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

[DaisyDay]

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?

 

[variant]

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?

We all know Justice Thomas is a conservative.

No his wife should stop using his conservative celebrity status as a lobbying tool and thus remove the conflict of interest.

 

[DaisyDay]

It's a lot of money to give up.

While it is true that Thomas is a well-known conservative, since he has already profited ($700,000 over the years) from conservative groups, should he hear cases in which they are involved?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Thomas, together with Scalia, also attended the Koch Brothers' confidential bi-annual meetings at least once. Guests last year included Glenn Beck, the VP of the Chamber of Commerce and half a dozen oil company representatives. But hey, who are we to question the motives when some of the richest and most powerful people in the country convene to solve the US' problems and, after days of intense discussion, emerge from their luxury resorts to present a solution that just happens to benefit the rich and the powerful the most.

 

[PatrickM]

Wait, wait. You guys actually want impartial jurists on the SCOTUS??? Stop, you're killing me Smaltz!

 

[DaisyDay]

Wait, wait. You guys actually want impartial jurists on the SCOTUS??? Stop, you're killing me Smaltz!

If not actually impartial, at least not having a strong financial interest in the outcome.

 

[PatrickM]

If not actually impartial, at least not having a strong financial interest in the outcome.

Why's that a problem . . . unless said "strong financial interest in outcome" would make a jurist partial?

 

[DesertSky]

What's "hocking"?

 

[DaisyDay]

Why's that a problem . . . unless said "strong financial interest in outcome" would make a jurist partial?

Ok.

 

[DaisyDay]

Petition:
People For the American Way: Tell Justice Clarence Thomas to Recuse Himself!

 

[Gawron]

People have been trying to get Thomas off of the Supreme Court since before he even got on.

Lets get Clarence Thomas off the bench (and then some)!

Quote:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Falsified 20 Years Of Financial Disclosure Forms Help Us Hold Him Accountable–Sign Our Letters To Congress And The Department Of Justice

Source: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/lets-get-clarence-thomas-off-the-bench-and-then-some/

If successful, this would allow Obama to appoint the replacement, thus flipping the court. Thats what this is about.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

This all has some deeply troubling racial overtones, I think moderators should deal with the flagrant racism of the OP.

/bored

Sorry, but most cases where Clarence Thomas surprise people are just random ones that make no sense, Lawrence v Texas, the public school free speech one, etc.

So... yeah, the big fact aisy, seems so willing to ignore or is complicit in the lying, which ever is no excuse, the new thing she started is Liberty Consulting, which isn't even a a lobbyist firm, its for campaigns and her inside connections are not her husband, but people she meet because he's her husband. The only conflict of interest is if anything regarding any of these groups come to the Supreme Court.

So yes, I fail to see what is up with this witch hunt, because after all, its not a lobbyist firm, a consulting for Tea Party candidates for fund raising and connections.

Anyways, if Thomas recuses himself from the healthcare decisions, so should Kagan and Sotomayor.

In the end this is just another stupid attack on Thomas, Thomas' wife would better benefit from the law staying around instead of it being shot down because thats one of her groups main fundraising tools is the opposition to the health care law, he rules against the healthcare law and boom goes some funding, not more funding.

Oh yeah and just so you guys know if there is a 4-4 tie, you guys still lose because the lower court ruling will be upheld in that case, but it won't set a precedent.

 

[Gawron]

Pretty much. I also think it worthy of note that the libs are targetting the only black guy on the court. But then as stated, they have been targetting the guy since before he was nominated. And African-Americans have ignored the racism of the left on this, because Thomas went off the reseveration.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Pretty much. I also think it worthy of note that the libs are targetting the only black guy on the court. But then as stated, they have been targetting the guy since before he was nominated. And African-Americans have ignored the racism of the left on this, because Thomas went off the reseveration.

*Sigh* when will the Right ever stop playing the Race Card?

 

[Gawron]

You want to see the race card played, and to perfection, go back and watch the video of his confirmation hearings.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You want to see the race card played, and to perfection, go back and watch the video of his confirmation hearings.

You mean the ones where Thomas accused the Anita Hill hearings of being "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas"?

*Sigh* the Right and its Race Card -- will they ever be separated?

 

[Gawron]

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.

 

[DaisyDay]

This all has some deeply troubling racial overtones, I think moderators should deal with the flagrant racism of the OP.

Where is there any racism in the OP? The Thomas family is earning big bucks from lobbying and serving on boards of certain think tanks and as head of Tea Party committee which might present a conflict of interest. There is nothing, not one iota of racism in stating that fact.

Shame on you, GGG. It's almost as if you are contending that because Thomas is black that he is above any and all legitimate criticism. I think it is all too obvious who is being the racist here (hint: the person who brought race into the thread).

Anyways, if Thomas recuses himself from the healthcare decisions, so should Kagan and Sotomayor.

Why is that? What direct financial interest have they got in it?

In the end this is just another stupid attack on Thomas, Thomas' wife would better benefit from the law staying around instead of it being shot down because thats one of her groups main fundraising tools is the opposition to the health care law, he rules against the healthcare law and boom goes some funding, not more funding.

There is nothing stupid in pointing out financial conflict of interest. On the contrary, it is stupid to pretend it doesn't exist.

So... yeah, the big fact aisy, seems so willing to ignore or is complicit in the lying, which ever is no excuse, the new thing she started is Liberty Consulting, which isn't even a a lobbyist firm, its for campaigns and her inside connections are not her husband, but people she meet because he's her husband.

It is not a lie.

What do you think lobbying is?The only conflict of interest is if anything regarding any of these groups come to the Supreme Court.

Well, duh! What do you think the OP said?

 

[DaisyDay]

Pretty much. I also think it worthy of note that the libs are targetting the only black guy on the court. But then as stated, they have been targetting the guy since before he was nominated. And African-Americans have ignored the racism of the left on this, because Thomas went off the reseveration.

Do other justices have blatant conflicts of interest? Do you really think that Thomas, because he is black, is beyond any reproach, no matter what he and his wife do? What has his race got to do with his wife and him being deeply, profitably involved in lobbying for certain issues and his deciding on those issues? You seem to be arguing that his being black would excuse any behavior.

The issue is about his and his wife's financial involvement in issues that might come before the SCOTUS; there is nothing to do about his or his wife's race.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Pretty much. I also think it worthy of note that the libs are targetting the only black guy on the court. But then as stated, they have been targetting the guy since before he was nominated. And African-Americans have ignored the racism of the left on this, because Thomas went off the reseveration.

This is ridiculous.