Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Times Slimes Clarence Thomas
IBD Editorials ^ | June 21, 2011 | Staff

Posted on 06/21/2011 4:53:01 PM PDT by Kaslin

Health Reform: Picking up the baton from the disgraced Anthony Wiener, the New York Times slanders Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, hoping to keep him from voting on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

According to the Times, Justice Thomas should not sit in on any case involving ObamaCare because, well, he's conservative and has rich conservative friends, and maybe he shouldn't be sitting on the high court at all.

The June 18 article by Mike McIntire doesn't mention ObamaCare, but it doesn't have to.

It's yet another salvo in the left's campaign against Thomas that in February saw 74 House Democrats, led by the photogenic former Rep. Weiner, send a letter to Thomas calling on him to sit out deliberations on the Affordable Care Act because of his wife's ties to groups that have called for the repeal of the medical overhaul.

Weiner and his colleagues charged that because Thomas' wife, Virginia, had worked at and was paid by the hated Heritage Foundation, the leader in exposing the fraud that is ObamaCare, Thomas is obligated to recuse himself from cases involving it to "maintain the integrity of this court."

Thomas' wife also helped found Liberty Central, a conservative lobbying group, but stepped down in December amid controversy over a memo the group posted under her name calling for the repeal of the "unconstitutional law."

The group took the memo down from its website. But we'd point out that judicial spouses are entitled to lives and views of their own, and their political views and activities are guaranteed by that same U.S. Constitution their Supreme Court husbands are called to interpret.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: agenda; bho44; bias; clarencethomas; hcr; healthcare; ibd; kaganelenakagan; lping; mediabias; nytimes; obama; obamacare; scotus; supremecourt; thomas
Correction of the title

The Times Slimes slimes Clarence Thomas

Much better

1 posted on 06/21/2011 4:53:04 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

2 posted on 06/21/2011 4:59:57 PM PDT by Emperor Palpatine (Here you are in the Ninth - two men out and two men on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Of course they don’t mention Kagen who actually worked on passing that horrible law. She has a conflict of interest orders of magnitude greater than Thomas.


3 posted on 06/21/2011 5:00:48 PM PDT by Nateman (If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Times is racist. Some people will never accept a black man on the Supreme Court.


4 posted on 06/21/2011 5:01:26 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Racists


5 posted on 06/21/2011 5:01:46 PM PDT by RckyRaCoCo (I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery, IXNAY THE TSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

And not a word about Kagan’s conflict of interest from the Pravda-on-the-Hudson.


6 posted on 06/21/2011 5:02:23 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Thomas is not nearly as compromised as Kagan, who helped draw up the bill.


7 posted on 06/21/2011 5:03:04 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

8 posted on 06/21/2011 5:03:13 PM PDT by Nateman (If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

That is correct, but the Slimes is ignoring that


9 posted on 06/21/2011 5:05:39 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nateman
Of course they don’t mention Kagen who actually worked on passing that horrible law. She has a conflict of interest orders of magnitude greater than Thomas.

Of couse not, but they know it's coming. This is a pre-emptive strike. I just wonder if this is a "one-off" or if this was on the latest "talking points memo" from the Whitehouse. Waiting to see who else picks up the drumbeat.

10 posted on 06/21/2011 5:05:39 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The writer and the Slimes have a lot of nerve saying Justice Thomas is ethically damaged or anyone for that matter.

Kagan is most definitely the justice that should recuse herself, stop lying about her stint as solicitor general and tell Holder to stop withholding info. I know, that ain't gonna happen.

11 posted on 06/21/2011 5:06:22 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RckyRaCoCo

Of course


12 posted on 06/21/2011 5:06:42 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

bump


13 posted on 06/21/2011 5:08:09 PM PDT by lowbridge (Rep. Dingell: "Its taken a long time.....to control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

Tsk, tsk. A minor point and she’s a Marxist. Rules they do not like do not apply to them.


14 posted on 06/21/2011 5:09:27 PM PDT by dools0007world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I'm not sure if I get what you mean with the writer? Do you mean the author of the article, or the writer of the Slimes?

I agree 100 percent, that if anyone should recuse herself, it should be Kagan

15 posted on 06/21/2011 5:16:14 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I meant the Slimes writer and should have said so.


16 posted on 06/21/2011 5:35:58 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why will Kagen be allowed to sit in on the Obamacare trial. Didn’t she help write it?


17 posted on 06/21/2011 5:37:46 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Slimes maggots are a bunch of racist bass turds when it comes to minorities who wander away from the DNC plantation.


18 posted on 06/21/2011 5:49:45 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (When the going gets tough, the tough check themselves into "rehab".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

She advised 0bama about the litigation against health-care reform, when she was the solicitor general


19 posted on 06/21/2011 5:57:39 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

But a fag judge voting to legalize fag marriage is A-OK. These people suck.


20 posted on 06/21/2011 6:01:59 PM PDT by Some Fat Guy in L.A. (Wanna learn humility? Become a Pittsburgh Pirates fan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Thanks


21 posted on 06/21/2011 6:11:44 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Still beating on Thomas? The problem is that liberals can never admit their wrong.


22 posted on 06/21/2011 6:14:29 PM PDT by popdonnelly (Democrats = authoritarian socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Mike McIntire

He has also been a national writer at the Associated Press in New York.

Prominently placed, hostile investigations of conservative-friendly groups (that lead nowhere) are a specialty of McIntire’s. His front-page story from March 2011 accused a Tea Party group of pushing the agenda of an Indonesian corporation fighting U.S. tariffs. In September 2010 he went after the group Americans for Job Security, another group with Tea Party ties.

HERE

23 posted on 06/21/2011 6:15:35 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What else would we expect from an east coast left wing rag...


24 posted on 06/21/2011 6:15:42 PM PDT by Czar (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“....because, well, he’s conservative and has rich conservative friends, and maybe he shouldn’t be sitting on the high court at all.”

They forgot “married to Barbara Bush’s cousin......


25 posted on 06/21/2011 6:35:33 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (Palin/West 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“The Times is racist. Some people will never accept a black man on the Supreme Court.”

Not true......Black is OK as long as they are Liberal....Radical/communist/socialist is better.....no persons of color off the reservation.....


26 posted on 06/21/2011 6:38:20 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (Palin/West 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; markomalley; Clairity; Carlucci; grey_whiskers; meyer; WL-law; Para-Ord.45; ...

Ping!


27 posted on 06/21/2011 6:38:28 PM PDT by raptor22 (Join me on Twitter @gerfingerpoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raptor22

Thanks for the ping!

Diversity is our strength!


28 posted on 06/21/2011 6:44:43 PM PDT by glock rocks (Crouch as low as possible to the floor and cover your head with your hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What do they have to say about Elena Kagan, who may have lied about her participation on ObamaCare?


29 posted on 06/21/2011 7:44:56 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Illegal aliens collect welfare checks that Americans won't collect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

If that is an August 6th edition it is about 24 hours and one city late.


30 posted on 06/21/2011 9:13:53 PM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Thomas believes in the constitution, he is an originalist. That by itself is an obvious conflict of interest; he should recuse himself on any issue involving constitutional issues.

He loves America. Another conflict of interest. He loves God. Three strikes you’re out.


31 posted on 06/21/2011 10:57:44 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The wife (or husband) of a Supreme Court Justice is both legally and ethically free to work for whomever she (or he) pleases. And a Justice is free to decide cases however he or she pleases, provided neither the husband nor the wife receive any bribe or reward contingent on the way a case is decided.

Of course, for every decision any judge has ever made, or ever will make, he or she benefits from the fact that the decision necessarily conforms to his or her interpretation of the law. It is logically impossible to prevent that.

Yes, Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginny Thomas, is getting paid to lobby for the anti- ObamaCare cause by her current clients and/or employer. But she would be getting paid to do so regardless of which way the decision went, or even if the case never got to the SCOTUS. Unless and until someone can establish a quid-pro-quo of a bonus to her if he decides in a given manner, or of an adverse consequence unless he does so, there is no conflict of interest.

The bottom line is that Ginny Thomas doesn’t stand to gain or lose any benefits no matter how her husband rules. Unless Ginny benefits, neither does Clarence (since no one even claims he would receive benefits directly, but only indirectly via his wife.)

Unless continued employment is contingent on how her husband rules, or unless she will get some additional remuneration for a favorable decision, one cannot say that she will benefit from the decision, no matter what the court may rule. Has she been promised that if Justice Thomas decides a certain way she will be additionally compensated? Has she been threatened with adverse consquences unless he rules a certain way? No, and no.

In fact, the only even remotely-credible argument would be that Ginny’s financial interests are best served by a SCOTUS decision that keeps the issue alive, and keeps her employer and its clients as interested as possible in additional legal and political work in opposition to ObamaCare. But the possibility that that would improperly influence Clarence Thomas is essentially zero, as explained below.

As for the Heritage Foundation issue: All work and all payments to Ginny Thomas from that source occurred BEFORE Obamacare was passed. That categorically prevents that issue from establishing any pretext for recusal.

Finally, the idea that Clarance Thomas would be in any way influenced to rule against ObamaCare due to the poltical views and/or activities of his wife is too ludicrous and ridiculous even for the left. Does anyone seriously doubt—especially anyone on the left—that Clarence Thomas opposes not only ObamaCare in particular, but the egregious misinterpretations of the Commerce Clause used to justify not only ObamaCare, but most of the modern Unconstitutional activities of the Federal government? Read his writings and his past opinions, should you have any doubt about that whatsoever. And then you’ll understand why the idea that his wife will have any influence his legal opinions on this issue at all are outrageously false.


32 posted on 06/28/2011 7:50:24 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson