Posted on 10/08/2011 11:04:57 AM PDT by South40
Forty-six House Democrats have joined forces this week to ask the chamber's Judiciary Committee to investigate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for ethics violations. The Democratic lawmakers' complaint argues that reports of Thomas' actions--including those related to the high-profile political activism of his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas--have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
"Public records clearly demonstrate that Justice Thomas has failed to accurately disclose information concerning the income and employment status of his wife, as required by law," Democrats led by Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter (pdf) Wednesday to leaders of the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats also question whether Thomas accurately reported gifts and inappropriately solicited donations.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I think this is all about 10th Amendment issues relating to ObamaCare and the Commerce Clause. Thomas will sway the Court if the Dims cannot force him to recuse himself. That is the primary goal of all this.
Thomas is also the best friend we have on the Court regarding 2nd Amendment issues and has influenced the Court favorably in favor of gun rights.
They did -- back in 1998.
I'm still waiting for the trial of Maxine Waters.
Funny how their side never has to follow ‘illegal’ laws, but our side must always follow any law even those struck down by the Supreme Court.
What the Democrats are accomplishing is undermining the rule of law. Either there is a law and everyone follows or there are no laws.
Note to Libs, I can operate in either environment, can you?
The Dems have passed so many laws that it’s impossible to avoid violating some law. This is one of those laws. There is no motive that Thomas would have for violating this law. He did not profit from it. It was simply a mistake. But because the Democrats don’t like him, they find some obscure law he’s violated and try to use that against him. It’s reminiscent of Atlas Shrugs.
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}
If Republicans will not defend Thomas (which they SHOULD; but they’ll leave it to talk radio as usual), then they had better get Kagan to recuse herself...she ARGUED Obamacare, for cryin’ out loud.
But even if she doesn’t recuse and Thomas does-—won’t a 4/4 ruling still allow the appeals court decision (that Obamacare is unconstitutional) to stand?
Of course, once again it all comes down to Anthony Kennedy.
Wouldn’t it be nice if Democrats investigated the very outrageous subjects they are trying to distract America from, Fast and Furious and several other serious White House infractions?
And what about the huge profits made feom government to the husbands of Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi?
There is absolutely no reason for Justice Thomas to recuse himself. However, there is ample reason for Kagan to recuse herself. In fact, she is so closely tied with the President; she should not be on the Court.
“Exactly. Were Thomas gone, the best they could hope for would be a 4-4 vote.”
Are you counting on Kennedy voting with conservatives?
That is a far from safe bet.
I wonder how they feel about a Secretary of the Treasury that can't file his taxes properly?
From Atlas Shrugged:
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against . . . We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” — Floyd Ferris, Director of the State Science Institute
Get out of my head! Geez, third post.
the rats have again open the door for the GOP to point out the next ending hypocrisy of the rats whether it be rangel or kagan...lets see what they do- i am not expecting much...
FRIGGIN RACISTS!!!
They only attack him because he’s Black.
Democrats would never go after a White Justice like this.
Well, not unless he were also conservative
traction is not the point- the utter hypocrisy of these d-bags and the coverage they get while the GOP sits on their hands is bothersome...
Husband?
I thought Bwahney Fwhank had an A-hole???
I could be wrong...
It sounds as though the commie left is starting to worry about Barry’s CommieCare fiasco. They’re going to go after “the black guy” who refused to stay on their plantation. Americans need to start burning down the phone lines in Washington and tell the buffoons to knock this crap off. We don’t want their communist “healthcare” scheme. Let’s put the Post Office back to work with letters.
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.