Another case of AWB- adjudicating while black.
Well, no one ever accused Dean of being a brain surgeon...
If Dean really wanted to do some good (which I will never believe), he would address the the fact that Kagan is infinitely unqualified to be there.
John was never a good lawyer nor does he work well with others.
After scanning the article I was surprised to see that Dean wants him thrown off for ethical lapses. Why bother to engage in an ‘electronic lynching’? His friends are the party of rope lynching. Why doesn’t he just call for a straight out lynching?
Interesting that Mrs. Dean has no interest whatsoever in Elena Kagan’s “violations of ethical conduct.”
Watergate was all about John Dean grabbing records that proved his wife was a former call girl. The DNC office that was the supposed target, was on the other side of the build from where the break in occurred. Dean lied to the “plumbers” and to Nixon about the nature of the “mission”.
Defending yourself against this one isn't hard. "I am not going to take serious the rantings of a criminal."
Gee, this guy sho did spew a bunch of venom and slobber, only to arrive at a rather logical conclusion.
JOHN DEAN...the same John DEAN that masterminded the Watergate Breakin to find the Dum prostitute book with his wifes name in it.(IMO ofcourse) THAT JOHN DEAN!!
OFGS. PULL this sucker.
------------------------------------------
"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.
Nixon should have known how to get rid of John Dean.
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.”
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
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.