Technically there is nothing illegal about this. However, the impropriety of the obvious conflicts of interest that arise here is unprecedented.
As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the "tea party" movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.
"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama’s "hard-left agenda."
But Thomas is no ordinary activist.
She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.
In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., [Teabaggers delinked] a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.
The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources — including corporations — as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.
"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."
The move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation’s highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day.
Justice Thomas, 61, recently expressed sensitivity to such concerns, telling law students in Florida that he doesn’t attend the State of the Union because it is "so partisan." Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, has been a reliable conservative vote since he joined the court in 1991.
Experts say Virginia Thomas’ work doesn’t violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses. The couple have been married since 1987.
"I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics," said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. "Scot" Powe, a court historian.
He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. "I really don’t know because we’ve never seen it," Powe said.
Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage.
"We expect the justice to make decisions uninfluenced by the political or legal preferences of his or her spouse," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics.
Virginia Thomas declined to comment in detail about her plans for LibertyCentral.org, which she said would fully launch in May. In a brief phone interview, she did not directly answer questions about whether she and her husband had discussed the effects her role might have on perceptions of his impartiality.
"I don’t involve myself in litigation. Are you asking that because there’s a different standard for conservatives? Did you ask Ed Rendell that question?" she said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is married to a federal appellate court judge.
Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. Dick Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <LA Times>
Perhaps she won’t influence Thomas’ decisions to much of an extent, because he always votes with the activist Roberts, Scalia, Scalito block, extreme ideologues intent on dismantling what’s left of the Bill of Rights, the civil liberties of the poor and middle classes, and economic equality of opportunity.
Why couldn’t the Senate have paid more attention to Anita Hill?!!? 😡
22 Responses to “Teabuggery Reaches the Extreme Court”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m a bit concerned about making an issue of this. Should a citizen be expected to give up political activism if his or her spouse is appointed to the Supreme Court? What about, say, an abortion-rights activist whose spouse was appointed to the Court? What about lower appeals courts?
It’s certainly possible that Ms. Thomas’s political views might influence her husband’s rulings, but would that become less likely if she were not politically active? Arguably it would be come more likely. She’d still have the same political views.
Infidel makes a valid point. I do think Ms Thomas has every right to take her political actions and to make her politics known. Good for her. We enjoy this right by the margin of liberalism and it’s conceptive quality in our national origins. What is important here is that she “seems” to be underlining her husbands’ politics and who knows what the ultimate ramifications of that might be … considering the amount of effort being quietly undertaken right now to reverse the SCOTUS decision concerning corp. finance of the electorial process. I think this conservative decision is going to bite these justices’ in the ass… in time. Seriously biten…
Gwen, I agree. But in any case thet comes up involving teabuggery, he should recuse himself.
Infidel, I’m not really making an issue of it per se, but you make a valid point. I wasn’t calling for action. I was pointing out just how extreme SCOTUS has become with teabuggery on the bench.
I think this whole thing will blow up in Ginni’s face. An appellate court judge is one thing – but the Supremes? I don’t think it’ll fly.
It will fly, Lisa. There is no law against it. It’s just sickening.
A Supreme Court that can install a “Manchurian Candidate” can’t be all bad!
I’m with old Play Dough and his toy Republic. Double the membership of the Supreme Court so at least one or two will not be corrupt.
Ivan, that would require an act of Congress. Enter the filibastards.
I wonder what Johnny “Cry Me A River” Roberts thinks of it? He who thinks they should all have such independence they shouldn’t even attend the State of the Union Address.
Sky, Roberts and Scalito were guilty of a major breech of decorum. He still resents being called on his partisan judicial activism.
I recall watching the Anita Hill hearings, and I will never forgive a couple of senators who were so very harsh with her. Look at the fine mess we have with Clarence? I think she had stepped across a line here. Citizen patriots indeed! What a bunch of balony!
Sherry, I agree. We have an unrehabilitated criminal on the Extreme Court. The problem is that the line is one of decency, not law.
Now who in the world is any more “partisan” than Clarence Thomas? And now that sneaky little liar is going to have his wife engage in his political machinations by proxy? What a load of bull! It’s typical, though: you can never trust a right-winger to play by the rules or act ethically. They will say or do virtually anything to get what they want. IMPEACH CLARENCE THOMAS!
Jack, I wish this gave us legal cause to do so. It does not.
Sure, she’s free to yammer any number of lies. But that “I’m just a lil ol housewife from Omaha” is just so much bullshit. At least she should make clear that she’s ready and willing to attempt to corrupt the Supreme Court via withholding of sex (or whatever).
I still believe Anita Hill. Thomas is a disaster, but every conservative on the court is a disaster in their outright, blatant partisanship.
Corporations as citizens. Sheesh. Show me their birth certificates!
Marva, what a comeback!! LOL!! I have to steal that one!! 😀
There’s another aspect of this story. The involvement of a long time political insider like Virginia Thomas is an example of the Astroturf nature of the whole teabagging thing.
Libhomo, that’s an excellent point. Did you know that the RNC provided the sinage for today’s demonstration in DC?
The woman may have a right to say anything she pleases but there is a potential conflict of interest here. He should resign.
Although this really doesn’t have anything to do with this particular situation, he’s a rotten jurrist whose own colleagues say is lazy and doesn’t do his homework. Another token like M Steele.
And yes, Anita Hill was treated like a whore – very similar to how women used to be treated when they had been raped.
Tnlib, he certainly should. All he does is goose step behind his Fuhrer, Scalia. The Republicans wanted a black man on the court to replace Marshall. I have no problem with that. I look forward to our first gay justice. The problem is that GOP policies are so racially inequitable that the only black people supporting them are incompetents seeking token appointments, like Steele.
including corporations — as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.
This is something that’s bugging me. What motivated the Supreme Court to do this, i.e., loosen campaign finance rules?
Anna, one member of the Court is very conservative. Four more are extreme right wing ideologues. They were motivated by their activist agenda to give corporations more rights than people.