority Leader) was sleeping with a lobbyist and had joint accounts to share in her half million plus salary… how many votes did he recuse himself from? how loudly did you protest?
actually I don’t know if they slept together, I never peeked in their bedroom windows, I just assume, since they were married.
If you really want this heightened degree of sensitivity, I presume that you will expect Sonia Sotomayor to recuse herself from any case involving the Obama adminstration — and that Stephen Breyer and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg will recuse themselves from any case involving the State Department due to their having been appointed by the current Secretary of State’s husband. After all, we can’t be too careful about perceived conflicts of interest.
Please tell me the financial link between President Obama and Sonia Sotomayor. Will she get to go on vacations funded in part by her ruling in a particular case?
Once a Supreme is seated, they no longer owe the appointing President anything, but they still have obligations at home. A prime example is the circumstances of Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation to take care of her spouse. Bravo to Justice Thomas, he is taking care of his spouse without leaving the bench. It’s like bring your spouse to work day.
She owes her lifetime job to Obama. And we can’t be too careful about those appearances — just like you seem to believe we cannot be too careful about the appearance created by Mrs. Thomas exercising her rights as an American citizen under the First Amendment while her husband serves on the Supreme Court.