Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself from hearing cases on conservative issues?

[tulc]

Yeah, exactly, that hearing. You might want to place his remark in context, but then that wouldn't allow you to make another cute snarky comment.

You are turning into another Tulc. (emph. added)

Ohhh...my ears are burning!
tulc(prefers to think he's turning into another Nathan Poe)

 

[Gawron]

No, it isn't. It is easily demonstrated. Just look-up a few of the comments which have been made about Thomas by both black and white liberals since his nomination and appointment. Here is only one example:

The NAACP Has “No Comment” on Racist Remarks Leveled at Clarence Thomas

Quote:

Now the organization can claim the additional distinction of being hypocritical. It has refused to address racially charged comments leveled at black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by liberal protesters last month.

Source: The NAACP Has “No Comment” on Racist Remarks Leveled at Clarence Thomas « The Greenroom

Most of what I found concerning comments against Thomas I couldn't post because they would violate forum rules. Therefore, since I know some members here read everyone of my post with their mouse icon hovering over the report button, you will just have to look them up yourself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ohhh...my ears are burning!
tulc(prefers to think he's turning into another Nathan Poe)

You flatter me, tulc!
NP (who has an inexplicable craving for coffee right about now...)

 

[Douger]

Alright guys, Valentine's Day is over.

 

[Brak]

If Clarence Thomas' wife is involved in a case that appears before the Supreme Court, certainly he should recuse himself. That is a clear judicial standard that should be followed. But how did this turn into "Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all conservative issues"? Nice try.

 

[DaisyDay]

If Clarence Thomas' wife is involved in a case that appears before the Supreme Court, certainly he should recuse himself. That is a clear judicial standard that should be followed. But how did this turn into "Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from all conservative issues"? Nice try.

You're right, the title is a reach.

 

[tulc]

Alright guys, Valentine's Day is over.

It's ok Douger, you're still one of the prettiest ones here!
tulc(not Gawron pretty, but pretty none the less!)

 

[brindisi]

Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia 'Ginni' Thomas, has made a ton of money opposing the Affordable Health Care for America Act and other lobbying efforts (which, oops, he forgot to disclose going back about thirteen years). She has been a leader in the Tea Party movement; now she wants to be its ambassador.

Now, she has started her very own lobbying firm, hocking her "insider status" to the highest bidders.

Will this create a conflict of interest if her clients appear before the Supreme Court as plaintiffs, defendants or even advocates of one side?

Should Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself in any case Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare? Absolutely not!


It's long past the point of being business as usual politics when an administration already in contempt of court - Gulf drilling moratorium - and its sycophantic supporters show so unashamedly their lust for power at any cost. This is nothing other than Chicago politics writ large; don't even pretend trying to win by persuasion, just destroy opposition.

The Left’s attempt to Delegitimize the Supreme Court

On February 4, the New York Times fired the first salvo in the Left’s quest to delegitimize Justices of the Supreme Court in the runup to what is to be expected to be one of the premier cases of the early century; that of the health care bill. In an editorial they slanted the story on Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas so blatantly and dishonestly that they stepped over the line into base propaganda.

In the case of Justice Thomas, the demand has been made because of his wife’s outspoken opposition to the bill and her involvement in Tea Party activities. The pretext being used is that Justice Thomas did not disclose her employment at the conservative Heritage Foundation from 1998 to 2003 until recently, even though she is well-known in Washington

Justices Thomas and Scalia are well-known to be conservative, just as Justice Kagan is known to be more liberal. While Senator Hatch may have a point that Justice Kagan was a major party to the process of forming and passing the health care bill, the case against Justice Thomas first involves his wife, and second, is a pretext to delegitimize his participation in the decision. The case against Justice Scalia is even more specious, as the event where he was supposed to have violated his judicial ethics was attended by two of the most liberal members of Congress, who gave him a clean bill of health.

And that is the heart of the matter. The Left is doing its best to destroy those institutions which it opposes. This is not about the rule of law. It is about power and privilege. Intimidation, threats, deception and blackmail are the order of the day. We saw that with the passage of the health care bill on a scale that will keep the historians busy for decades. The Left wants tame courts and the ability to venue shop for them in order to pass any old thing they want. The use of executive orders and the regulation process are part and parcel of this process.

The system has been abused almost to the breaking point. Now one of the last unquestioned institutions has come under assault.

 

[Rocky1960]

Very well stated sir.

Should Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself in any case Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare? Absolutely not!


It's long past the point of being business as usual politics when an administration already in contempt of court - Gulf drilling moratorium - and its sycophantic supporters show so unashamedly their lust for power at any cost. This is nothing other than Chicago politics writ large; don't even pretend trying to win by persuasion, just destroy opposition.

The Left’s attempt to Delegitimize the Supreme Court

On February 4, the New York Times fired the first salvo in the Left’s quest to delegitimize Justices of the Supreme Court in the runup to what is to be expected to be one of the premier cases of the early century; that of the health care bill. In an editorial they slanted the story on Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas so blatantly and dishonestly that they stepped over the line into base propaganda.

In the case of Justice Thomas, the demand has been made because of his wife’s outspoken opposition to the bill and her involvement in Tea Party activities. The pretext being used is that Justice Thomas did not disclose her employment at the conservative Heritage Foundation from 1998 to 2003 until recently, even though she is well-known in Washington

Justices Thomas and Scalia are well-known to be conservative, just as Justice Kagan is known to be more liberal. While Senator Hatch may have a point that Justice Kagan was a major party to the process of forming and passing the health care bill, the case against Justice Thomas first involves his wife, and second, is a pretext to delegitimize his participation in the decision. The case against Justice Scalia is even more specious, as the event where he was supposed to have violated his judicial ethics was attended by two of the most liberal members of Congress, who gave him a clean bill of health.

And that is the heart of the matter. The Left is doing its best to destroy those institutions which it opposes. This is not about the rule of law. It is about power and privilege. Intimidation, threats, deception and blackmail are the order of the day. We saw that with the passage of the health care bill on a scale that will keep the historians busy for decades. The Left wants tame courts and the ability to venue shop for them in order to pass any old thing they want. The use of executive orders and the regulation process are part and parcel of this process.

The system has been abused almost to the breaking point. Now one of the last unquestioned institutions has come under assault.

 

[kermit]

Should Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself in any case Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare? Absolutely not!

So having a HUGE financial interest in killing "Obamacare" doesn't give Thomas a blantantly obvious conflict of interest? Judges regularly recuse themselves for far less. And dont' blame the "left" for this. If Thomas is so stupid to think that this will never come before the court and that his finacial ties wouldn't come up...well then maybe he doesn't deserve to serve on the bench.

This is not a left or right issue. This is about asking a justice with an obvious conflict of interest to recuse himself.

BTW, Sotomayer has recused herself from cases that she was involved with as Solicitor General.

 

[DaisyDay]

In the case of Justice Thomas, the demand has been made because of his wife’s outspoken opposition to the bill and her involvement in Tea Party activities. The pretext being used is that Justice Thomas did not disclose her employment at the conservative Heritage Foundation from 1998 to 2003 until recently, even though she is well-known in Washington

They got over $600,000 for her speaking out on the bill and other issues - which Thomas did not declare. Should he decide on an issue for which he has a financial interest?

 

[Gawron]

None of this is about the law, or justice, or conflict of interest. As stated before, all this is about is trying to destroy Thomas and get him off of the court, thus allowing Obama to appoint his replacement and flip the court. All the high-minded rhetoric is just a smoke screen.

 

[DaisyDay]

None of this is about the law, or justice, or conflict of interest. As stated before, all this is about is trying to destroy Thomas and get him off of the court, thus allowing Obama to appoint his replacement and flip the court. All the high-minded rhetoric is just a smoke screen.

All of this is about the law, justice and conflict of interest.

Asking him to recuse himself when certain issues and/or groups where he through his wife have a financial interest is standard practice. Recusal may be "kicking him off the bench" but only for defined and limited circumstance - he gets to come back when the case is over, undestroyed.

You throw accusations around very freely, Gawron, without backing it up. Do you deny that the Thomas family has been accepting money for advising and consulting with certain groups?

Nothing wrong with that - it's legal (although he was supposed to report it and didn't until he was caught out). However, should he recuse himself from hearing cases where he or his wife has advised one of the parties on how to proceed in the matter?

The virulence of your attacks on me for bringing this up indicates that this has you running scared. Do you think Thomas has already done something he ought not to have, that he didn't recuse himself when he should have?

 

[brindisi]

So having a HUGE financial interest in killing "Obamacare" doesn't give Thomas a blantantly obvious conflict of interest? Judges regularly recuse themselves for far less. And dont' blame the "left" for this. If Thomas is so stupid to think that this will never come before the court and that his finacial ties wouldn't come up...well then maybe he doesn't deserve to serve on the bench.

This is not a left or right issue. This is about asking a justice with an obvious conflict of interest to recuse himself.

BTW, Sotomayer has recused herself from cases that she was involved with as Solicitor General.

Sotomayer was directly involved in formulating policiy relating to the cases she recused herself fom. Clarence Thomas is not involved at all in formulating the policy either for or against this legislation. His wife has earned a few bucks in her work which s opposed to the legislation, but NO politician or spouse is apolitical.

It's pure fantasy to belief that Supreme Courst Justices and their families don't have lives that make them tangentially involved in almost anything you can name, which could then be claimed to be a conflict of interest. It does not mean that ANY justice, liberal or conservative, will corrupt this vote for some such involvement.

Are you seriously worried about a conflict of interest, or is your real concern that Thomas will vote against the legislation? Do you seriously believe that, given his conservative political views, if he had no wife at all that Thomas would suddenly find a way to consider this legislation constitutional? Be honest with yourself, this has nothing to do with a conflict of interest.

There is nothing anyone can do to force Thomas to either resign the court or recuse himself in this case. The liberals know this, but still persist in shrill denounciations just for their own political purposes. It's no different than sending dozens of ankle biters to constantly hound Sarah Palin, or turning loose the dogs of war against Joe the plumber becasue he had the audacity to speak against Obama's policies. It's the kind of vile, disgraceful behavior liberal find so easy to engage in, all the while pontificating about civility.

No, Justice Clarence Thomas should absolutely not recuse himself.

Keep Spouses Out of It -- Kevin Drum, Mother Jnes, February 9, 2011

Here's the latest jockeying for position on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law:

Seventy-four House Democrats have signed a letter to Clarence Thomas asking the Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of the national health care overhaul, arguing that his wife's work as a lobbyist creates "the appearance of a conflict of interest."
....The House Democrats' letter follows a suggestion made by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) last week that Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan should recuse herself from any consideration of the health care law's constitutionality because of her previous position as U.S. Solicitor General.
​

I get that this is mostly just rhetorical jousting, and I get that Democrats are mostly just responding to Hatch. Still, I think it's a bad idea to be making this argument. We really shouldn't be promoting either the idea that judges' spouses need to be apolitical creatures or that judges are responsible for what their spouses do. For starters, even in our current enlightened era it's a lot more likely for a male spouse to be politically active than a female spouse, which means this kind of argument hurts women a lot more than men. And if it's true of judges, why not members of Congress too? And legislators? And mayors?

If there's actual money involved, that's one thing. But it's pernicious to suggest that politicians or judges are acting badly if they're involved in legislation that's merely supported by their spouse. We should be beyond that by now.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by aisey Day:

"The virulence of your attacks on me"

I am sorry you see it that way, but I am not surprised by your characterization of my comments. People around here really need to lighten up, not every word posted by me or any other conservative is an attack, and far too often any disagreement and even fairly innocuous comments are responded to in a very uncivil manner.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Actually if his wife started a lobbying firm to oppose Obamacare, it would be in his best interest to leave the law in place so his wife can continue the lobbying. If he strikes it down, she won't have a job.

 

[kermit]

Are you seriously worried about a conflict of interest, or is your real concern that Thomas will vote against the legislation? Do you seriously believe that, given his conservative political views, if he had no wife at all that Thomas would suddenly find a way to consider this legislation constitutional? Be honest with yourself, this has nothing to do with a conflict of interest.

I am truly worried about a conflict of interest. He stands to financially gain hansomely if the law is overturned. His wife has made more speaking out against Obamacare than he has made sitting on the bench. I want justices to base decisions on the law and judicial philosophy (even judicial philosphies I disagree with) not their bank accounts.

If Justice Breyer's wife was being paid to speak a pro-gay marriage rallies I'd say that he should recuse himself from any cases involving gay issues.

 

[kermit]

Actually if his wife started a lobbying firm to oppose Obamacare, it would be in his best interest to leave the law in place so his wife can continue the lobbying. If he strikes it down, she won't have a job.

That's not making much of a case for an impartial jurist.

 

[jamesrwright3]

That's not making much of a case for an impartial jurist.

It is a case if you are trying to say he can't hear a case because he has a financial interest. His financial interest would be to keep the law alive.

 

[kermit]

Posted by aisey Day:

"The virulence of your attacks on me"

I am sorry you see it that way, but I am not surprised by your characterization of my comments. People around here really need to lighten up, not every word posted by me or any other conservative is an attack, and far too often any disagreement and even fairly innocuous comments are responded to in a very uncivil manner.

So you question the motivations of everyone who thinks Thomas should recuse himself on this case and you think that's not an attack?

If Thomas recuses himself could that change the outcome of the case? Maybe. But don't get mad at those who are pointing out the obvious conflict of interest, get mad at Thomas for creating the conflict of interest. His wife didn't have to speak at those rallies.