Friday, February 19, 2010
I don’t know about you but this seems inappropriate to me. Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is a conservative activist.
Her latest effort is Liberty Central, which provides history and philosophical instruction to Tea Party activists and those dissatisfied with the current direction of American government. They will fully launch in the spring, and it will arm activists with the tools to win debates.
Is it appropriate for the spouses of sitting Supreme Court Justices to be active in any political venue? It seems a violation of discretion and boundaries.
From the Left 
Thomas should recuse himself from any cases involving the teabaggers. But, he didn’t recuse himself from Bush v Gore, and he had a family conflict of interest there.
This is certainly just another example of why the alleged impartiality of the High Court is a myth and anyone who believes otherwise is sadly mistaken.
This is the first example I’ve heard where the wife of a sitting SCOTUS judge is functioning as an adviser to a conservative movement.
Even people like Lynne Cheney stopped her political activities when her husband served as the de facto president under George W. Bush.
Very curious.
I have no problem with Virginia Thomas working and having a career. Most women today have careers and this is as it should be.
However, when your job is political activist and your husband sits on the US Supreme Court, it just seems as if a line is crossed.
You have to wonder how many members of the US Congress is aware of this Thomas family conflict of interest?
I think there should be some sort of commission to examine the family activities of members of the SCOTUS and rules established to prevent such activities.
vicodaniel1987@yahoo.com
Whose interests are conflicted? Certainly not the ruling plutocrats. Hey, what’s on teevee.
She has zero business delving into political activism when one’s husband is a sitting SCOTUS justice. I was going to say the audacity is unbelievable, but then I remembered we’re talking about conservatives, so it is believable after all.