Virginia Thomas, wife of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, forms tea party group. Virginia Thomas told a recent panel “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 specifically went on to say that she was going to work against Obama’s “hard-left agenda.” It is an association that will likely add to a further patina of politics surrounding the Court, which just ruled in favor of conservative groups in the Citizens United case. I will be discussing this story tonight on Countdown.
There is, of course, no limitation on the spouses of justices in terms of political activities. However, historically spouses have avoided such entanglements in deference to the neutral role that their spouses are expected to perform on the Court. The involvement in such a raw political organization is, well, injudicious.
I did not share the outrage of some when Virginia Thomas worked for Heritage Foundation. Working for an conservative legal group is a bit different from working in a political organization committed to fighting the President’s policies. Once again, she is well within her rights to do so, but most spouses have avoided such a high-profile political role. This why it is so rare to ever hear of a controversy involving a justice’s spouse.
Worse yet, her group will be scoring members of Congress and accepting donations from corporations. This could raise recusal issues in future cases for Clarence Thomas, but he is unlikely to see his wife’s involvement as a recusal matter unless her group is directly involved in a case.
Ironically, Thomas said he does not attend the State of the Union because it is to “partisan.” He will not be married to one such partisan whose group will actively seek to oppose the President and democratic members.
For the Thomas story, click here.
Blouise,
In one word, YES! (I think)
Nal, please post an link. I have Norton Safe Search…
OK! I’ve set up a facebook account titled: Turley4SCOTUS.
FFLEO: “I remember Patty C stating that Prof Turley was too much of a devoted family man to want the job. Well, Prof, was Patty C correct?”
Oh, oh … does that mean he’s a “family values” guy? If he gets nominated will this blog work for or against him? If he’s confirmed will the blog keep going? Am I being selfish?
newman,
Well weight gain can be taken care of. However, the space between your ears seems to occupy as much space as NASA. Do think.
newsman,
Take your newsreel and cram it sideways in you big mouth.
rafflaw,
Prof Turley’s biases lean liberal, although not near to the extent in one direction as those on the Court who are ultra-conservative. If he were a Justice, I would be a bit concerned about gun laws. However, overall he would be a fine Justice and wouldn’t it be nice to have someone with a sense of humor *and* a critical mind.
I remember Patty C stating that Prof Turley was too much of a devoted family man to want the job. Well, Prof, was Patty C correct?
Mr. Turley, you need to pratice some weight control. I saw you tonight for the first time in several months and you appear to have gained 40 pounds, a lot of it in your face. Are you ill?
Nal
I’d rather he replace Justice Thomas.
Lady Liberty,
I take your point and can only respond with the prof’s written words as it relates to her comments:
” … will likely add to a further patina of politics surrounding the Court”
I’m going to quote from another source regarding the role of the Supreme Court:
“The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the “referee” in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court’s job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.” (scholastic.com)(please forgive the simplicity)
A referee on the football field can not favor one team over the other just as a Supreme Court Justice can not favor one purely political stance over another .. i.e. no “patina of politics surrounding the Court”.
Mrs. Thomas’ words were very political and as such, for her relationship to Justice Thomas can not be denied, ” … will likely add to a further patina of politics surrounding the Court”.
It’s not so much an issue of “free speech” as it is of “wise speech”. She’s certainly “free” to do it, but was it “wise” given the fervent and even militant politics presently swirling around and through the Court?
Professor Turley would make a great choice for Supreme Court. Former Fed, I would like to know what Professor Turley’s biases are?
Start a petition Nal. I will sign and donate money.
While Prof Turley displays some biases, he is by far the least biased person of whom I have read in the field of Constitutional Law.
If he melts during that snowball run to the Supreme Court, I still would like to view a nightly ‘Turley & Greenwald Constitutional Law Hour’
Prof. Turley pines for the “good ol’ days” when a proper gentlemen could simply tell his wife to shut up and get back to making babies.
Ambitious people often marry other ambitious people. Eugene Volokh has a great post about appellate judges with political spouses here: http://bit.ly/9TbVSS
This isn’t a phenomenon that is unique to Justice Thomas, and it is probably not a phenomenon that is going to go away any time soon. In fact, I would expect that we will see more and more situations like this.
The only solution is to: (a) accept it and (b) develop some more concrete cannons of judicial ethics regarding recusal.
I think Professor Turley would make an excellent choice to replace Justice Stevens. I also don’t think he has a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated. But I thought the same thing about Betty White hosting SNL.
I never alleged Thomas was “special.” And, Blousie you have a good point- but tea partiers by and large, support a strict interpretation of the Constitution– they don’t take “liberties.” How does promoting the strict interpretation of the document that her husband upholds create any controversy whatsoever? It is when individuals and groups deviate from this originalist interpretation that controversies arise. It’s like the shareholders at Ford getting mad because the CEO’s wife buys stock in an oil company.
This is an interesting situation. Justice Thomas seems to have married someone who is as slow as he is. Sounds like a great match.
Blouise,
You beat me to the Coke can reference.
“Lady Liberty
Seriously—lemme try putting it in the form of a question.
How is it too political, or a conflict of interests, for Virginia Thomas to start a group defending the Constitution when her husband belongs to a group charged with upholding the Constitution?”
==============================================================
While the specific oath that each office holder takes is slightly different every elected politician to the US House of Representative, US Senate, President/Vice President, appointed members of the Supreme Court, all federal law enforcement officials, and anyone practicing law in the US takes an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America in their official capacity. Thomas ain’t special because of his oath and neither is she.
The professor’s point, as I read his words:
“She specifically went on to say that she was going to work against Obama’s “hard-left agenda.” It is an association that will likely add to a further patina of politics surrounding the Court, which just ruled in favor of conservative groups in the Citizens United case.”
Check out that decision.
“Lady Liberty
So the USSC is supposed to uphold the Constitution, and Virginia Thomas has started a group that supports the principles of the Constitution. For the life of me, I cannot see a conflict.”
===============================================================
” … a group that supports the principles of the Constitution” perhaps should read:
… a group that supports a certain interpretation of the principles of the Constitution …
for thus it has been since the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 with ratification completed on June 21, 1788
Tea baggers are just another in a long line of groups interpreting the Constitution to fit their mindset.
It makes no difference what Thomas’ wife does, because he has demonstrated that he is committed to his radical right-wing agenda anyway. How much worse can he get than finding that it is constitutional to execute people who are demonstrably innocent?
Seriously—lemme try putting it in the form of a question.
How is it too political, or a conflict of interests, for Virginia Thomas to start a group defending the Constitution when her husband belongs to a group charged with upholding the Constitution?
mespo727272,
Great graphic … a picture is worth a thousand words!
Speaking of words … where is Elaine M. … what she could do with this subject in verse …