Compromised Justice

-->
Obama Administration, Supreme Court

Having just spent way too much time this afternoon explaining to one of our drive-by teabaggers why Judge Roger Vinson doesn’t know the Constitution from his own ass, I was delighted to see that some Dems already are calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself if the constitutionality of health care reform is decided by the SCOTUS.

Why? Because the Justice’s wife is a lobbyist working against the health care reform act. Duh.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and 72 other colleagues wrote Thomas on Wednesday to ask him to sit out any Supreme Court review of President Obama’s healthcare law, citing the work by Thomas’s wife on behalf of efforts opposing that healthcare law.

“As members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” the Democrats wrote. “We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch has called for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from health care reform cases because she worked in the Obama administration as solicitor general. It seems to me that Justice Thomas is way more compromised on this issue, though, because he currently enjoys financial gain from his wife’s political activities. He might as well be taking direct bribes from the groups fighting the reform law.

And based on some of his past decisions, Justice Thomas’s vote will most likely be against constitutionality.

Share
21 Comments

21 Comments

  1. moonbat  •  Feb 9, 2011 @5:26 pm

    It’s about time Thomas got called out on this. I guess the Dems were waiting for clear, unambiguous case to confront him with.

  2. Swami  •  Feb 9, 2011 @5:42 pm

    No problem! Just give Clarence a bunch of skin flicks and a hand towel, and put him in a private room with a six pack of Coca Cola while deliberations are going on and he’ll be more than happy to recuse himself.

  3. Swami  •  Feb 9, 2011 @5:49 pm

    Rep. Anthony Weiner has got to have a rock in his head if he thinks it’s possible to ‘maintain the integrity of the court”.. That train has already left the station…and I think Clarence was the engineer.

  4. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 9, 2011 @7:04 pm

    I’ve always been for Affirmative Action, but I gotta admit, Clarence Thomas was the worst Affirmative Action hire in history.
    I remember laughing out loud when he was nominated, and we were told he was the best available candidate. Poor Thurgood Marshall, to have this pitiful example of a “jurist” replace him on the SCOTUS.
    He’s a mental pipsqueek, and I hope to Hell he’s henpecked at home by that savage feral bitch, Ginny.
    And I wish Anita Hill had called her back and told her, ‘Go Cheney yourself!’

  5. khughes1963  •  Feb 9, 2011 @7:10 pm

    Somehow, I think Thomas will not recuse himself, and no one will hold him legally or judicially accountable for failing to do so.

  6. uncledad  •  Feb 9, 2011 @7:32 pm

    “Sen. Orrin Hatch has called for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from health care reform cases because she worked in the Obama administration as solicitor general”

    Well that’s about the silliest thing I’ve herd lately. By Hatch’s logic she’ll have to recuse herself until Obama is out of office.

    “He’s a mental pipsqueek, and I hope to Hell he’s henpecked at home by that savage feral bitch, Ginny”

    Gulag, there’s a scene in the soprano’s where Tony’s little sister satisfies a particular fetish of her then boyfriend, I’ll bet there is a lot of that going on in the Thomas household!

  7. Swami  •  Feb 9, 2011 @8:09 pm

    “He’s a mental pipsqueek, and I hope to Hell he’s henpecked at home by that savage feral bitch, Ginny”

    Clarence does what Clarence is told because if Clarence doesn’t… Clarence don’t get no sugar….And Clarence done loves his sugar!

  8. maha  •  Feb 9, 2011 @8:47 pm

    Let’s watch the language, troops. It’s getting a bit raunchy.

  9. Linda  •  Feb 9, 2011 @9:35 pm

    Drive by teabagger. That’s a new one, ha.

  10. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 10, 2011 @8:43 am

    My bad!

  11. joanr16  •  Feb 10, 2011 @10:09 am

    Linda wants attention.

    I waded through her previous comments and found a swamp of muddled concepts, reasoning based on “because I think so,” and zero linkage. We’ve mentioned before on this site that one’s opinion doesn’t constitute evidence. To persist against that is to waste everyone’s time, including one’s own.

  12. jpe  •  Feb 10, 2011 @10:13 am

    That a judge’s spouse might support a particular ruling isn’t grounds for recusal. As Judge Reinhart noted:

    Proponents’ contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife’s
    opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between
    spouses.

    As Reinhart went on to note, claims of financial gain of this sort are “highly unreasonable and speculative.” Maybe Thomas would gain from a victory, but it’s equally plausible that she gains if the act is sustained (since overturning the law would require legislative action and, therefore, more lobbying expense).

  13. jpe  •  Feb 10, 2011 @10:19 am

    And based on some of his past decisions, Justice Thomas’s vote will most likely be against constitutionality.

    Reinhart’s opinion spoke to that, too. The gist was, “you know how I’m going to rule already, so no reasonable person could think I’d vote differently if my wife weren’t in politics.” Applies mutatis mutandis to Thomas.

  14. maha  •  Feb 10, 2011 @11:06 am

    jpe — Interestingly, Judge Reinhart’s reasons for not recusing himself were dismissed as absurd across right-wing media. And as much as I dislike Prop 8, I’m not sure I agree with Reinhardt’s reasoning, either. But in regard to Thomas, the financial gain link is even more direct. Ginny Thomas is taking money from people who oppose health care reform mostly because they have a vested interest in the status quo. On the other hand, the ACLU’s positions, which are not limited to gay rights, are based on political philosophy not financial gain.

    Judges have recused themselves from cases for a lot less.

  15. maha  •  Feb 10, 2011 @11:08 am

    joan

    Whenever I find myself trying to explain something to someone who is determined to not understand it, I remember this bit from King of the Hill.

    King of the Hill overall wasn’t that good, IMO, but this bit was one of the most brilliant things I ever saw on television.

    But, yeah, this is a huge waste of time. It wouldn’t matter if I conjured the ghost of Alexander Hamilton himself to explain it to her; she’s not going to get it, because her political views won’t let her get it. So she’s in the moderation queue.

  16. Mike G  •  Feb 10, 2011 @4:22 pm

    And based on some of his past decisions, Justice Thomas’s vote will most likely be against constitutionality.

    Based on all of his past decisions, Thomas’ vote on any topic will be for authoritarianism, corporations and the rich, and screwing the poor or powerless.

  17. Swami  •  Feb 10, 2011 @5:08 pm

    And based on some of his past decisions, Justice Thomas’s vote will most likely be against constitutionality.

    It’ll be whatever Scalia tells him it’s gonna be. Clarence hasn’t established himself as a heavyweight legal mind as of yet, so he’ll still be hiding in the shadow of one of the courts more assertive conservatives.

  18. maha  •  Feb 10, 2011 @5:54 pm

    It’ll be whatever Scalia tells him it’s gonna be.

    Once in a blue moon Thomas actually has a different opinion from Scalia. When he does, though, he’s usually more corporatist and more “originalist” than Scalia is, whicih is saying something.

  19. tom b  •  Feb 10, 2011 @8:00 pm

    I just hope this nonsense is all thrown out BEFORE the SCOTUS gets involved. Give them a choice of the Constitution or lining their pockets, they take line their pockets every time.

  20. Swami  •  Feb 13, 2011 @5:44 pm

    It’s better to be silent and be thought ignorant then to speak and remove all doubt!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimespolitics&seid=auto

  21. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 13, 2011 @7:21 pm

    Swami,
    I have some grudging respect for a man who realizes that he brings nothing to table, and is probably too stupid to give and be able to back up an opinion, and keeps his f*cking mouth shut.
    Would that there were more people like that.
    Just not on the SCOTUS!



    About this blog



    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    The Mahablog

    ↑ Grab this Headline Animator



    Support This Site





    site design and daughterly goodness

    eXTReMe Tracker












      Technorati Profile