Is there any better sign that Democrats are worried about the fight against ObamaCare then this trumped up call for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the proceedings?
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 move is the latest indication that the court battle over the health-care law’s constitutionality — which is expected to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court — has already become a political tit-for-tat.
“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,” the House Democrats wrote. “From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of health-care reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has ‘experience and connections’ and appeals to clients who want a particular decision — they want to overturn health-care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health-care reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.”
Ridiculous. None of the organizations she is affiliated with are involved in ANY of the lawsuits working their way through the courts. Additionally, the suits by the states are being argued by the Attorney Generals for each state…is a AG hiring her services? I think not.
It’s all a game of tit for tat because Republicans dared to suggest Justice Kagan should recuse herself. She was Solicitor General for the administration while ObamaCare was up in Congress for god’s sake. Did she provide legal advice to the Administration on getting this thing passed? Certainly a question mark but I expect the MSM to trumpet this Thomas story for a few reasons. It involves Clarence Thomas and they love to bash anything Clarence Thomas related, plus it deflects the Kagan issues. And you know how the MSM must provide cover for anything liberal.
I don’t want to hear anything about spouses until members of Congress are banned from both hiring ‘em, and meeting with lobbyists who employ them.
See author page
I believe that ANY Representative that Voted for that UN – Constitutional piece of Legislation should Resign Immediately and be forced to take a High School Level Course on the Enumerated Powers found in the Constitution or be subject to forfeiture of Pensions. Aw Shucks, just forfeit their pensions anyway if they Voted for it. Lets not get too darn technical on this. Immediate Resignation and Forfeiture anyway. They tried to put something over on the Founding Fathers and Authors of that grand document that limited Their Authority…to the woodshed with Em All!
That way they can leave in good conscience.
HAH!
It is appalling how they continue to ‘lynch’ this man! There has to be a point in which we all say ‘enough is enough’!
I know we can’t expect anything from the usual racehustlers, or the NAACP, but where is the rest of the black community? Are they all so brainwashed not to recognise this continue racial lynching of a good, decent, and intelligent human being?
All this letter will do is solidify Thomas’s position over the matter, which ever that may be. This letter is a joke, if they think they can alter a Justice’s ruling this way.
Technicaly speaking, isn’t this form of letter kinda a violation of the check and balances imposed by the Consitution where one branch of the Government can not attempt to manipulate another branch of Government’s processes?
I’m not an obsessive Supreme Court watcher, but I do know this from those who are:
Clarence Thomas is primarily one of the listeners, not one of the speakers during hearings.
He only rarely writes one side’s opinion.
Sometimes he writes a concurring opinion.
Everything he has written has relied on existing law, the Constitution for his stand, not his feelings.
So, I would not think he or his wife’s feelings are going to sway his or the rest of the court’s decision.
He, unlike the Democrats, uses his thoughts rather than his feelings to pin his decisions on.
They could take a lesson.
To start, this comment does weigh in on the constitutionality of the Health Care Reforms, only on the proposed recusal of Justice Thomas.
Responding firstly to Mr. Irons, the letter, which is only a request that Justice Thomas recuse himself, does not carry any legal force and in no way compromises the separation of powers. If a justice does not seem compelled to recuse themselves, despite there being good reason to, it falls to those party to a case to advise a recusal, therefore it is the obligation of the legislature to illustrate the Justice’s conflict as they are an involved party, having generated the legislation in question. In the event that a judge does not recuse themselves sua sponte, that is of their own motion, and a genuine conflict can be illustrated, that judge would be subjected to sanctions. Not heading the advice of the legislature could prove a damning error on the part of the Justice Thomas. These are not strong-arm tactics, simply good advice.
A justice recusing themselves because of a monetary conflict is a common reason provided in the event of a recusal. Justice O’Connor often recused herself from cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in such firms. Justice Breyer rescued himself from cases involving insurance companies because of his involvement with Lloyd’s of London. It is important to note that sua sponte recusals are not infrequent actions undertaken by responsible justices. The failure to do so is a dangerous thing. Justice Black’s refusal to recuse himself from the Jewell Ridge Coal case rent that court and possibly aggravated Chief Justice Stone literally to death. It is a mandate that in the event of a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, that a justice will recuse themselves, regardless of how sound minded they are. The failure to do so would incontrovertibly demonstrate a lack of integrity and legal priority.
While I have illustrated the necessity of recusal in the instance of a monetary conflict under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 455, It is important to illustrate why Justice Thomas’ wife’s involvement with the Heritage Foundation qualifies the justice for recusal. It is a veritable fact that Virginia Thomas received payment of at least, if not more than, $686,589 for services rendered unto the Heritage Foundation. She also founded Liberty Central. Central to both of these organizations is the repeal of President Obama’s Health Care Reform as unconstitutional. The Heritage Foundation’s website states that:
“The unmistakable conclusion of this series is that Obamacare must be fully repealed. Congress cannot build sound market-based health care reform on the flawed foundation of this health care law. Until it can be repealed, Congress must employ its full powers authorized by the Constitution to:
* De-fund the new law’s critical aspects
* Block any further provisions from going into effect
* Engage in aggressive oversight of Obamacare – its regulations and implementation.”
Furthermore the Heritage foundations mission statement is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” The successful implementation of theses formulated conservative public policy, such as the repeal of Health Care Reform, is imperative to the continuing financial stability, and indeed the very existence of the organization. Your only as good as what you accomplish after all. Seeing as how Mrs. Thomas is, and has been, playing a central part in the formulation of these proposed conservative policy strategies, and that she has made a profound personal investment by founding her own conservative organization, which itself seeks the dissolution of Obama’s Health Care Reform, the effective repeal is inextricable from her financial interests as her reputation is embroiled in the outcome. She is, after all, not working solely to satiate her conscious. And to suggest that a husband is unaffected by his the income of his wife is silly.
I am excited to read your responses. I am not affiliated with the democratic party and am a lifelong independent.
“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,”
Shouldn’t those in congress who are concerned about this going to the supreme court wait until there actually is a conflict of interest not just an “appearance” of a conflict of interest?
Today I am in Toledo Ohio waiting to fly home to Wisconsin and while the sun is out and it “appears” to be warm outside, stepping out of my hotel tells me it’s just a bit chilly out there.
Call me crazy for applying a simple persons logic to the situation but I think if there really is a problem, something more substantial than a letter with 75 signatures would be in motion to get the man off of the case.
As a country we need to be foucused on making sure we elect the right people to office that will at the very least dismantle this law, if not repeal it. It’s difficult for me to argue that there isn’t a problem with the health care industry but driving us into financial ruin with this law is not the solution.
@Bobachek: It is not customary to “put in motion” “something more substantial” to secure the recusal of a justice. It is a requisite that any responsible and legitimate judge self identify a conflict of interest and recuse themselves. Failing to do so compromises the fundamental integrity of their legal decisions making them a void opinion.
So his wife engaging in certain activities FOUR YEARS before the bill was passed means he should recuse himself? Riiiiiight.
The left is clutching at straws.
CW, then has Kagan done so as She was certainly in the loop on consultation due to Her Position as Counsel for the Current Regime? Or does this apply to Justice Thomas only? Is Recusal Objective or Selective?
It thus far appears to be Selective and Congress Folks appear to be abusing their Official Positions to influence an outcome that is very clearly not within their Venue as Members of the Legislative Branch.
As I recall there are Checks and Balances in play from the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution that both the Executive and Legislative Branches are more than a little confused on. Attempting to Influence the Outcome of a SCOTUS Case is not within the Scope of the Employment of either the Legislative or Executive Branches. This smells like Mischief, Meddling and Official Misconduct to me. A request for the Recusal of Justice Thomas and not one for Kagan gives Me that immediate impression. Subjective and not Objective.
Mr CW, you’re a troll- life long independent, what a pile of drivel! Your Bamster has 200 million in campaign money that’s not accounted for and will never be found, and he will never recuse himself from the Precendency. Ginny raised that money long before you turds attacked Clarence. He left your plantation a long time ago. Go back to Kiddie Kos you moron.
Nan,
I suggest that you watch the court. I had a polysci teacher about 40 years ago when I was a young liberal in college, and he kept talking about the supreme court and the power that they had seized. We studied several court cases in that class (and, at the time, I did not really appreciate why we studied court cases); but I do recall one Supreme Court decision saying one thing, and then, 20 years later, saying the exact opposite (which is, of course, what the teacher wanted us to see).
I will admit, I more or less believed this teacher about the excessive power of the Supreme Court, but did not think very much about it. However, from the late 1940’s and through much of my lifetime, the court has made significant changes in the structure of America, not the least of which is their attacks upon Christianity. Our public and private schools were founded with the idea of teaching people to be able to read the Bible. For about 175 years, the Bible was one of the principle textbooks in the schools. And, all of a sudden, there is this bogus “separation of church and state” which suddenly occurs, where the word “church” is actually changed in meaning to be “anything to do with Christian expression” (which is not the way it was used in the first amendment). Furthermore, separation was applied in only one direction. The state began to have increasing jurisdiction over the church and over expressions of faith (which is in complete opposition to the first amendment) and yet, in this concept of separation, there is nowhere that the church really has any authority over the state.
I highly recommend to you, or to anyone who has an interest in the relationship between church and state as per the courts and as per actual history to pick up David Barton’s DVD set on this topic (available through Wallbuilders or Amazon). We are not talking great and varied content or incredible production values, nor is he the most dynamic speaker in the world, but the content will just knock your socks off. Essentially, what the Supreme Court did, over the past few decades, was change history and then dramatically change the relationship between faith and the state based on a false interpretation of history. This is an eye-opening DVD set.
Anyway, George W’s lasting contribution to us is 2 constitutional scholars on the court, which is going to be the most significant thing that he did, and will stand for a long time, until a president replaces Kennedy.
@ CW
I don’t know what role Justice Thomas’ wife has on his decisions. So now the Justice’s have to keep their own interests in mind when it comes to recusal as well as those of their significant other. Interesting that you didn’t mention Justice Kagan though. She was part of the healthcare reform discussion while part of the administration. But she’s a liberal, so she’ll rule fairly while we all know Justice Thomas is a right wing whacko with no ability to think a case through clearly…right?
This was started by the very smarmy Anthony Weiner, a little worm that isn’t fit to kiss the hem of the robe Justice Thomas dons.
Oh my:
Orrin Hatch mentions Kagan but does not run all over Congress putting a partisan group together to demand she recuse:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-sit-health-care/story?id=12878346
Agreed that Thomas should not recuse himself, but the relatives of lawmakers and former lawmakers should be banned from acting as lobbyists.
It’s disgusting how the elite gorge themselves on our dime and the “conservaitves” don’t say boo about it.
Ivan…Please…I said more than BOO about it.
Hows your remedial reading program goin…Pardner?
But I can read above Your Level and I am NOT Party Affiliated.
@Old Trooper 2: Hi Old Trooper 2, that is a great question. Perhaps she should. The widely accepted reasons for a judge to recuse themselves are:
I. The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three degrees of kinship.
II. The judge is a party.
III. The judge is a material witness unless pleading purporting to make the Judge a party is false (determined by presiding judge, but see Substitution (law)).
IV. The judge has previously acted in the case in question as an attorney for a party, or participated in some other capacity.
V. The judge prepared any legal instrument (such as a contract or will) whose validity or construction is at issue.
VI. Appellate judge previously handled case as a trial judge.
VII. The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome. This particular ground varies by jurisdiction. Some require recusal if there is any interest at all in the outcome, while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain value.
VIII. The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially.
If her she participated in the construction of the legal document she could recuse herself for reason V, although this refers more to documents pertaining to the court, and not laws. Perhaps she could abstractly be seen as a party in the case, though she is not officially and will not become so. IV gives some basis, though, even if she did in-fact interact with the intellectual content of the law, no case existed at the time thereof. That is a big if though. By her own account she, “attended at least one meeting where the existence of the litigation was briefly mentioned, but none where any substantive discussion of the litigation occurred.” So it really falls to VIII, whether or not she considers herself impartial and it seems after consideration, she does not, nor can it be demonstrated that she is as no evidence ties her to the considerate manufacture of the law in question. On the other hand, Justice Thomas has proven financial ties to the case through his wife, and @Hard Right, there is no statute of limitations on matters corrupting impartiality. These are financial ties that he even failed to lawfully disclose at the onset for the dubious reason of ‘not understanding that he had to report his wife’s finances,’ which is a standard and well known practice for any judge. It is important to remember that Justice Breyer invested in Lloyd’s of London in 1985, a decade before taking the bench, and yet he continues to recuse himself from from certain cases involving the insurance industry as a whole, not just Lloyd’s.
Lastly Old Trooper 2, keep in mind the following details, Sen. Orrin Hatch advised Justice Kagan to recuse herself in the first case, just as Justice Thomas was advised, not requested or required to recuse himself. These statement amount to nothing more than advice. Of the gravest importance though is your fundamental misunderstanding of the role that Montesquieu’s checks and balances play in the U.S. Government, in terms of the separation of powers. Actions such as these are the execution of the checks and balances. Thats what it means. The bodies of government remain separate so as to check and balance one another such that none becomes supreme or abuses its powers. A justice failing to recuse themselves when a conflict exists is precisely the instance when the other two branches should, and indeed, must “meddle,” or rather check and balance it by remedying a corrupting factor that prohibits the lawful function thereof.
@Aqua: A husband and wife’s finances are one and the same. A person and their partner contribute to shared pool of equity which they use to do things like put their children through college or buy a house, expenditures of equal importance to both spouses. The precedent is clear on this one. If you are financially linked to the substance of a case, then you are impartial, and a spousal link is substantive in history and and law’s eyes. One’s integrity or record is not a factor. It is imperative that we never, ever, ever, ever trust any government official to always uphold their impartiality and the best interest of the people. They must be held always accountable. That’s why we have check and balances and the fourth estate, so that no one can get away with anything in an ideal world. As far a Justice Kagan, see my above response to Old Trooper 2 which addresses this. Thanks for the response!
There is no reason for Thomas to recuse himself–period. This IS nothing more than an attempt to get an outcome the dems favor. The left is desperate.
@Hard Right: I am very interested to read you argument for why Justice Thomas should not recuse him. I’m sure there are a great many things I have not yet considered and I would be grateful to you for illuminating those things. Thanks!
This is Weiner’s first volley shot to try to prevent the demands that Kagan recuse herself due to her position in constructing the Destroy Americas Health Care Bill, which the Dems know is coming.
But, let’s say that Weiner is right. Then, under his own guildlines, he should recuse himself from voting on any bill that deals with the Middle East, Islamic charities, or even the State Department, as Weiner (a Jew) is married to Huma Abidin, a Michigan born Muslim whose mother has returned to her native Saudi Arabia and who, after serving as Hillary’s body guard, currently works in the State Department. It is clear that Weiner (the little dick he is) thinks that a wife has unlimited powers to influence her husband and by that standard, Weiner violates his own rules.
@retire05: That’s a thought, although legislative abstention and judicial recusal are incomparable actions. This gets at the important issue of drastically reforming the lobbying industry, perhaps even abolishing it as it undermines and dilutes the clarity of legislative effect. Never-the-less, a congressional delegate is elected with the understanding that they will, first and foremost, give representation to their constituency, instead of national interest. Therefore they are not expected to operate with the same constitutional objectivity of a federal judge. The burden is not the same.
One of their problems is the fact his wife got paid by the Heritage Foundation 4 years before this bill was passed and didn’t mention it. Moot point especially since he wasn’t required to reveal this.
As for the other desperate claims (which are BS)
@Hard Right: The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal, requires, by law, that publc officials disclose their finances and lobbying activity, including that of spouses and dependent children. Hardly a moot point.
I’m sad you couldn’t make your own argument about this but I will address Aaron Worthing’s opinion piece, which mind you, is not a legal analysis but rather a series of strung together logical fallacies and generalizations which relies upon inflammatory, dramatic and unsupported allegations of sexism for impact, (in the debate business we consider this pretty desperate and indicative of a shoddy argument akin to a Reductio ad Hitlerum, or ‘reduction to Hitler,’ both of which are ad hominems, a false debate strategy which attacks the merit or substance of the debater instead of the issues. This is a fallacy and demonstrates nothing). The two substantive points are: 1). does a justice and their family have the right to maintain a public life and take an active role in political discourse, and 2). is the Thomas family financially linked to the repeal of the Health Care Reforms.
1. Yes, of course they do, but taking a role is discourse and being employed to manufacture discourse are separate things. The Heritage Foundation is not your run of the mill policy think tank. It is veritably a wellspring of conservative policy, the single most influential body of conservative talking points and strategy. They take an active role in physically devising and implementing conservative opinion and objectives. This goes far beyond Justice Ginsburg’s ties to the ACLU.
2. Do these ties represent a financial entanglement? Potentially. Remember, the appearance of a conflict is ethically sufficient to warrant a recusal. The appearance of conflict erodes the perception of a ruling’s validity and therefore the ruling itself. Understanding this, a justice is expected to recuse themselves to uphold the integrity of the court. Has every justice always done so? No. That doesn’t make it right though. In this instance, will the failure to recuse sua sponte result in sanctions, censure or even impeachment? Probably not. That is not the point though. The point is that justices have an obligation to the integrity of the court above personal integrity or feelings and especially self-perception. Beyond this, there may, in-fact, be a legitimate financial entanglement which would legally require Justice Thomas’ recusal, the failure of which could result in sanctions. Mrs. Thomas makes money from political strategy, as opposed to simply taking part in political discourse and activism. The effective perpetuation of her career is contingent upon the execution of key strategies, with none being more key than the repeal of these reforms. While she no longer is part of the Heritage Foundation, she is still a conservative political strategist. There you have. She has a financially vested interest in the outcome of the case. She has already benefited from the generation of strategy opposing health care reform (keep in mind that while the reform was only recently passed, indeed after her tenure with the Heritage Foundation, this is hardly a new issue and strategy relating to it has been gestating for decades.) The legal point is less sturdy than the ethical point, but he ethical point is perfectly valid and reason enough for recusal.
Obama has displayed a disrespect for Montesquieu’s system of checks and balances by ignoring two federal court rulings on Obama Care and Gulf Oil drilling. By ignoring the courts’ rulings Obama is destroying America’s faith in the system of checks and balances and places himself in contempt, a far more flagrant and immediate violation of the law than Justice Thomas’ considerations of his potential for recuse.
Since there are mainly two schools of political discourse and since Mrs Thomas is involved with the main source of Conservative theory, perhaps Justice Thomas should recuse himself from every decision that would pit Conservative theory against the Progressive Socialist theory.
@Old Trooper 2:
Piss off old man. I rarely read your pablum and this time was no exception.
@Skookum: Remember though that before Judge Roger Vinson and U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that the reform was unconstitutional, U.S. District Court Judges George Caram Steeh and Norman K. Moon ruled the opposite, rejecting all claims that the reform is either illegal or unconstitutional. That is not the substance of this debate though. I have at no point expressed my opinion about the reform, no do I intend to do so here as this is expressly a debate about whether or not Justice Tomas is legally or ethically obligated to recuse himself from the case, and if a letter from several congressional delegates compromises the separation of powers. Also, President Obama has not weighed in on the matter and therefore the ways in which he has or has not compromised either the systems of checks and balances or the separation of powers is not relevant to this discussion.
In response to your second post, legal decisions should be unbiased by political schools of though, instead being informed by schools of constitutional interpretation. Justice Thomas is a Textualist, meaning that he is informed by the absolute original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, as best as he is able to ascertain it. A justice that allows political bias to infiltrate their rulings would not be fit for service. Justice Thomas has not been accused of political bias, but a potential conflict of interest arising from financial entanglements.
Ivan you leave many of us wondering what brand of pablum you prefer. Your lack of erudition combined with an innate inability to communicate with cognitive expression makes you seem worse than just uncouth. There are many Liberal blogs that specialize in commentary with your brand of verbal thuggery; there you will be able to commiserate your misery and despair with others of similar disposition and elemental levels of lucidity. Trust that: “Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.” The Tempest II:2 and that you will be among those of whom you will find a likeness of spirit and purpose.
@Skookum:
What more needs to be said? Dear Lord, you guys go on and on and on, paragraph after paragraph when the point could be made in a matter of two or three sentences.
And verbal thuggery? Old man trooper started it. All I did was mention that perhaps we should have a system which lacks the nepostim which infects ours.
Notice you’re “OK” with Old Trooper starting on me. Whatever, they intellectual hypocricy on this board is not lost on the readers of this place.
And you have a problem with me mentioning that the king has no clothes.
Sorry CW, there is no legitimate reason for him to recuse himself. Who his wife worked for is moot. You can claim because it was the Heritage Foundation it makes a difference all you want. It doesn’t. This is not a political issue. It is a Constitutional issue. YOU say that her career depends on the repeal of these reforms but that is hardly the case. She won’t be losing her job or become unemployable from a failure to repeal and I’m pretty sure you know that.
I see no evidence she influences his decision and no one has offered such proof, nor that he would allow her 30 year career to affect his decision. In short, there is no “appearance of conflict”. Just those seeking to get a Conservative judge out of the equation in order to get the ruling they want. They tried a similar route earlier when Thomas took money for a speaking fee from a “big company”. It wasn’t a conflict in the Citizens United case and it isn’t one now for his wife to be a lobbyist. In fact, per the definitions in the Code of Judicial Conduct he isn’t required to recuse himself for what his wife does. Really, you don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
BTW, caught this gem:
“The Heritage Foundation is not your run of the mill policy think tank. It is veritably a wellspring of conservative policy, the single most influential body of conservative talking points and strategy. They take an active role in physically devising and implementing conservative opinion and objectives.This goes far beyond Justice Ginsburg’s ties to the ACLU.”
The fact you believe all of that tells me you are anything but an independent. Apparently a liberal lawyer has found their way to our site. Unfortunately for you this isn’t a courtroom and we can see through your tricks and outright BS.
And the opposite of a textualist is?
Is the role of a Supreme Court Justice not to interpret the Constitution and whether laws are Constitutional. Anything other than an absolute interpretation of the Constitution allows a Justice considerable freedom to interpret according to political theory, for there is a lack of fundamental discipline if the Constitution is allowed to be manipulated and interpreted according to the opportunity that is available to a president such as FDR to stock the court with New Deal Socialists in order to get the rulings he felt he needed based solely on political theory.
The rulings of the Federal Courts don’t allow a President’s interpretation of their rulings or is that another situation that has yet to be legislated. Whether the president pleads reasons for being in contempt or not has little bearing on being in contempt. You are either in contempt or not in contempt. As a Constitutional scholar, our president should be aware of the law and seek an injunction; instead he exasperates the violations or contempt by ignoring the rulings. May I remind you that you brought up the system of checks and balances that are written to keep any of our three sources of government from acquiring excessive power. Obama is ignoring the system and is overstepping the boundaries of the executive as defined by law. Unless he seeks an injunction he is in contempt; you know the law much better than an unlettered country horseman, so why do you try to dance away from the issue.
Justice Thomas will consider the possibility of recusal in his own time; meanwhile, our president is in contempt of court, not once, but twice and in the very unprofessional strategy of his administration, he ignores the situation. A weak strategy that only serves to cast a shadow of corruption on the federal court system and our government, in much the manner that AG Holder is using by refusing to cooperate with the Black Panther voter intimidation investigation. Unfortunately, these flagrant violations of the law don’t go away; there will be a day of justice.
Oh, by the way, CW; thanks for the tip concerning Heritage. I have never used them as a resource, sounds like they can enable us basic conservatives the opportunity to develop and advance our own concepts of Conservatism. They should prove to be an excellent resource and wellspring of Conservative theory.
@Old Trooper 2:
You’re right, I shouldn’t have said that. My apologies.
@Hard Right: I am not a lawyer, try again. Thank you for the compliment though. Furthermore, why do you believe being politically independent mandates conservatism? There is far more to the political spectrum that right and left. I feel underrepresented by sides of the aisle, but liberal, don’t bet on it. I have thus far expressed no political opinions, only legal and ethical ones. I’m sorry that I “found [my] way to [your] site.” I didn’t realize you intended this to be sanctum sanctroium of one sided venting. I hope every one else does not. I rarely ever post but I believed that I could learn a few things by discussing them with you here. I would never pretend to know or understand everything. Sadly, you continually resort to personal attacks, character judgments and unproductive obstinacy. What about a separate opinion frightens you? Why is a dissenting voice equated to “tricks and BS?” That you perpetually insert phrases like, “you don’t have much of a leg to stand on,” into your arguments betrays your insecurity. There is nothing finite about debate. There is no yes, no, right, wrong. These are incalculably complex issues. It is though discussion that we unearth more detail. Making resolute claims does not progress anything.
Back to the matter at hand. This is much more than a political or constitutional issue. You seem unable to grasp the superior code of ethics to which every justice is bound. It is a much higher burden than most any office. Perhaps this is why you cannot grasp that it is irrelevant how firm or disciplined a man he is, which I believe he is, it instead has everything to do with the ethical code. I have already stated that it may be very difficult to demonstrate a legally sanctionable conflict of interest but the appearance of one is still sufficient. I have a high opinion of each of the nine and am certain they can make a decision that precludes their bias in any event, but that is simply not how our system of government protects us citizens from itself.
Regarding your statement that, “In fact, per the definitions in the Code of Judicial Conduct he isn’t required to recuse himself for what his wife does,” I invite you to reread the document, as my “leg to stand on” is that it is clearly stated in The Guide to Judiciary Policy: Vol 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct Pt A: Code of Conduct: Cannon 3C: Disqualification: (1)(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
You can review The Guide to Judiciary Policy, (as it is called, not the Code of Judicial Conduct which is a state guideline), at:
http://www.uscourts.gov/rulesandpolicies/CodesOfConduct.aspx
You also seem to misunderstand Mrs. Thomas relationship to the outcome, or at least my presentation of it. No, she will not lose her job. Will she become unemployable? Again, no. The issue is that there exists a direct correlation between the repeal of a reform she professional opposes and the at the very least modest success of her career. It doesn’t have to a billion dollar issue. Any way you look at it, her having taken an active professional role in the political rejection of these reforms means that a modicum of her professional effectiveness is inextricable from the eventual court ruling. She looks professionally better or worse in depending on the outcome outcome, simply put. For the last time, does nay of this mean that she will actively solicit her husbands vote? No. Will Justice Thomas’ vote be corrupted by his wishes for his wife’s happiness and success? No. Does any of that matter. No. A verifiable link exists which the justice will hopefully contemplate.
@Nan G:
Everything he has written has relied on existing law, the Constitution for his stand, not ” his feelings”.
This is where you nailed it. The liberals are “feelings” people and that’s how they would “prefer” the SC Judges to rule, if they do have that capacity. Liberals do not want Rulings according to the LAW, rather they want rulings on FEELINGS. The reason were are in the Place we Now find ourselves. Stunning isn’t it?
@Skookum: Remember firstly that the U.S. Constitution does not inform us absolutely on every situation. For this reason the courts exist, to interpret and preside. For this reason amendments are passed, to clarify and amend. As far as Textualism. My explanation of Textualism was brief but if you have some time it is very interesting to read about the various school of constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence . The Constitution is a living document and it must be applied continually to situations far beyond the scope of the founder’s imagination which begets the need of legal philosophy. There is also Originalism which seeks the original, or intended meaning, instead of the Textualism, which seeks the ordinary meaning, that is the meaning most apparent from the words alone, excluding intention or context. This is only the start. None of this is about manipulation, it is simply that the law is very complicated and people view the way in which it is absolute differently.
As far as President Obama being in contempt of court, I can’t speak to that. In the issue I’m discussing, the legislative request for a recusal, the president is as of yet uninvolved. I believe that the original drill ban was lifted and that the second one was not contested. Then again, I really am not well studied on that case and do not wish to give the impression that I speak with authority on this matter. In terms of this case, two judges have upheld the law and two have not, therefore there is, as of yet, not reason to seek an injunction as the issue is pending. It is now a matter for the Supreme Court. I’m looking but I cannot seem to find a motion of contempt relating to the Health Care Reform repeal. Do you have a link?
I’m glad you have come to the conclusion that there is substantial enough reason for the justice to “consider the recusal in his own time.” This is of course how a recusal should occur.
Finally, on the voter intimidation investigation. I believe that investigation was dropped by the DOJ under the Bush administration before Holder took appointment. I seem to remember that the case was pursued almost solely by J Adams, and his allegations were largely dismissed by the Republican Party. Again, this is not an issue that I am well versed in and I do not wish to give the impression that I speak with authority of the matter.
@ CW
You owe me a new monitor. You said:
What does Ginny Thomas gain financially if ObamaCare is repealed? If the answer is nothing, the question of recusal is moot. I did a few searches, and I can’t find that she would gain anything.
I would be happy to explain this. But first, I did not say ethics in government, I cited the The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 which was enacted in response to the lapse of ethics made evident by President Nixon and the Watergate controversy. So indeed, as you imply, ethics in government or governance can seem sometimes few and far.
As far as gaining something, she gains a political and professional victory as a professional, not activist, opponent of health care. While many have erroneously dismissed the relevance of her work at the Heritage Foundation, Her very own lobbying organization, Liberty Central, whereat she serves as president and CEO, which I addressed a long time ago, has made the repeal of Health Care a central issue. Mrs. Thomas cannot claim to be unaware of the potential conflict for as soon as it became clear that her husband would eventually hear the case, Liberty Central scoured their website of her personal appeal for the repeal of the Health Care Reform, wherein she asserts that the reforms are unconstitutional. Liberty Central has also helped to organize rallies opposing Health Care Reform at the courts that have thus far ruled on the repeal. Aqua, if you were a lobbyist and the outcome for which you were lobbying was achieved, for instance a reduction in gun control, financially speaking, is that a good or bad thing for you? How does that affect your business, your credibility, your scope of influence and most importantly the action of your benefactors? If you failed, and it was decided that people can now only own hunting rifles, are people going to continue trusting you or funding you as a lobbyist?
All of this not-withstanding, I still believe the more important issue at hand is not whether Justice Thomas is liable for sanctions after the fact for ignoring what could be seen as a conflict of interest, but instead whether he considers it ethical to not recuse himself, and will he heed that ethical mandate central to the his wearing those robes.
Are these direct investment ties, or similar “financial ties” to that of the LA judge in the Gulf oil spill, CW? What specifics will you share with links?
There is little in our day and age, with most people vested in 401Ks, and portfolios in constant change, and conglomerates with muli-vested holdings, that don’t have some “financial ties” with some company, some where. However as a lobbyist, there is nothing I have seen that demonstrates there is a “financial tie”… unless, of course, you want any justice to recuse themselves who have a family member in the lobby industry as a “just in case”…
Then again, that type of mentality, or proven ties, never stopped Diane Feinstein from engaging in Chinese diplomacy suggestions or legislation affecting the Chinese economy, did it?
Really CW, who do you think you are fooling? You aren’t an independent. You are clearly a liberal.
You also seem to think you can play word games. Don’t say one thing then claim you meant something else.
You want to try and say I misunderstood what you meant. Wrong. I understood exactly what you meant. Failure to repeal the “reform” would hurt her career in a significant manner. That is your incorrect assumption. Your next assumption is that she would gain significantly. In the above example to Aqua you assume that people would stop giving money to him if things did not go the way his lobbying efforts wanted. Has it occured to you that the opposite could happen? That people concerned with firerams rights could actually start giving more money to lobbyists like Aqua to fight further erosion? Obviously not since you have built a house of cards trying to push the lie that Thomas needs to recuse himself. Once the issue of reform dies down due to a repeal, we could see LESS people give money to lobbyists in regards to healthcare.
As I have shown, your claims are unsupported speculation on the damage/boost that could happen to his wife’s career and what she stands to gain by a repeal.
You claim “Liberty Central scoured their website of her personal appeal for the repeal of the Health Care Reform…” You’ll excuse me if I want to see proof of this. I’m sure others here do too. Do you have a link?
BTW, you know she left LC back in Nov-Dec 2010, right? Gee, could that be why they removed anything from their site if they did so?
From the very link you posted, this is the part of the definition of the code that shows you are wrong about him having to recuse himself:
“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party.”
In other words what his wife is doing doesn’t constitute a conflict of interest.
@MataHarley: I suppose it did not. I mentioned earlier that judges do not always recuse themselves when they should, but that that is not a relevant precedent for conduct.
I also wrote about the the dissimilarity of the ethical burden for legislative abstention and judicial recusal. I also enumerated the ways in which a given decision works to the benefit or detriment of Mrs. Thomas professional interests, and financial interests thereby.
It is also key that she is more than just a lobbyist but in-fact the president and CEO of Liberty Central which amplifies the prospective cost or gain reliant upon the decision. I also want to stress that I do not mean to cast doubt on the rectitude and impartiality of the justice. I simply believe that judicial ethics are not something to be even marginally compromised, regardless of the context. You said “just in case,” I would go by ‘when in doubt…”
To address your question about how this compares to the issue of financial ties in question for nearly half of the involved LA judges, those are perhaps more direct. I’m not sure why you put that in quotations. The judges in question had personal, substantial investments in energy companies directly affected by the suits, the moratoriums and the events at hand. In those cases, the ruling had, or would have had an immediate financial repercussion on their personal portfolios. While the causal link is not as direct in the Thomas’ case I do not believe it is any less relevant when held against the stringent ethical burden applied to matters of conflict of interest.
The pull quote you included is from very early in the dialogue. Have you had a chance to peruse the entirety of everyone’s points? Let me know if you require further clarification on a point. As far as citations, I have included a few as I went, but here are some more for your pleasure (I cannot be sure this is comprehensive as much of acquired understanding of jurisprudence predates this issue and this conversation, but I am happy to support any facts or points that are not covered by these materials):
http://www.uscourts.gov/rulesandpolicies/CodesOfConduct.aspx
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sup_01_28.html
http://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/recusalresp10.pdf
http://www.ajs.org/ethics/eth_disqualification.asp
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/22/nation/la-na-virginia-thomas-20101022
http://www.libertycentral.org/tag/health-care
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/09/Justices-wife-heads-political-group/UPI-82471286642004/
http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/the-case-against-obamacare
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49166.html
http://lawyersusaonline.com/dcdicta/2010/04/28/breyer-recused-in-monsanto-critics-ask-why-didnt-thomas/
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202463163599&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
CW, must apologize for not having the time to do a more comprehensive reply… but a quick few obvious replies.
I don’t disagree about judicial behavior at all levels INRE appropriate moments of recusing in situations. I have, in personal experience, obtained a decision to recuse in a personal instance in superior courts. But all is relevant.
That’s’ interesting you say you have “enumerated” the financial “benefits” of Ms. Thomas without Justice Thomas having a direct business to pocket
book link you can document, CW. Yet, on the other hand, you insist that a portfolio of an LA justice that may include an instance of an oil associated comglomerate.. which you call “direct”… does, in fact, make those judges more culpable.
Let me say this to you. When Kagen argues a case on behalf of her employer/WH admin becomes less “direct” than a justice who has a diversified portfolio which they may, or not, know about as a subsidiary of their investments – nor is likely to make them any substantial windfall (as you ilk might like to pigeon hole) – I have to say you have a serious problem of what you consider “direct”. Kagen is a beeline to an adminstration and an agenda. The latter could be your local law enforcement officer’s 401K portfolio in action.
Big stretch by any means. Take that novice view to court, and watch yourself ushered out to the recorder, ready to toss more money into the system for a fruitless appeal. Hey.. it’s America. You can appeal all the way up to SCOTUS… even when you’re truly standing on shaky ground, as long as you have the cash.
I’m a bit busy, as I said above.. (and a lot of typing errors in my original thoughts to boot…. LOL) But I did scan thru all the comments. I don’t know what you think I missed perusing the entirety, as you say, that seems to demand further commentary. We can dump all your pretty words and attempt at legalese construct and cut to the chase on the issue at hand. You think Thomas is ensnared in a net because his wife… who is part of the lobby industry, but doesn’t get direct funds from O’healthcare issues that will appear in front of SCOTUS (the mandate and commerce clause)….should recuse himself. But you give Kagen a pass for direct arguments on this specific legislation and legal construct, on behalf off this administration.
Why don’t you “enumerate” why being opposed to O’healthcare is, in itself, a financial boondoggle and conflict of interest? That is, afterall, the argument you are making as an equivalent. Were you to hold any particular political stance as a harbinger for “conflict of interest”, we’d be in a world of sheeeeet indeed since there is no pure, harmonic type of belief for any individual, interest group, or corporation. Rather they blend in and out for different issues.
In other words, there wouldn’t be a judge who could sit on most cases without having someone like you screaming conflict of interest because their cousin’s cousin was employed by someone, somewhere.
Just who do you think you are kidding inbetween all those big words you like to bandy about?
I might also add that the 1978 EGA doesn’t criminalize assocation.. as our global investment world is these days. It does, however, cast a pall when you do not disclose. Disclosure is the key. However in Kagen’s case – far more heinous in “direct” conflict – disclosure doesn’t quite cover the serious conflict of interest. The woman was on payroll, and on record, pushing the very exact agenda. On the other hand, there are some distant, perhaps possible, portfolio investment links for the others. In the case of Ms. Thomas… well, you’d better provide something better than lip service and accusations.
You admit you are not a lawyer. My second guess is you’re a professor on some campus who’s never lived in the private sector world. Maybe your students buy your line. You’re gonna have to do better than that here.
CW the wannbe lawyer, I’d like to see you respond to the things below.
Exhibit a: “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party.”
The above was in Patterico’s link and the one you provided. You ignored it twice. Probably because it destroys your argument that what his wife does is an “apparent conflict of interest.”
Where is your proof that anything was deleted from Liberty Center’s website?
Where is your proof it was because of the SC case and/or not Ginni leaving?
“The Heritage Foundation is not your run of the mill policy think tank. It is veritably a wellspring of conservative policy, the single most influential body of conservative talking points and strategy. They take an active role in physically devising and implementing conservative opinion and objectives.This goes far beyond Justice Ginsburg’s ties to the ACLU.”
You mean you don’t believe what you posted? I noticed you didn’t directly address that either. Yet you wonder why you are called a liberal? It’s clear you don’t have much understanding on Conservatives.
@Hard Right: That is true, she recently founded Liberty Consulting, Inc. Although that only complicates maters as instead of heading the NPO Liberty Central, she now heads a for profit with identical motivations.
http://libertyinc.co/site/about
Here is the reference on the pulling of her statement from the website which I have already provided for MataHarley.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/22/nation/la-na-virginia-thomas-20101022
I still fail to see what my political identity has to do with anything. You’re obsessed! It’s a conspiracy to you. To make sweeping judgments about a person’s integrity based on labels is an ignorant thing to do and it results in a narrow experience. I am proud to enjoy the friendship of a politically diverse group of people. While I would not self identify as a liberal, plenty of independents would and indeed are independent because they are more liberal than the Democratic Party, for example anarchists, environmental activists, socialists, etc.
Back to jurisprudence. Sure there are lots of potential outcomes. The issue is that some of those potential outcomes would represent conflicts on interest. As I have endlessly repeated, the appearance of a conflict is substantial enough to warrant a judge to pose some ethical questions to themselves which often results in their sua sponte recusal. But keep in mind that your whole thing about the non-effect of donations is spurious as in the event that the Supreme Court rejected repealing the Heath Care Reforms outright, to continuing petitioning for such a repeal becomes pointless as it is impossible to overturn a Supreme Court decision until a similar case is heard by a new Supreme Court, typically a half century or more down the line, at which point they can at most reinterpret the previous decision. Precedence is law.
As far as “[saying] one thing then [claiming] you meant something else,” I have in these discussions attempted to satisfy a number of different degrees of burden to demonstrate a conflict in order to address separate concerns and opinions of separate people. My personal opinion is that the burden is very low and that it should not take that much of a conflict or the appearance thereof to make a judge wonder about how their participation reflects on the integrity of the court.
Your last point. I would like to know how she is not party to “any other interest that could be substantially affected.” It seems like conservative policy consultation represents a related interest.
It’s bed time now so that’s it for the day. Try to come up with something really good for tomorrow Hard Right. I look forward to it. A tip, try to stop focusing on the minutia as though you can erode everything away a brick at a time. Think bigger. Think about the jurisprudential precedent and the ethical precedent. What is mandatory and what is ethical? That’s the issue here. A judge, especially not a Supreme Court Justice, should, ideally, never have to be forced or directed to do anything. I hope beyond hope that Justice Thomas can recognize what is ethically accountable.
Minutia? Considering it guts the core of your argument, yes I will pay attention to it. Below is the definition of financial interest which you have avoided 3x now. How does Judge Thomas have a finacial interest?
“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party.”
You claimed LC scrubbed the website of her statements when the case was going to be heard by the courts. Too bad your LA Times story doesn’t support that.
Another quote from the US Gov link
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned
You certainly haven’t met the reasonable standard.
Now THIS would be reasonable:
Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii). The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. However, if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3C(1), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), the judge’s disqualification is required.
The link you are pushing is quite tenuous.
The fact you want such a weak link enforced for one and a significant one ignored for another makes me suspicious of your motives and you’ve given us plenty of reason to be that way, phony “Independent.” You see, when you claim to be something you are not, that goes to your credibility… or lack thereof.
Clearance Thomas would be voting that Obamacare is unconstitutional regardless of where his wife works. She could be a cashier at Wal-Mart and he would still vote the same way just like Kagan will most likely vote that the bill is constitutional even if she wasn’t Solicitor General. One justice believes in the Constitution and its original intent, the other does not. Those 74 House dems who suggested Thomas recuse himself were doing so in order to tilt the vote in their favor. For them to suggest otherwise shows they consider us to be idiots.
If the link was more direct or significant, I could say they have a point about Thomas needing to recuse himself, but folks like CW are taking the standard to such extremes no one could ever meet them.
Like I have said, this is nothing more than a ploy by dems to tilt the playing field in their favor.
Hmmm. Let’s see if CW comes back now that we have his number…
FORGET OPINION AND LOOK AT THE LAW!
Clarence Thomas has a LONG HISTORY of violating his duties as a Supreme Court justice by not recusing himself from numerous cases where he had MAJOR conflicts of interest. Of course, Thomas is NOT the only justice who has, and continues not to recuse himself from cases where there are obvious conflicts of interest – most notably the case in which (for a moment let’s skip over the fact that the Supreme Court had no right to rule on the following case) the Rehnquist Supreme Court appointed Bush president of the United States.
At minimum there were 2 judges who should have recused themselves (Clarence Thomas who’s wife worked on Bush’s election campaign and William Rehnquist who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Reagan who’s vice-president was Bush’s dad) in this 5-4 decision in favor of Bush over Gore!!! The 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States passed on March 2, 1932, far before William Rehnquist ever stepped foot into a law school, details that the then current CONGRESS – NOT the SUPREME COURT – may declare who shall then act as president if no candidate qualified through election to become president due to whatever reason (in this case the State of Florida (purposely?) holding up the full recount of ballots). Since the Rehnquist Supreme Court illegally took more power and authority then allowed for as Supreme Court justices, all of the justices who allowed for this case to even be heard by them should have been impeached and sentenced to jail time for their criminal offences! Convicted government officials, including Supreme Court justices, by law must then removed from their offices immediately!
Had CONGRESS chosen to place Bush in the presidency then his presidency would have been LEGAL. LEGALLY any laws passed under the Bush administration from 2000-2004 should be invalidated since he wasn’t LEGALLY appointed to the presidency! And what kind of nation is the United States where presidential appointed Supreme Court justices choose the president – it is a near authoritarian government – SIMILAR TO THE NEAR AUTHORITARIAN TYPE OF GOVERNMENT THAT MUBARAK PLACED EGYPT UNDER DURING HIS RULE!!!
Obviously justices such as Thomas don’t care what their LEGAL responsibilities are and continue to violate the law. Therefore, congress MUST impeach Clarence Thomas and ANY other justices who do not recuse themselves from cases in which they have major conflicts of interests! Thomas and numerous other justices have been given many chances to handle these situations properly and recuse themselves yet these same so-called “justices” continue to violate their duties and rule on cases where they should not! I’m tired of waiting for Clarence Thomas to do the right thing! IMPEACH THOMAS and other justices that violate their duties NOW; hold the criminal trial proceedings and get them out of office!