Damn those activist judges' wives.
QuoteWife of Justice Thomas starts group for 'citizen activists'
By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 16, 2010; A03
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia3.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Fphoto%2F2010%2F03%2F15%2FPH2010031504060.jpg&hash=69dac6f8aed20efe2b42b5ff98fb3a3850217de7)
Into the heightened political atmosphere between the Supreme Court and the Obama administration comes now Virginia Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who is founder of a new nonprofit lobbying and political-organizing group catering to the "citizen activists" of the "tea party" movement.
Virginia "Ginni" Thomas says Liberty Central Inc. will educate motivated citizens to "preserve freedom and reaffirm the core founding principles," according to the group's Web site, and will serve as a way for concerned Americans to "make a difference in the fight for liberty and against the liberal Washington agenda."
Virginia Thomas did not return calls on Monday. But she said in an interview with a conservative blogger at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee last month that she had left her job working for a small college because of her concern that the country is off-track.
"We've got to get the Constitution back to a place where it means something . . . or we're headed for tyranny," she told blogger Ed Morrissey.
Thomas's group was founded in January and she promoted it at the CPAC convention. But it was not until this past weekend, after a story in the Los Angeles Times, that awareness of the new organization prompted a debate about the involvement of a justice's spouse in a political movement.
It comes at a time of increased sensitivity between the White House and congressional Democrats on one side and the court's conservative majority on the other. It started with President Obama's unusually blunt criticism of the court during his State of the Union address, when he lambasted the court's 5 to 4 ruling that gave corporations and unions greater leeway to use their general treasuries to buy ads for and against political candidates.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said last week that Obama's use of the address to criticize the court -- six of the nine black-robed justices were at the front of the House chamber -- was "very troubling." Roberts questioned whether the court should continue to attend what he described as a "political pep rally."
The White House responded with a renewed broadside, and Obama has said he was working with Congress to try to temper the effects of the decision, which he said would allow special interests to bankroll American elections.
A court spokeswoman said Justice Thomas would not comment on his wife's new endeavor or how he might recuse himself should a conflict arise.
Justices make their own decisions about removing themselves from cases and usually do not explain why. Most typically, they recuse themselves when they have a financial interest in an issue before them, or when a decision could affect a family member.
Sue Hamblen, Liberty Central's national coordinator, said Virginia Thomas met with ethics officials for the federal courts and was told her work "was in no way a conflict of interest."
"She did not give up her First Amendment rights when her husband became a Supreme Court judge," Hamblen said.
Hamblen said that the group is nonpartisan and does not intend to make endorsements in political campaigns but that it will issue "scorecards" ranking candidates on conservative issues.
"We are very seriously not Republican or Democrat; we are conservative," Hamblen said. "Our intent is to remain nonpolitical except in terms of furthering the core principles of the founding fathers."
Liberty Central, which is organized as a nonprofit, is free to raise unlimited amounts of money and is generally not required to disclose its donors. Hamblen said the group has "received a lot of donations over the last couple days," mostly from small donors.
Hamblen said the group is not formally affiliated with the conservative "tea party" groups that have sprouted across the nation over the past year to protest the Obama administration's fiscal policies. The group conducted a joint online poll in January with one of the largest such groups, Tea Party Patriots, whose leaders also issued a statement of support for Thomas's new venture.
The LibertyCentral.org Web site also lists an endorsement from former defense secretary Donald M. Rumsfeld, who says that "Ginni can help channel the frustration felt by millions across America at the current course of our country."
Virginia Thomas's biography on the site says she "is a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham and other talk radio hosts," and that she is "is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully."
A longtime political activist, she has worked for former House Republican leader Richard A. Armey (Tex.), the conservative Heritage Foundation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. She most recently worked in Washington for Hillsdale College, a small liberal arts school in Michigan.
Hamblen said other judges have had politically active spouses. For instance, Judge Marjorie O. Rendell of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia is married to Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, Ed Rendell. Following the judicial Committee on Codes of Conduct, Marjorie Rendell does not accompany her husband to political events. But she presides over other events as first lady.
She seeks guidance from the committee over potential conflicts, and has a policy of recusing herself from a case in which a party has made a hefty contribution to her husband's campaign, unless both sides agree to waive the disqualification.
In California, Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recuses himself in cases brought by the Southern California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is headed by his wife, Ramona Ripston.
Woah, Clarence married a white chick?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2010, 05:57:53 AM
Woah, Clarence married a white chick?
Nigga, please. Clarence Thomas makes Tiger Woods look like Tupac.
Uncle Clarence. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jaron on March 16, 2010, 06:09:45 AM
Uncle Clarence. :rolleyes:
Fuck you, Fernando. He's a house boy for the GOP. Always has been.
What the hell.. "Fernando"
Quote from: Jaron on March 16, 2010, 06:18:28 AM
What the hell.. "Fernando"
It's an ABBA song about the ACW. Duh.
Say what you will about the man, he has some phenomenally white teeth.
Quote from: Jaron on March 16, 2010, 06:18:28 AM
What the hell.. "Fernando"
You were a awesome pitcher in the 80's.
I get an odd sense of enjoyment in watching non-stereotypical black men bring out Seedy's racism. But that aside, I think Clarence could have done better.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2010, 08:41:40 AM
I get an odd sense of enjoyment in watching non-stereotypical black men bring out Seedy's racism. But that aside, I think Clarence could have done better.
He tried but Anita Hill turned him down.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2010, 08:43:29 AM
He tried but Anita Hill turned him down.
Good point. She was a bitch, but more attractive than Ginni.
Why does CdM hate blacks that have had some success?
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2010, 08:41:40 AM
non-stereotypical black men
Well, he did marry a fat white chick. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2010, 08:41:40 AM
I get an odd sense of enjoyment in watching non-stereotypical black men bring out Seedy's racism. But that aside, I think Clarence could have done better.
I get an odd sense of enjoyment watching Spicey dance on his crank about "stereotypical black men."
As far as I can tell, Mr and Mrs Thomas thoroughly deserve one another, and would do so even if their skin tones were identical.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 16, 2010, 05:59:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 16, 2010, 05:57:53 AM
Woah, Clarence married a white chick?
Nigga, please. Clarence Thomas makes Tiger Woods look like Tupac.
Dead?
Quote from: grumbler on March 16, 2010, 12:20:07 PM
I get an odd sense of enjoyment watching Spicey dance on his crank about "stereotypical black men."
:huh:
So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2010, 01:12:58 PM
So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?
I think if anything her group's involved with came before the court, he'd be ethically bound to recuse himself. And yeah, it does look bad. But ultimately, it's a free country and she can do what she wants.
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2010, 01:12:58 PM
So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?
If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?
Laura Ingraham was cool till cancer struck her. Then she went batshit and stopped having reports from her gay brother in Marin.
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?
Yeah, to an untrained and sporadic observer of supreme court cases like myself, it does appear politics rather than "judicial philosophy" is usually the determinant of how the justices vote. :glare:
She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging. :D
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2010, 02:29:18 PM
She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging. :D
racist?
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2010, 02:31:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2010, 02:29:18 PM
She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging. :D
racist?
Given that she married a Black guy, I'm assuming not. But you bring up a good point: being racist would add an extra element of humiliation! For some, that would be extra hott. :D
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2010, 02:41:41 PM
Given that she married a Black guy, I'm assuming not. But you bring up a good point: being racist would add an extra element of humiliation! For some, that would be extra hott. :D
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2010, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?
Yeah, to an untrained and sporadic observer of supreme court cases like myself, it does appear politics rather than "judicial philosophy" is usually the determinant of how the justices vote. :glare:
Maybe a legal expert like Misky can justify it, but to me, whenever important cases like "Should police require consent before performing summary executions?" are decided by the 5-4 majority, and you ALWAYS know who the 5 and the 4 are, the credibility of the court is eroded. How can such decisions be seriously respected as precedent when they're one heartbeat away from being decided completely in reverse?
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 03:25:08 PM
Maybe a legal expert like Misky can justify it, but to me, whenever important cases like "Should police require consent before performing summary executions?" are decided by the 5-4 majority, and you ALWAYS know who the 5 and the 4 are, the credibility of the court is eroded. How can such decisions be seriously respected as precedent when they're one heartbeat away from being decided completely in reverse?
I think decisions with larger majorities *are* given more weight.
Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2010, 08:41:40 AM
I get an odd sense of enjoyment in watching non-stereotypical black men bring out Seedy's racism.
Just Clarence Thomas. Still plays house boy to Massa Scalia.
Hey Malthus, Spiess, et al.
Why not just drop the subterfuge and get the nigger jokes rolling?
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 03:25:08 PM
Maybe a legal expert like Misky can justify it, but to me, whenever important cases like "Should police require consent before performing summary executions?" are decided by the 5-4 majority, and you ALWAYS know who the 5 and the 4 are, the credibility of the court is eroded. How can such decisions be seriously respected as precedent when they're one heartbeat away from being decided completely in reverse?
It's a bit funny, actually. One of my professors made a big name for himself by holding that the Supreme Court never got that out of line with popular opinion. So his entire career has kind of been torn to shreds by Citizens United.
Moreover, after finding out that Thomas officiated at Limbaugh's wedding, I can't take him as anything but a hack.
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 01:43:57 AM
Hey Malthus, Spiess, et al.
Why not just drop the subterfuge and get the nigger jokes rolling?
I don't know any. If you have some good ones you are dying to tell, please feel free to fire away.
Apparently he clerked in Jefferson City. He met his wife here. He seems to have been more radical before he met her though and insisted people called him by his revolutionary name Comandante Big T.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 17, 2010, 08:39:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 03:25:08 PM
Maybe a legal expert like Misky can justify it, but to me, whenever important cases like "Should police require consent before performing summary executions?" are decided by the 5-4 majority, and you ALWAYS know who the 5 and the 4 are, the credibility of the court is eroded. How can such decisions be seriously respected as precedent when they're one heartbeat away from being decided completely in reverse?
It's a bit funny, actually. One of my professors made a big name for himself by holding that the Supreme Court never got that out of line with popular opinion. So his entire career has kind of been torn to shreds by Citizens United.
Moreover, after finding out that Thomas officiated at Limbaugh's wedding, I can't take him as anything but a hack.
Surely the court striking down numerous New Deal legislation was rather unpopular, no?
I would say that on the whole, the court's decision are usually not out of the mainstream of popular opinion. Of course, there are exceptions to that, but they are rare.
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 01:43:57 AM
Hey Malthus, Spiess, et al.
Why not just drop the subterfuge and get the nigger jokes rolling?
What is it that makes you think I'm racist? I was the one defending Clarence Thomas against Seedy's racist remarks.
And unlike you, who are apparently very comfortable with it, I don't use the n-word.
If it's any consolation, I think you're a racist as well. Also I confuse you with DPS. And sometimes UPS.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 17, 2010, 09:43:28 AM
Surely the court striking down numerous New Deal legislation was rather unpopular, no?
Not as much as you think.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2010, 10:31:24 AM
If it's any consolation, I think you're a racist as well.
Do you think I'm sane?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2010, 10:31:24 AM
If it's any consolation, I think you're a racist as well. Also I confuse you with DPS. And sometimes UPS.
Why do you think I'm racist?
DPS & I are both from West Virginia, so the accent probably makes us sound alike :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2010, 10:17:31 AM
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 01:43:57 AM
Hey Malthus, Spiess, et al.
Why not just drop the subterfuge and get the nigger jokes rolling?
What is it that makes you think I'm racist? I was the one defending Clarence Thomas against Seedy's racist remarks.
And unlike you, who are apparently very comfortable with it, I don't use the n-word.
You always call me Paco and ask me for tacos and burritos. You don't treat me like a human being. You treat me like a beast, not a fellow man. When you start opening arguments with Joan with "Bring me a bagel, hooknose" then I will see your violations of my dignity as humor and not racially motivated internet injustices.
I'm the asshole who asks for taco platters. :mad:
Jaron, stop being such a mujer.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 17, 2010, 04:10:08 PM
I'm the asshole who asks for taco platters. :mad:
No, you're not. I know you're my brown brother, my...
hermano. Blood brothers for life!
I have infiltrated: La Raza.
You sure as hell breed like one.
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 04:48:32 PM
You sure as hell breed like one.
Had fun doing it too.
Quote from: derspiess on March 17, 2010, 01:55:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 17, 2010, 10:31:24 AM
If it's any consolation, I think you're a racist as well. Also I confuse you with DPS. And sometimes UPS.
Why do you think I'm racist?
DPS & I are both from West Virginia, so the accent probably makes us sound alike :P
Well Jaron said so. Isn't that enough?
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 04:03:02 PMYou always call me Paco and ask me for tacos and burritos. You don't treat me like a human being. You treat me like a beast, not a fellow man. When you start opening arguments with Joan with "Bring me a bagel, hooknose" then I will see your violations of my dignity as humor and not racially motivated internet injustices.
I like this iteration of Jaron :hug:
This iteration of Jaron thinks you objectify women. :mad:
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 04:03:02 PM
You always call me Paco and ask me for tacos and burritos. You don't treat me like a human being. You treat me like a beast, not a fellow man.
I'm pretty sure you're trolling as usual, and we've been over this before, but if I were RACISS, wouldn't I say those same things to Bluto? I treat you like the annoying troll you are.
QuoteWhen you start opening arguments with Joan with "Bring me a bagel, hooknose" then I will see your violations of my dignity as humor and not racially motivated internet injustices.
Joan has never annoyed me, so he doesn't deserve any insults. And please, don't pretend like you have any dignity :lol:
And why should I lack dignity?
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2010, 09:05:20 PM
And why should I lack dignity?
Dunno. Why should you?