Submitted By Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
I will be honest. I am not a big fan of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and as of late, I have had the same less than positive feelings about his wife, Virginia Thomas. According to a recent Think Progress article, Justice Thomas’ vote on the Citizens United case has allowed his wife’s “consultant” company to profit by educating its customers on the best political causes to invest, I mean, donate to .
“Ginni Thomas’ new career advising clients on how to donate money to political causes is striking in light of the fact that this career path was much more difficult to break into just one year ago. In Citizens United v. FEC, Ginni’s husband Clarence cast the key fifth vote enabling corporations to spend unlimited money influencing U.S. elections. As a result of this vote, outside groups spent nearly $300 million influencing the 2010 elections — much of which would have been illegal before Justice Thomas greenlighted this spending. Now, Ginni Thomas appears to have found a way to earn money off her husband’s actions as a justice. Clarence Thomas released countless amounts of corporate spending on U.S. elections, and Ginni Thomas can get rich advising those corporate clients on how to direct that spending.” Wasn’t it nice of Clarence Thomas to assist his wife, directly or indirectly, in her endeavors to aid wealthy investors in hiding their campaign donations?
I am sure that it is just a coincidence that Virginia Thomas made this career choice shortly before the Citizens United case. This is the same spouse who contacted Professor Anita Hill recently in an attempt to convince Ms. Hill to “finally” tell the truth about Virginia’s husband’s alleged actions prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court. I thought when I read that story that this lady is off her rocker. Now that I understand that she actually may have been protecting her meal ticket, it makes a lot more sense! What do you think?
Source: Think Progress
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
31 thoughts on “Profit From Behind The Supreme Court Bench?”
Buddha and Buckeye,
It would be nice to see Mr.Bybee get removed from his seat on the bench for his involment in the Bush Torture crimes.
You were right the first time.
It should be Mr. Bybee.
Should be Judge Bybee.
After looking at her background on Wicki, Mrs. Thomas has been making some unusual decisions all her life.
But she’s a lawyer and was on the board of Creighton Law School 2006-2007 so she can’t be all that bad, right? If she’d done something illegal or unethical, the ABA would have kicked her out, right? Did they – kick her out? How about Mr. Yoo? Mr. Bybee?
The only recourse that I know against a Supreme Court Justice who is violating judicial ethiscs is an impeachment. Maybe one of the other Turleyites can give us more on that question. I think Prof. Turley hinted at it in the above linked interview with Rachel Maddow when he said that is why they call them Supreme.
Thanks for posting that interview. So … whom do we turn to, what recourse do we have when the Supreme Court itself is corrupt?
Only the super super elite know about the puppet government. The rest of us idiots can’t figure anything out.
I feel it is time to openly recognize some facts about our current govt. From a poster at Common Dreams: “…decisions are made by the shadow government in the U,S.that is completely unaccountable to the public and aggressively counters any move towards democracy that may threaten the profit margins of the real U.S. government–the corporate oligopoly.
The puppet government of the U.S. is Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, etc., and they are all well-paid and well-bribed to distract the public from this reality.
There we have it: the three branches of the U.S. government–puppet government, corporate oligopoly, and shadow government. Civics 101, but a complete mystery to most Americans.”
Great video. The Professor was on fire in that interview.
amen to your response to Rae. I hope Rae watched the video of Prof. Turley’s presentation on the Rachel Maddow show that Elaine provided, because he gave a concise and thorough explanation why Justice Thomas is violating Judicial Ethics with his fund raising and his wife’s fund raising for political groups.
Rae: “If only we could go back to the day when spouses would just be seen and not heard. That would solve the problem. If these women knew their place… (sarcasm)”
That’s not the issue. Should an opportunity arise that might even give the appearance of a conflict the judge in question should recuse themselves. It doesn’t matter if it’s Thomas/Ginny or a judge with a wife that lobbies for a left leaning organization hearing cases that deal with that cause or business.
The problem is Thomas, not his wife. The fact that Ginny touts her connection to the judge is though either a fraud or makes it imperative for the judge to start recusing himself, something there is no indication he will do based on past practice. Also, the fact that he failed to list her income (not an accident) only makes the possibility of a compromised sense of ethics on the part of the judge more likely.
It’s not Ginny, it’s Clarence.
Jonathan Turley & Rachel Maddow
Comments are closed.