Posted on 07/02/2011 10:33:50 AM PDT by EveningStar
For good reason, there has been serious hand-wringing over what to do about the ethical lapses of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The fact that Supreme Court justices are exempt from the code of ethical conduct which applies to the rest of the federal judiciary; the problem of bringing a sitting justice before the Congress to question the conduct of a constitutional co-equal; the reality that justices cannot easily defend themselves against news media charges; the defiant, in-your-face posture of Thomas—the list goes on but it need not. There is clear precedent for how to deal with the justice. Thomas could be forced off the bench.
(Excerpt) Read more at readersupportednews.org ...
Exactly. And people like Dean still have their admirers as evidenced by the reader comments following the article.
This is his aim, if a Dem Justice has to recuse herself, then a Rep Justice must do the same.
“In addition, Crow reportedly provided Ginni Thomas some $500,000 to start her tea party group, Liberty Central, which pays her so well. Ginni Thomas openly lobbies issues that have or will come before the Supreme Court, such as health care reform.
When 74 Democratic members of Congress requested that Justice Thomas disqualify himself from any ruling on the new health care reform law, which is making its way toward the Supreme Court thanks in part to the efforts of the tea party and Ginni Thomas to have that law ruled unconstitutional, he ignored the request. This is his standard operating procedure. Thomas simply is not troubled by those who are concerned that a justice and his wife directly and indirectly receive financial benefits from “a friend” with both financial and political interests before the court.”
Kos is involved;
“The question is what can be done about this problem. Early this year, U.S. Rep. Christopher Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, introduced the proposed Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act of 2011 (H.R. 862). When introducing this legislation, which would extend to Supreme Court justices the code of professional conduct that applies to all other federal judges, Murphy cited the conflict of interest and political actions of Justice Clarence Thomas. Recently, the bill received a glimmer of press attention as a result of Thomas’ latest reported shenanigans, and the website Daily Kos is collecting signatures for a petition supporting Murphy’s proposal. “
Ditto on Dean being the mastermind behind Watergate - to protect his call girl, son-to-be wife (Maureen).
JPG - when did Maureen leave Dean as I never heard that news?
Liberalism is a mental disorder and is an incurable disease. It appears your high school classmate did not reform John, he is still playing the same game. And he is still a Lying Dem.
This could be true; if there is no mind, there is no doubt. Strange Justice was such a farce that Ted Kopel deftly stepped aside and let other journalists ruin their careers when the big expose' hit Nightline.
What a truly bizarre article. And the comments really highlight how many delusional people are out there.
The wife (or husband) of a Supreme Court Justice is both legally and ethically free to work for whomever she (or he) pleases. And a Justice is free to decide cases however he or she pleases, provided neither the husband nor the wife receive any bribe or reward contingent on the way a case is decided.
Of course, for every decision any judge has ever made, or ever will make, he or she benefits from the fact that the decision necessarily conforms to his or her interpretation of the law. It is logically impossible to prevent that.
Yes, Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginny Thomas, is getting paid to lobby for the anti- ObamaCare cause by her current clients and/or employer. But she would be getting paid to do so regardless of which way the decision went, or even if the case never got to the SCOTUS. Unless and until someone can establish a quid-pro-quo of a bonus to her if he decides in a given manner, or of an adverse consequence unless he does so, there is no conflict of interest.
The bottom line is that Ginny Thomas doesn’t stand to gain or lose any benefits no matter how her husband rules. Unless Ginny benefits, neither does Clarence (since no one even claims he would receive benefits directly, but only indirectly via his wife.)
Unless continued employment is contingent on how her husband rules, or unless she will get some additional remuneration for a favorable decision, one cannot say that she will benefit from the decision, no matter what the court may rule. Has she been promised that if Justice Thomas decides a certain way she will be additionally compensated? Has she been threatened with adverse consequences unless he rules a certain way? No, and no.
In fact, the only even remotely-credible argument would be that Ginny’s financial interests are best served by a SCOTUS decision that keeps the issue alive, and keeps her employer and its clients as interested as possible in additional legal and political work in opposition to ObamaCare. But the possibility that that would improperly influence Clarence Thomas is essentially zero, as explained below.
As for the Heritage Foundation issue: All work and all payments to Ginny Thomas from that source occurred BEFORE Obamacare was passed. That categorically prevents that issue from establishing any pretext for recusal.
Finally, the idea that Clarence Thomas would be in any way influenced to rule against ObamaCare due to the political views and/or activities of his wife is too ludicrous and ridiculous even for the left. Does anyone seriously doubt—especially anyone on the left—that Clarence Thomas opposes not only ObamaCare in particular, but the egregious misinterpretations of the Commerce Clause used to justify not only ObamaCare, but most of the modern Unconstitutional activities of the Federal government? Read his writings and his past opinions, should you have any doubt about that whatsoever. And then you’ll understand why the idea that his wife will have any influence on his legal opinions on this issue at all is outrageously false.
Justice Breyer, whom President Bill Clinton appointed to the court in 1994, said concerns about recusal were “a false issue.”
“As far as what your wife does, or your husband, I myself have tried to stick to a certain principle — that a wife is an independent person, and they make up their own minds as to what their career is to be,” Breyer said, adding that he sits in on cases involving psychology despite the fact that his wife is a clinical psychologist.
Justice Breyer noted that a Supreme Court recusal leaves a vacancy on the court that could affect a court decision, whereas justices can be replaced when a conflict of interest occurs in Federal courts. [ref: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/breyer-thomas-clarence-virginia/2011/06/29/id/401940}
James Dean always struck me as a Weiner clone, just with a better suit, better diction and a thicker veneer of faux class.
His comments about who plays "hard ball," with the Courts, is a deliberate lie. It wasn't just Republicans who stopped Fortas--LBJ's effort to control the Court. But from the lynching of Bork, the attempted lynching of Thomas, and the blockage of several other Conservative appointees in recent decades, the truth tells a very different story than Dean's.
And, for that matter, the Left blocked a Conservative appointee in 1930--Parker, I believe--who might have proven the vote to block FDR's massive debt default resulting from the arbitrary devaluation of the dollar, coupled with the repudiation of the contractual obligations in the gold clause bonds.
As for conflicts of interest? Look up the role of FDR's Felix Frankfurter, who was involved in setting up the ACLU, in Court decisions taking away religious freedom in American local school districts, etc.. (See, on this, Leftwing Word Games & 1st Amendment.)
William Flax
“Something liberals do well is write thousands of words without making a lucid point. Good work, John Dean.”
Yes, and then they ‘substantiate’ their drivel by citing thousands of words of similiarly baseless, pointless, hyper-partisan crap written the gang they share a brain with. How does an intelligent person respond?
This is ripe!
“There are two problems with this strategy. First, the Democrats would never do to Thomas what Republicans did to Fortas. For the Republicans, seats on the Supreme Court are worth whatever it takes to get them. They play hardball. For Democrats, well, they play beanbag over judicial appointments. Democrats are willing to toss a few stingers, but never do they truly want to hurt anyone. They cannot help it that they are nice people, and ruthlessness does not work for them. This is why a minority of Republicans in the United States can control the overwhelming majority of Democrats and independents who lean left.”
G. Gordon Libby would have been true hero if he’d have taken Dean out.
From Findlaw.com; Before becoming Counsel to the President of the United States in July 1970 at age thirty-one, John Dean was Chief Minority Counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, the Associate Director of a law reform commission, and Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States. He served as Richard Nixon’s White House lawyer for a thousand days.
He did his undergraduate studies at Colgate University and the College of Wooster, with majors in English Literature and Political Science. He received a graduate fellowship from American University to study government and the presidency, before entering Georgetown University Law Center, where he received his JD in 1965.
John has long written on the subjects of law, government, and politics, and he recounted his days in the Nixon White House and Watergate in two books, Blind Ambition (1976) and Lost Honor (1982). He lives in Beverly Hills, California with his wife Maureen, and now devotes full time to writing and lecturing, having retired from his career as a private investment banker.
John Dean is stark raving mad.
If a conservative had accused a black man of these allegations the media would be going ballistic. A perfect example of the MSM’s double standard.
What’s he mean, did they Bork Fortas?
Oh yeah, the Democrats are sooooooooooooooooooo nice, that’s the ticket
Like Leon Panetta, he is part of the legacy of Richard M. Nixon. For that matter so is Julie “Obama” Eisenhower!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.