The Times Slimes slimes Clarence Thomas
Much better
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.
The Times is racist. Some people will never accept a black man on the Supreme Court.
Racists
And not a word about Kagan’s conflict of interest from the Pravda-on-the-Hudson.
Thomas is not nearly as compromised as Kagan, who helped draw up the bill.
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.
bump
Why will Kagen be allowed to sit in on the Obamacare trial. Didn’t she help write it?
The Slimes maggots are a bunch of racist bass turds when it comes to minorities who wander away from the DNC plantation.
But a fag judge voting to legalize fag marriage is A-OK. These people suck.
Still beating on Thomas? The problem is that liberals can never admit their wrong.
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.
What else would we expect from an east coast left wing rag...
“....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......
Ping!
What do they have to say about Elena Kagan, who may have lied about her participation on ObamaCare?
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.
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.