See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: 8 Reasons Justice Clarence Thomas Must Step Down
Source:
alternet.org
URL Source: http://www.alternet.org/news/151400 ... e_thomas_must_step_down?page=1
Published: Jun 27, 2011
Author: Adele M. Stan
Post Date: 2011-06-28 00:03:35 by Ferret
Keywords: None
Views: 371
Comments: 26
Plagued by ethical breaches and links to groups calling for armed insurrection against the U.S. government, Clarence Thomas must resign his seat on the Supreme Court. NEWS & POLITICS AlterNet / By Adele M. Stan 148 COMMENTS 8 Reasons Justice Clarence Thomas Must Step Down Plagued by ethical breaches and links to groups calling for armed insurrection against the U.S. government, Clarence Thomas must resign his seat on the Supreme Court. June 23, 2011 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ? Join our mailing list: Sign up to stay up to date on the latest News & Politics headlines via email. TAKE ACTIONChange.org|Get Widget|Start an Online Petition 33; Time was when, at any right-wing gathering, chances were you'd hear the justices of the Supreme Court derided as black-robed usurpers of democracy. Today, not so much. Ever since the seating of the Roberts court, the right has been pretty happy with high court's decisions, especially the outcome of Citizens United v. FEC, the case through which the court, in a decision handed down last year, opened the floodgates of corporate money into the electoral system. No single justice has been more stalwart for the causes of the right -- indeed, even the far right -- than Justice Clarence Thomas, who, notes ThinkProgress, may just be the most ethically challenged justice since Abe Fortas was forced to step down from the court in 1969 for accepting tens of thousands of dollars from wealthy benefactors. While Thomas does not appear to have accepted direct donations (though he has accepted gifts, and possibly luxury travel aboard private jets and a yacht), it is clear that the conduct of his relationships with the wealthy and powerful -- and one magnate, Harlan Crow, in particular -- present some pretty obvious conflicts of interest, especially in regard to the court's decision in Citizens United, in which Thomas sided with the majority in declaring corporate campaign funding to be constitutionally protected. Thomas could have recused himself from the case, but he did not. A New York Times exposé published on June 19 detailed the role of Clarence Thomas' friend, real estate magnate Harlan Crow, in bankrolling a pet project of the justice's, the Pin Point Museum and Cannery outside Savannah, Georgia. Crow also funded a Savannah library dedicated to Thomas, and Thomas was given a bust of Lincoln valued at $15,000 by the American Enterprise Institute, to which Crow is a donor, and which files briefs in Supreme Court cases. But other aspects of Thomas' relationship with Crow are far more troubling, especially Crow's involvement in providing the seed money for the Tea Party group founded by Thomas' wife, Ginni. Now, it appears that Ginni Thomas may have derived a direct benefit from the Citizens United decision. And that is not the only ethically troubling incident in the annals of the Thomases' professional lives, which we detail below. But if there's any one big lesson to be learned from the saga of Clarence Thomas and the sullying of the high court, it's that Supreme Court justices are not bound by the code of ethics that applies to other members of the federal bench; it seems they are not legally bound by any code of ethics at all. In the wake of the Thomas problems, that fact has led more than 100 law professors to sign a letter calling on Congress to make the ethics code for federal judges apply to those who grace the bench of the highest court in the land. Because of this legal loophole, Thomas cannot be forced off the bench. But, for the sake of the republic he claims to love, he could step down -- and should. (A Credo Action petition calling for just that is here. UPDATE: And Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., called today for an investigation of Thomas, as reported by ThinkProgress' Ian Millhiser.) At AlterNet, we've followed the antics of Thomas and his wife, Ginni, closely since the launching of her Tea Party-aligned advocacy group made news last year. Here we detail the reasons that Thomas must go -- both for reasons of conflict, and for the appearance of Thomas' alignment with groups that have called for armed insurrection against the U.S. government. 1. Conflict of interest - Citizens United and Liberty Central: In November 2009, just two months before the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was handed down -- but just after the case was argued before the court -- Ginni Thomas incorporated her Tea Party advocacy group, Liberty Central, as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4). As an issue-advocacy organization that sponsors advertising and endorses candidates, Liberty Central stood to gain directly from the outcome of Citizens United. Assuming that Ginni Thomas drew a salary and/or expenses from the group, the onus on Clarence Thomas was to recuse himself from participating in the Citizens United case, which he did not. 2. Conflict of interest - Harlan Crow's bankrolling of Liberty Central: When AlterNet first reported on the launching of Liberty Central with Ginni Thomas at the helm, we noted that the group was formed with an initial donation of $500,000 by a then-unnamed donor. Politico has since revealed that donor to be Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate magnate who is a major donor to political causes, and a good friend of Clarence Thomas -- such a good friend that he bestowed upon the justice a Bible that once belonged to Frederick Douglass, a gift valued at $19,000. 3. Soliciting donations? Unanswered questions: The Times revealed that it was Thomas himself who suggested that Algernon Varn, owner of the Pin Point Cannery (where Thomas' mother once worked), hit up the justice's good friend, Harlan Crow. Varn told Times reporter Mike McIntire: “And Clarence said, ‘Well, I’ve got a friend I’m going to put you in touch with,’ ” Mr. Varn recalled, adding that he was later told by others not to identify the friend. The land was subsequently purchased from Varn, to the tune of $1.5 million, by a real estate partnership run by Crow. If Thomas felt no compunction at sending Varn to seek backing, with his imprimatur, from Crow for what may have amounted, according to the Times, to $2.8 million in land and construction costs, it is not unreasonable to suspect it was Thomas' influence that compelled Crow to donate $500,000 to Ginni Thomas' organization. Clarence Thomas refused to answer questions submitted by the Times. 4. Calls for insurrection: If Crow's half-million-dollar donation to Ginni Thomas' Liberty Central were not troubling enough, there's Liberty Central itself. As AlterNet reported, at its inception Liberty Central was linked to two groups -- the Missouri Sovereignty Project and Gun Owners of America -- whose leaders called for the making of war on the U.S. government, and one, Tradition Family and Property, whose leader called the Spanish Inquisition "a beautiful thing." Each of these groups were listed on the Liberty Central Web site as "Friends of Liberty Central." Liberty Central officials refused to comment on whether or not the groups had paid a fee or donation to Liberty Central in order to earn the listing. If a justice of the Supreme Court solicited a donation for a group whose success not only would benefit the justice's own household, but is also linked to groups that called for war on the government whose constitution the justice is sworn to uphold, that should be enough to warrant his stepping down. (In the wake of controversy over Ginni Thomas' role at Liberty Central, she stepped down and Liberty Central merged with the Patrick Henry Center. Ginni Thomas then opened a lobbying shop called Liberty Consulting, run from the same address as Liberty Central -- an address that turns out to be a mailbox in a UPS store, according to this video by Brad Blog.) 5. Conflict of interest - health-care reform: No sooner had the Affordable Care Act -- the health-care reform law that set off the Obama administration's battle royal with the American right -- passed into law than it became apparent that challenges to the law launched by Republican state attorneys general would likely make their way before the Supreme Court. Liberty Central opposed the bill, and appeared at a Tea Party rally sponsored by FreedomWorks calling for its repeal. It's one thing for the spouse of a justice to be politically active on issues that may appear before the court, but quite another for a justice to solicit donations, whether implicitly or explicitly, for an organization headed by his spouse that advocates for cases that could appear before the court. At the very least, Clarence Thomas needs to account for his role in securing Liberty Central's $500,000 in start-up money from Crow. 6. Conflict of interest - Koch Industries fundraiser: In January 2008, Clarence Thomas addressed a fundraising gathering convened in Palm Springs, California, by Koch Industries, the privately held conglomerate helmed by Charles and David Koch, for major backers of the Tea Party movement and right-wing think tanks, including the Heritage foundation, for which Ginni Thomas worked for a number of years. Although, according to the New York Times, a court spokesperson described Thomas' appearance as "a brief drop-by," Thomas' own financial disclosure forms claim reimbursement for an undisclosed sum by the Federalist Society -- an organization that receives Koch funding -- for four days at Palm Springs. Either way, the justice appeared at a gathering that is designed to raise money for right-wing institutions that advocate legal opposition to policies enacted by Congress and the Obama administration. Revelations of Clarence Thomas' appearances before the Koch gathering prompted Common Cause to launch a petition earlier this year, calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the involvement of both Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia in the Koch Industries gathering. The Koch brothers, as both donors to and creators of right-wing institutions, were major beneficiaries of the Citizens United decision (in which Scalia, naturally, also sided with the majority). 7. Failure to disclose spouse's income: Taken alone, Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose, for 20 years, his wife's income from such right-wing institutions as the Heritage Foundation -- which also files briefs for Supreme Court cases -- might not be reason enough to demand his ouster from the court. After all, he did amend his disclosure forms to provide the relevant information once the "oversight" was reported in the media. But taken in aggregate with the other ethics breaches and questionable activities noted here, it simply adds more fuel to the fire. 8. Travel questions: Thomas has refused to answer questions about whether or not he has been treated to high-style gratis travel to speaking engagements on Harlan Crow's private plane and his yacht. The Times exposé reveals coincidences that suggest he has. At a time when Americans' faith in their institutions of governance is at record lows, the continuing presence of Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court undermines the very underpinnings of democracy. It's time for him to go. To sign the Credo Action petition demanding that Thomas step down, click here.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Ack, I accidently cut and pasted the above quoted extra stuff at the article's beginning. This is a good piece that delves into his and his wife's unethical and self serving behavior that should be investigated. I figured the best way to answer your question in that other thread was to show you the article I last read about this.
-- Jonathan Turley on Clarence Thomas christine: Forgot to ping you to the first post. Mrs. Clarence Thomas forms a Neo-Con Political Lobby. JEEZ! - Countdown
MSNBC......(boo!) Weaz Get back in your treehouse....Thomas is a good man.....
"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor" - Ronald Reagan
this one i take issue with. would that be calls for insurrection against a corrupt and tyrannical government like those of the Founders not to mention the 2A? Thomas' accepting gifts and money is wrong, but i'd bet the farm that every single one of the justices has done the same. it's their SOP.
A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps. ~Paul Craig Roberts
Keith Olbermann PS Both are leftist stooges, shills who should be given free ocean skydives "a la Gen Pinochet" "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor" - Ronald Reagan
The pressure for him to recluse himself in cases where their is a conflict of interest is not necessarily a bad thing, or an anti Thomas move. Besides, Christine asked me a question on this so I had the article in front of me so I posted it for her. I didn't post this as part of a hunt for his scalp.
Yeah, unfortunately as the second video pointed out this situation with Thomas is neither uncommon or something that happens on just one side of the political spectrum. It is just good ethical conduct for a judge or justice with even a percieved conflict ofr interest to recluse himself. And I would want a justice to do that in a situation like this, even if it put a decision I wanted to pass in jeopardy.
Totally delusional. Thomas is the best Justice on the court, the most ethical, and the one who best follows his oath to uphold the Constitution.
NEWS & POLITICS AlterNet / By Adele M. Stan 148 COMMENTS 8 Reasons Justice Clarence Thomas Must Step Down Plagued by ethical breaches and links to groups calling for armed insurrection against the U.S. government, Clarence Thomas must resign his seat on the Supreme Court. June 23, 2011 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ? Join our mailing list: Sign up to stay up to date on the latest News & Politics headlines via email. TAKE ACTIONChange.org|Get Widget|Start an Online Petition 33;
#2. To: All, christine (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: Ferret (#2)
A New York Times exposé ......(Gasp!)
#4. To: Ferret (#0)
Calls for insurrection: If Crow's half-million-dollar donation to Ginni Thomas' Liberty Central were not troubling enough, there's Liberty Central itself. As AlterNet reported, at its inception Liberty Central was linked to two groups -- the Missouri Sovereignty Project and Gun Owners of America -- whose leaders called for the making of war on the U.S. government,
#5. To: Ferret (#2)
Jonathan Turley
#6. To: Flintlock (#3)
(Edited)
#7. To: christine (#4)
#8. To: Ferret (#1)
 | To paraphrase Einstein, "Government should be as powerless as possible, but not so powerless that it cannot perform its sole function (the protection of individual rights.)" |
#9. To: sourcery (#8)
It's not delusional. It's just not honest. Societies can survive policy disagreements. They don't survive disagreements over how to settle disagreements. Thomas is the best Justice on the court, the most ethical, and the one who best follows his oath to uphold the Constitution. To paraphrase Jefferson, might as well reason and argue with the ivied walls of the ethnic studies department. It makes perfect sense that the court has gotten more power over time, and become more arbitrary. Thomas is going to be in the (*cough*) minority. At some point we're just going to have to give the courts the finger.
"Mr. Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -- Leonid Brezhnev to James Callahan
#10. To: sourcery (#8)
He sure is not acting very ethical in this issue. I don't give a free pass to anyone because of their political stripes. And I certainly would not call Thomas a good justice overall. But my opinion on this would be the same if he were one of my favorites of all time like Hogo Black, or William Orville Douglas. If they didn't recluse themselves in a simular situation when they were on the court, I wouldn't go for that either.
#11. To: Ferret (#10)
Stopped reading there. My dream is that all Jewish judges are forced to step down.
No single justice has been more stalwart for the causes of the right -- indeed, even the far right -- than Justice Clarence Thomas,
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#12. To: Horse (#11)
Yes, I know your views. And you know mine are different. I have no problem with Jewish people in general. My bone to pick in that area is with Zionists.
#13. To: Ferret (#0)
Clarence Thomas has generated a lot of negative comment in his career. Entire years, several of them, pass without Thomas saying a single word during oral arguments. It is very difficult to gauge his legal thinking because so little of it is put on display. He got his current position by being Daddy Bush's one and only black judicial appointee; first Bush nominated him to a Court of Appeals and then, a couple of years later, when Thurgood Marshall stepped down, Bush promoted him again -- he needed a black justice and Thomas was the ONLY black judge he had political ties with. And why did Thomas have this political clout? I cannot explain but some people suspect that Mrs Thomas - who is white and blonde - had an active career in Republican causes and might have gotten her husband some backing ... even from Republicans who had not been aware her husband was not also white and blond.
#14. To: Ferret, christine, RickyJ, X-15 (#12)
Thanks. I will use that quote. My position is that all Jews who support the continued existence of the state of Israel and preach the Holohoax are citizens of the state of Israel. Since Israel declared war on America when they did 911, they are all traitors. The best that the Jews could hope for is to be treated as enemy combatants and to lose permanently their citizenship. They would be given Israeli passports and ID cards but Israel would cease to exist. As non-citizens, Jews could not vote,practice law, donate to political campaigns or work for or own news media outlets. They could continue to live in Palestine with the permission of the Palestinian people. That is my view.
"The United States today is like a cruise ship on the Niagara River upstream of the most spectacular falls in North America. A few people on board have begun to pick up a slight hiss in the background, to observe a faint haze of mist in the air or on their glasses, to note that the river current seems to be running slightly faster. But no one yet seems to have realized that it is almost too late to head for shore." -- Historian and author Chalmers Johnson"
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#15. To: Flintlock (#3)
He's one of the best judges on the Court.
....Thomas is a good man.....
"THRUSH believes in the two-party system: the masters and the slaves." -- Napoleon Solo, "The Man From U.N.C.L.E."
#16. To: Ferret (#0)
anyone linked to TFP (tradition family property) & GOA cant be half bad. maybe thomas can be swayed from his scumbag establishment tendencies.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you". Sirach 4:28
#17. To: Ferret (#0) (Edited)
The entire FEDERAL System is corrupt beyond measure but the left and right keep bitching over which side is the most corrupt. The problems are systemic moreso than party related. Both parties are murdering cock-roaches. All of those illegals burning the flag or faggots marching naked in support of queer marriage are funded by some shady folks and represented on the Supreme Court too. And worse, neither of these leftist/communist bitches (Sotomeyer or Kagan) qualify for the job !
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frederic Bastiat
#18. To: Horse (#14)
Your position is fantasyland and has no basis in reality.
My position is that all Jews who support the continued existence of the state of Israel and preach the Holohoax are citizens of the state of Israel.
#19. To: A K A Stone, Horse (#18)
And your's does? A follower of the Zionist Scofield Perversion of the Holy Scriptures? A Kristyun Zionist who defends every foul deed committed by the Racist Marxist Secular State of Israel? A supposed Kristyun who supports and defends the destruction of the works of Christ. Pray tell oh sage, how does one rationalize the murder of children and genocide of a people as being a "Godly" pursuit?
#20. To: Shoonra (#13)
See my #5, ad your name to the list, and get ready to be pushed out enjoy the view....briefly
"The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor" - Ronald Reagan
#21. To: Original_Intent (#19)
Pray tell oh sage, how does one rationalize the murder of children and genocide of a people as being a "Godly" pursuit? All your statement does is show that you are insane. A liar. You make stuff up. And you are a real live asshole.
A follower of the Zionist Scofield Perversion of the Holy Scriptures? A Kristyun Zionist who defends every foul deed committed by the Racist Marxist Secular State of Israel? A supposed Kristyun who supports and defends the destruction of the works of Christ.
#22. To: Ferret (#7)
The word is "recuse" bozo breath !
It is just good ethical conduct for a judge or justice with even a percieved conflict ofr interest to recluse himself.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frederic Bastiat
#23. To: A K A Stone (#21)
And precisely what is not true there and why? References: The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel by Jack Bernstein
#24. To: Ferret (#10)
Justice Thomas has done absolutely NOTHING that even HINTS that he should recuse himself on this issue. The only justice with a clear and compelling reason for recusal is Kagan.
| To paraphrase Einstein, "Government should be as powerless as possible, but not so powerless that it cannot perform its sole function (the protection of individual rights.)" |
#25. To: Ferret (#10) (Edited)
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 on his legal opinions on this issue at all is outrageously false.
| To paraphrase Einstein, "Government should be as powerless as possible, but not so powerless that it cannot perform its sole function (the protection of individual rights.)" |
#26. To: Horse, Ferret, RickyJ, christine (#14)
They are God's chosen people and therefore God wants them to be parasites and the goys should submit?? Justice Thomas and Scalia are the two justices that offend me the least, the jews Kagan/Ginsburg/Breyer are patently offensive and are a blight on the American landscape every day that they wake up and draw breath. The 8 Words: "Back in the oven!! You're not done yet..."
__________________________________________________________
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest