Justice Thomas Should Step Down

[Liability]

Justice Thomas is married to Virginia Thomas, who this past week announced she is opening a conservative lobbying shop, libertyinc.co. Virginia Thomas, a self-styled "ambassador to the Tea Party" creates a conflict for her husband in cases where she has represented one of the parties, and he should not hear such cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/u...ml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=thomas wife tea party&st=cse

But beyond that, his wife's ambition and extremist views make me uncomfy with Thomas hearing any further SCOTUS cases.

Thomas has been a controversial appointment since Day One and has not covered himself in glory since assuming his robes. I say it is time for him to resign altogether.

Thoughts?

Shame on you Maddie, I thought you had more sense than this. Do you really expect Virginia Thomas to stay home and bake cookies simply because she is married to an Associate Justice?

there are plenty of things to do besides become a lobbyist.

And one of them is TO become a lobbyist -- and thankfully -- your permission or approval is not required.

 

[Madeline]

Jason Doiy/The Recorder

SAN FRANCISCO, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt today said he wouldn't recuse himself from the Proposition 8 case set to be argued Monday. In a short order responding to a motion filed by Prop 8 proponents Wednesday night, Reinhardt said he can and will be impartial in the case.

The motion cited his wife Ramona Ripston's longtime role as the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California and contended that she conferred with the plaintiffs before the suit was filed, has generally advocated for gay marriage, and that her office sought to intervene in and filed an amicus curiae brief in the litigation before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

Circuit judges, like U.S. Supreme Court judges, have sole discretion on whether to recuse, and there is no appeal mechanism, meaning it's all but assured that the liberal Carter appointee will be on the panel Monday when attorneys give oral arguments in the gay rights case.


Reinhardt Says He Won't Step Off Prop 8 Case

It never bothered liberals when it was the most liberal judge in America whose wife's work created a conflict of interest. If Reinhardts claim that he could me impartial satisfied them, Thomas' should satisfy them equally.

No, Reinhardt was wrong, Missourian. The conflict of interest rules for judges don't just deal with actual bias....they also contemplate the appearance of impropriety. I cannot bless a judge hearing a case in which his spouse or her law firm has acted as counsel in any capacity.

 

[uscitizen]

Shame on you Maddie, I thought you had more sense than this. Do you really expect Virginia Thomas to stay home and bake cookies simply because she is married to an Associate Justice?

there are plenty of things to do besides become a lobbyist.

And one of them is TO become a lobbyist -- and thankfully -- your permission or approval is not required.

So if our presidents wife started a Soros lobbyist group?

You right wingers would be fully supportive of her doing that?

Seems like I recall some hillary talk from a while back about she should just be a presidents wife and not active in govt?

 

[Liability]

there are plenty of things to do besides become a lobbyist.

And one of them is TO become a lobbyist -- and thankfully -- your permission or approval is not required.

So if our presidents wife started a Soros lobbyist group?

You right wingers would be fully supportive of her doing that?

Seems like I recall some hillary talk from a while back about she should just be a presidents wife and not active in govt?

I couldn't give a rat's rectum if the First Lady is or isn't politically active. That's her option. I can't imagine that everyone on the right agrees with me. Heck, I can't imagine that you'd ever be voted a spokesman for the left, either. Nor Maddy.

I don't know if you recall any such thing or not about Shrillary. Quite irrelevant. Some people may harbor such views. I don't. I don't believe most folks on the right think that a First Lady is obligated to be nothing more than a stage prop for the President or the supporter of any one particular cause (like Beautifying America or Special Olympics or whatever).

Why? Do you libs believe that a wife of a (male) SCOTUS Justice or President should have her First Amendment rights restricted on that basis?

 

[Sallow]

True, the ACLU did defend Rush.

And Conservative hero and American traitor..Oliver North.

 

[Madeline]

And one of them is TO become a lobbyist -- and thankfully -- your permission or approval is not required.

So if our presidents wife started a Soros lobbyist group?

You right wingers would be fully supportive of her doing that?

Seems like I recall some hillary talk from a while back about she should just be a presidents wife and not active in govt?

I couldn't give a rat's rectum if the First Lady is or isn't politically active. That's her option. I can't imagine that everyone on the right agrees with me. Heck, I can't imagine that you'd ever be voted a spokesman for the left, either. Nor Maddy.

I don't know if you recall any such thing or not about Shrillary. Quite irrelevant. Some people may harbor such views. I don't. I don't believe most folks on the right think that a First Lady is obligated to be nothing more than a stage prop for the President or the supporter of any one particular cause (like Beautifying America or Special Olympics or whatever).

Why? Do you libs believe that a wife of a (male) SCOTUS Justice or President should have her First Amendment rights restricted on that basis?

Isn't this exactly what we're discussing, Liability?

I say yes, in the case of a judge or Justice. That "appearance of impropriety" thingie again. As to First People, well, I suppose we'll work that out as we go. I know it'd make me very uncomfy if the First Person was, say, hired on as a lobbyist for a defense contractor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Justice Thomas is married to Virginia Thomas, who this past week announced she is opening a conservative lobbying shop, libertyinc.co. Virginia Thomas, a self-styled "ambassador to the Tea Party" creates a conflict for her husband in cases where she has represented one of the parties, and he should not hear such cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/u...ml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=thomas wife tea party&st=cse

But beyond that, his wife's ambition and extremist views make me uncomfy with Thomas hearing any further SCOTUS cases.

Thomas has been a controversial appointment since Day One and has not covered himself in glory since assuming his robes. I say it is time for him to resign altogether.

Thoughts?

Shame on you Maddie, I thought you had more sense than this. Do you really expect Virginia Thomas to stay home and bake cookies simply because shst?bbyieing a loe is married to an Associate Justice?

there are plenty of things to do besides become a lobbyist.

What is wrong with her being a lobbyist? I would be willing to bet that the people that are involved in making the uproar quoted in the OP would have no problem if a liberal leaning Justice had a wife that lobbied for liberal causes.

 

[Madeline]

Shame on you Maddie, I thought you had more sense than this. Do you really expect Virginia Thomas to stay home and bake cookies simply because shst?bbyieing a loe is married to an Associate Justice?

there are plenty of things to do besides become a lobbyist.

What is wrong with her being a lobbyist? I would be willing to bet that the people that are involved in making the uproar quoted in the OP would have no problem if a liberal leaning Justice had a wife that lobbied for liberal causes.

I would.

 

[William Joyce]

If judges had to step down over such things, we'd have no judges. I appear in front of a judge alongside an opposing counsel who contributes to the judge's re-election campaign. Can you believe that? Welcome to America.

 

[uscitizen]

And one of them is TO become a lobbyist -- and thankfully -- your permission or approval is not required.

So if our presidents wife started a Soros lobbyist group?

You right wingers would be fully supportive of her doing that?

Seems like I recall some hillary talk from a while back about she should just be a presidents wife and not active in govt?

I couldn't give a rat's rectum if the First Lady is or isn't politically active. That's her option. I can't imagine that everyone on the right agrees with me. Heck, I can't imagine that you'd ever be voted a spokesman for the left, either. Nor Maddy.

I don't know if you recall any such thing or not about Shrillary. Quite irrelevant. Some people may harbor such views. I don't. I don't believe most folks on the right think that a First Lady is obligated to be nothing more than a stage prop for the President or the supporter of any one particular cause (like Beautifying America or Special Olympics or whatever).

Why? Do you libs believe that a wife of a (male) SCOTUS Justice or President should have her First Amendment rights restricted on that basis?

first ammendemtn rights violated?
He did not have to take the job.
In the real world the actions of many family menbers are restricted because of some members employment.

In lotteries, the employees and their families are not allowed to participate.
Same with many corporate jobs and possible conflicts.
He did not have to take the job.

 

[Dr.House]

Step down?

Seriously?

 

[Liability]

So if our presidents wife started a Soros lobbyist group?

You right wingers would be fully supportive of her doing that?

Seems like I recall some hillary talk from a while back about she should just be a presidents wife and not active in govt?

I couldn't give a rat's rectum if the First Lady is or isn't politically active. That's her option. I can't imagine that everyone on the right agrees with me. Heck, I can't imagine that you'd ever be voted a spokesman for the left, either. Nor Maddy.

I don't know if you recall any such thing or not about Shrillary. Quite irrelevant. Some people may harbor such views. I don't. I don't believe most folks on the right think that a First Lady is obligated to be nothing more than a stage prop for the President or the supporter of any one particular cause (like Beautifying America or Special Olympics or whatever).

Why? Do you libs believe that a wife of a (male) SCOTUS Justice or President should have her First Amendment rights restricted on that basis?

first ammendemtn rights violated?
He did not have to take the job.
In the real world the actions of many family menbers are restricted because of some members employment.

In lotteries, the employees and their families are not allowed to participate.
Same with many corporate jobs and possible conflicts.
He did not have to take the job.

You are in full gibberish mode of late.

Nobody forced the President to take the job? True. Irrelevant to the discussion, but true.

On the other hand, even unforced, he DID take the job. Hell, he ran for office. And he ran with a running mate who is not his actual mate. Funny thing, that.

Anyway, she is kind of along for the ride. And becoming First Lady (not a matter of seeking anything or running for anything or winning anything, it just comes along with her spouse's win) does NOT mean that she is no longer prmitted to have the First Amendment right to say whatever she chooses to say. Why, did you know that LEGALLY she could even disagree with her husband is she were so inclined. It's true! And she has the right of free association, too, with people of like-mind in matters of politics. Again, she's not even required to get her hubby's permission. Shocking to your "liberal" mind though that fact may be, it too is absolutely true.

So, I couldn't give a crap if President Obama HAD to take the job or not. He took it. She did not. Therefore, the First Lady is free to believe what she wants, say what she wants and to associate with whomever she wants.

Similarly, the wife of a Supreme Court Associate Justice is free to think her own thoughts, SAY what SHE believes, advocate for those things and associate with like-minded and similarly inclined folks.

And once again, it matters NOT AT ALL if you like it -- or not. Your permission is simply not required or relevant.

 

[whitehall]

It's an old trick. The left is trying to create some buzz about a Supreme Court justice's credibility so they have something (anything) to fall back on when the Supreme Court rules against the health care mess. They pick out Thomas whom they feel is a traitor to liberalism because he is a successful Black man.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

there are plenty of things to do besides become a lobbyist.

What is wrong with her being a lobbyist? I would be willing to bet that the people that are involved in making the uproar quoted in the OP would have no problem if a liberal leaning Justice had a wife that lobbied for liberal causes.

I would.

You did not wrote the article in the OP, which is why I worded my post the way I did. You are wrong here, but you are consistent.

 

[Madeline]

What is wrong with her being a lobbyist? I would be willing to bet that the people that are involved in making the uproar quoted in the OP would have no problem if a liberal leaning Justice had a wife that lobbied for liberal causes.

I would.

You did not wrote the article in the OP, which is why I worded my post the way I did. You are wrong here, but you are consistent.

Why thankies, dahlin'.

 

[xsited1]

Justice Thomas Should Step Down

If you don't like Justice Thomas, you're a RACIST!

Wait a second....

What???

He's black and not a liberal?

When did that happen?

He didn't vote for Obama?

So he's an Uncle Tom?

I say throw him out NOW!!!

 

[manifold]

Justice Thomas Should Step Down

If you don't like Justice Thomas, you're a RACIST!

Wait a second....

What???

He's black and not a liberal?

When did that happen?

He didn't vote for Obama?

So he's an Uncle Tom?

I say throw him out NOW!!!

Even worse, his dialect isn't nearly negro enough.

For that reason alone he should step down immediately.

 

[Intense]

Justice Thomas is married to Virginia Thomas, who this past week announced she is opening a conservative lobbying shop, libertyinc.co. Virginia Thomas, a self-styled "ambassador to the Tea Party" creates a conflict for her husband in cases where she has represented one of the parties, and he should not hear such cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/politics/05thomas.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=thomas%20wife%20tea%20party&st=cse

But beyond that, his wife's ambition and extremist views make me uncomfy with Thomas hearing any further SCOTUS cases.

Thomas has been a controversial appointment since Day One and has not covered himself in glory since assuming his robes. I say it is time for him to resign altogether.

Thoughts?

In the interest of Self Preservation, it is required of the American Male to simply Ignore our Wives. Yes Dear! La-La-La-La-La I can't hear you! So in essence, Liberty is preserved... I'm sorry Madeline... What did you say???

 

[Intense]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
14 PENN PLAZA LLC, et al., PETITIONERS v.
STEVEN PYETT et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[April 1, 2009]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by this case is whether a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq., is enforceable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that this Court’s decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974) , forbids enforcement of such arbitration provisions. We disagree and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

14 PENN PLAZA LLC v. PYETT

Sounds pretty competent to me. I'm glad He is on the Court. Pretty interesting case if you find the time.

 

[zzzz]

Personally I do not agree with some of his opinions but he was appointed and blessed by the Senate and therefore he has the right to serve until his demise. If a case were to appear before the court and there appeared to be a conflict of interest, I am sure that Roberts would talk to him about it.