Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group

[goldcatt]

Correlation does not necessarily prove causation.

You have no proof she has done anything wrong. This is just a smear job. And a rather transparent one at that, considering that one of the objectives of her non-profit organization is to score members of Congress according to there adherence to conservative values.

I guess you of all people would know all about transparent smear jobs.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, being the victim of one does sensitize a person to the tactic.

 

[Avatar4321]

You gotta admit it looks bad, Yurt. Especially considering the SCOTUS' position as the final arbiter on ethics. All of the Justices should be completely beyond reproach ethically for that reason alone. Regardless of politics. The highest position creates the highest standard.

I wouldn't have a problem if she'd still been at the Heritage Foundation, then it would have been coincidental. But the timing of this smells questionable at least, and it's not Thomas' first time involved in something questionable involving his wife's activities.

I haven't found anything and it probably isn't public yet, but has anybody found anything on how much Virginia Thomas stands to make as head of this thing?

True, they should be beyond reproach. I doubt the liberal members of the bench have any desire to step down though.

As for this, i fail to see how there is anything reproachful about an American exercising their rights.

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, being the victim of one does sensitize a person to the tactic.

Keep going, really. This is fascinating.

 

[Yurt]

You gotta admit it looks bad, Yurt. Especially considering the SCOTUS' position as the final arbiter on ethics. All of the Justices should be completely beyond reproach ethically for that reason alone. Regardless of politics. The highest position creates the highest standard.

I wouldn't have a problem if she'd still been at the Heritage Foundation, then it would have been coincidental. But the timing of this smells questionable at least, and it's not Thomas' first time involved in something questionable involving his wife's activities.

I haven't found anything and it probably isn't public yet, but has anybody found anything on how much Virginia Thomas stands to make as head of this thing?

you're making a very serious accusation without much evidence. you haven't offered any evidence that thomas's decision was influenced by his wife's activities....and btw....corporate funding for her nonprofit organization is just one of many groups of people who she is seeking funding from....

i do not see the connection at all. you're basically suggesting that since thomas is a scotus justice, that his wife shouldn't be allowed to form nonprofit political organizations and that she should stay home and bake cookies....

Straw man.

I'm saying she chose the very time her husband was hearing this case to organize her own group after spending years with Heritage. I'm wondering about the timing, and what made her choose that exact time to get a leg up on the competition by putting herself into the market. And how much both of them are going to benefit as a result. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the pieces together.

come on goldcatt....you're stretching here

one can easily see the timing because we have an uber lib as president who is trying to ram h/c down our throats instead of seeing some sinister plot as you do...if she was a liberal, i highly doubt you would see this as sinister

 

[Modbert]

See Gold, now it's your turn to deal with the blind hackery I've been dealing with.

If this involved a Liberal member of the SCOTUS and the Coffee Party, you could hear the shrills from sea to shining sea.

 

[Modbert]

come on goldcatt....you're stretching here

one can easily see the timing because we have an uber lib as president who is trying to ram h/c down our throats instead of seeing some sinister plot as you do...if she was a liberal, i highly doubt you would see this as sinister

How many strawmans can you fit into one post?

1.) Obama isn't a Liberal, never mind a ultra Lib.

2.) The phrase "Ramming Health Care down our throats" is misframing the reality of the situation.

3.) See my last post.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Dogbert, would you just clarify for everyone what your thoughts are regarding the article?? Is there an issue with her being the wife of a SCJ and/or a political activist and/or the full disclosure aspect and/or something else??

The wife has a right to her political beliefs, and I wouldn't want to take those away.

Golly, now that is mighty white of ya...

However, I am troubled by a couple things. Though I will state for the record we all know at this point that Clarence Thomas is likely the most Conservative member of the SCOTUS, excluding Scalia.

ROFL... "We all know..." Appeal to popularity much?

And FTR: Either Thomas or Scalia are the most conservative justices on the court... They can't both be such simultaneously... despite your flaccid attempt to do so...

1.) The fact her husband just cast the 5-4 deciding vote in the loosening of Finance Laws, such loosening his wife is now taking full advantage of with this group.

2.) The fact that thanks to her husband's casting vote, she does not have to release full disclosure of donors despite what some on here believe.

So if a SCOTUS's wife is taking donations, yes, I would want full disclosure. However, it won't be given and legally it doesn't have to be. However, anyone can see the implications and problems that go along with this sort of backroom dealings.

Especially when Corporations can now make donations to these non-profit entities in large unlimited amounts.

I'd have a problem with this if it were any member of the SCOTUS, not just Thomas. There are many issues that go beyond the political spectrum, this is one of them.

ROFLMNAO...

Oh Yeah... Post hoc PROOF CERTAIN that Thomas cast his vote to provide his wife with something to do... and that she REFUSES TO DISCLOSE FROM WHOM SHE RECEIVES DONATIONS... this is post hoc PROOF CERTAIN that she talked her SC justice hubby to decide in favor of her CORPORATE MASTERS!

BRILLIANT!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

come on goldcatt....you're stretching here

one can easily see the timing because we have an uber lib as president who is trying to ram h/c down our throats instead of seeing some sinister plot as you do...if she was a liberal, i highly doubt you would see this as sinister

How many strawmans can you fit into one post?

1.) Obama isn't a Liberal, never mind a ultra Lib.

Well for that to be true, then there are no liberals...

2.) The phrase "Ramming Health Care down our throats" is misframing the reality of the situation.

LOL... "Misframing"... Nah... it's understating the situation.

3.) See my last post.

Saw it... and it was HYSTERICAL... in at least two contexts and on several levels.

 

[uscitizen]

Now if Mrs. Obama started a Coffee party....
Or if Hillary years ago dabbled in health care reform?
Or if Billy Carter drank beer?

 

[goldcatt]

See Gold, now it's your turn to deal with the blind hackery I've been dealing with.

If this involved a Liberal member of the SCOTUS and the Coffee Party, you could hear the shrills from sea to shining sea.

Oh, I said my piece. I'm just sitting back now watching the wagons pull up in such pretty little circles.

 

[goldcatt]

you're making a very serious accusation without much evidence. you haven't offered any evidence that thomas's decision was influenced by his wife's activities....and btw....corporate funding for her nonprofit organization is just one of many groups of people who she is seeking funding from....

i do not see the connection at all. you're basically suggesting that since thomas is a scotus justice, that his wife shouldn't be allowed to form nonprofit political organizations and that she should stay home and bake cookies....

Straw man.

I'm saying she chose the very time her husband was hearing this case to organize her own group after spending years with Heritage. I'm wondering about the timing, and what made her choose that exact time to get a leg up on the competition by putting herself into the market. And how much both of them are going to benefit as a result. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the pieces together.

come on goldcatt....you're stretching here

one can easily see the timing because we have an uber lib as president who is trying to ram h/c down our throats instead of seeing some sinister plot as you do...if she was a liberal, i highly doubt you would see this as sinister

Guess again. I would see it as the appearance of impropriety, and in this case from a Justice with a history of such appearances involving his spouse's activities. Whether there was in fact any such impropriety will come out as the facts do - if they ever do. But the appearance alone is troubling, especially since it's not the first time. I don't care if it's Thomas or Ginsberg, wrong is just plain wrong.

 

[uscitizen]

Straw man.

I'm saying she chose the very time her husband was hearing this case to organize her own group after spending years with Heritage. I'm wondering about the timing, and what made her choose that exact time to get a leg up on the competition by putting herself into the market. And how much both of them are going to benefit as a result. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the pieces together.

come on goldcatt....you're stretching here

one can easily see the timing because we have an uber lib as president who is trying to ram h/c down our throats instead of seeing some sinister plot as you do...if she was a liberal, i highly doubt you would see this as sinister

Guess again. I would see it as the appearance of impropriety, and in this case from a Justice with a history of such appearances involving his spouse's activities. Whether there was in fact any such impropriety will come out as the facts do - if they ever do. But the appearance alone is troubling, especially since it's not the first time. I don't care if it's Thomas or Ginsberg, wrong is just plain wrong.

Bingo!

Well stated.

 

[Yurt]

Straw man.

I'm saying she chose the very time her husband was hearing this case to organize her own group after spending years with Heritage. I'm wondering about the timing, and what made her choose that exact time to get a leg up on the competition by putting herself into the market. And how much both of them are going to benefit as a result. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the pieces together.

come on goldcatt....you're stretching here

one can easily see the timing because we have an uber lib as president who is trying to ram h/c down our throats instead of seeing some sinister plot as you do...if she was a liberal, i highly doubt you would see this as sinister

Guess again. I would see it as the appearance of impropriety, and in this case from a Justice with a history of such appearances involving his spouse's activities. Whether there was in fact any such impropriety will come out as the facts do - if they ever do. But the appearance alone is troubling, especially since it's not the first time. I don't care if it's Thomas or Ginsberg, wrong is just plain wrong.

imo, that says it all....that does not rise to the level of a conflict of interest

appearances are just that, appearances. they are not facts and can be interepreted differently. for example, i easily offered a second opinion, a rational explanation for the timing of her forming this group. i'm not saying you are wrong, i am saying, that without more, you're making serious legal claims about someone based on speculation.

 

[beowolfe]

What da problem is??

Conflict of interest.

While Justice Thomas was hearing and participating in the Citizens United case, Virginia Thomas was busy putting together a political organization which will benefit financially as a direct result of her husband's vote in that case.

Hardly coincidence.

without more, that is not a legal conflict of interest and no where near the level necessary for thomas to recuse himself...

Actually it is. An ex governor of Louisiana went to federal prison for pretty much the same thing.

 

[California Girl]

Virginia has the same right as any citizen to engage in the political process.

Right.

And if a more Liberal member's wife or husband of the SCOTUS created a Coffee Party and took unlimited amounts of donations from corporations, I don't think you'd be feeling the same way.

I am equally comfortable if a 'more Liberal member's wife or husband' chose to become politically active. Just because one happens to be married to someone does not mean one should not be allowed to take an interest.

Personally, I would prefer the SC to be non partisan. I don't give a rats ass who you support, our legal system should be above political influence.

 

[boedicca]

Actually it is. An ex governor of Louisiana went to federal prison for pretty much the same thing.

I call Shenanigans.

If you're talking about Edwin Edwards (who is the likely suspect), he was convicted of extortion, among other things:

After being fingered by Texas for-profit prison entrepreneur Patrick Graham, who allegedly gave him $845,000 in conjunction with a scheme to locate a private juvenile prison in Jena, Louisiana, Edwards was indicted in 1998 by the federal government with prosecution led by U.S. Attorney Eddie Jordan. The prosecution soon released transcripts of audio conversations, as well as excerpts of video surveillance that seemed to indicate dubious financial transactions. The Edwards investigation also tarnished the reputation of San Francisco 49ers owner Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., who admitted to paying Edwards $400,000 in exchange for Edwards's assistance in securing a casino license. Always brash and ready with a quip, one time he indicated to reporters that - amidst the many allegations of his questionable associations and dealings - the only thing which could hurt him would be "getting caught in bed with a 'dead girl' or a 'live boy'."

Edwards was found guilty on 17 of 26 counts, including racketeering, extortion, money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud; his son Stephen was convicted on 18 counts. "I did not do anything wrong as a governor, even if you accept the verdict as it is, it doesn't indicate that," Edwards told the press after his conviction. On his way to prison he said, "I will be a model prisoner, as I have been a model citizen". From 2002 to 2004 Edwin Edwards was incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas.

Edwin Edwards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nobody has offered one shred of proof that Thomas has engaged in anything remotely similar.

 

[Yurt]

Conflict of interest.

While Justice Thomas was hearing and participating in the Citizens United case, Virginia Thomas was busy putting together a political organization which will benefit financially as a direct result of her husband's vote in that case.

Hardly coincidence.

without more, that is not a legal conflict of interest and no where near the level necessary for thomas to recuse himself...

Actually it is. An ex governor of Louisiana went to federal prison for pretty much the same thing.

that is not what i recall...link please and i want specifics

edit: thanks boedicca for proving the assertion false