Skip to main content

Crossposted from Hillbilly Report.

All the anger in our country right now is sadly ironic. While there is so very much to be angry about the sad part is that folks just seem to refuse to be mad about the things that have really caused all the inequality in our country the last several decades. One case in point is the disgraceful ruling by the Supreme Court to allow Corporations to buy elections. Hillbillyhas pointed out how, inspired by the Egyptian protests which enacted real change Americans should begin with protesting the Corporate Supreme Court of the United States.

One way to begin doing that is with Justice Clarence Thomas. People for the American Way have pointed out how Justice Thomas has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself from hearing cases on the new healthcare law, destined for the Supreme Court. From an email:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, already in hot water over failing to report his wife’s income on judicial disclosure forms, is now being called on by 74 members of Congress, led by Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, to recuse himself from hearing cases on the health care reform law.

It’s really pretty simple. Justice Thomas’ wife Ginni has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars working for and leading groups that have repealing health care reform as one of their chief goals. And considering challenges to the health car law are expected to make it to the Supreme Court, how could that not be a major conflict of interest?

The court challenges to health care reform are really more political than legal, and the tortured logic used by the judges who have ruled it unconstitutional ignores the text and history of our Constitution, as well as firmly established case law going back to the Supreme Court of the early 1800s. Despite right-wing Supreme Court justices’ willingness to contort the law to suit their ideology - see the their controversial decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v. FEC, both of which had Justice Thomas in the majority - most legal experts agree that the health care reform law is perfectly constitutional and under no real threat of being ruled otherwise. But outcomes aside, the Thomas family’s profits from efforts to repeal health care reform clearly mean that Justice Thomas should not hear and decide cases about that law.

Ginni Thomas is now a lobbyist, advertising herself to potential clients interested in health care reform as someone with the "experience and connections" to get the job done. Justice Clarence Thomas should honor his office by acknowledge this obvious conflict of interest and recusing himself.

As mentioned, Progressive champion Anthony Weiner is leading the charge in trying to get Thomas to recuse himself. Here he is explaining why Thomas should recuse himself:

Here is a copy of Rep. Weiner's letter to Thomas, asking him to recuse himself:

Dear Justice Thomas:

As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of health care reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has "experience and connections and appeals to clients who want a particular decision - they want to overturn health care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas's receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health care reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.

This is not the first case where your impartiality was in question. As Common Cause points out, you participated in secretive political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the [5-4] decision on the Citizens United case. Your spouse also received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.

Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household's financial gain through your spouse's activities and your role as a Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the U.S. Supreme Court's decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path.

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
ANTHONY D. WEINER
Member of Congress

Go here and sign on to Rep. Weiner's letter to Thomas, no more Corporate Control of the Supreme Court:

http://www.pfaw.org/...

The only thing I can agree with the Tea-baggers on is the fact that America, and our rights are being stolen and destroyed. While they are transfixed on the shiny object of hatred and ignorance it is up to us to really demand the changes this country needs. Clarence Thomas and the Corporate Court of America is a great place to start. Lets stand up and stand with a real leader like Anthony Weiner and try to make our voices heard.

Originally posted to RDemocrat on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 06:25 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Soon the Thomas Apologistas will swarm (2+ / 0-)

    all over this diary. Really. Forest for trees and all that.

  •  I have been talking today about how we could (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rural Progressive

    rise up against OUR dictator, corporate (ownership) dictatorship, and I also concluded we need to rise up against the Supreme Court.

    It is not our government perse, the one we elect, unelect, reelect, etc that is the problem.  The problem is that we don't elect the people who actually make the decisions, and we have a democracy in name only.

    Unheard of...Supreme Court????...they are so..untouchable... or are they????

    Who else gives the corporations their power over us??

    Let's break our dependence on foreign goods and our multinational masters. Shop American. May Peace Prevail

    by revgerry on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 06:45:30 PM PST

  •  What are you proposing exactly? (2+ / 0-)

    I'm assuming a peaceful protest of some sort. Would a bunch of people just sit out front of the United States Supreme Court building waving signs and shouting slogans? Might be a good start, but would it be enough?

  •  Justice Thomas will not yield to public pressure (2+ / 0-)

    Thomas despises the media and politicians and my guess is public protests as well. He will not recuse himself from a vote on the ACA, which is not yet at the Court. Many lawyers (including some on DKOS) believe Thomas has no obligation to recuse himself on the ACA case when it does reach the Court. Thomas understands that he can only be removed through impeachment and a trial in the Senate. To date no justice of the SCOTUS has ever been removed by Congress.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 08:01:30 PM PST

    •  How do we (0+ / 0-)

      know Justice Thomas will not yield to public pressure? We ain't tied it yet.

      Mark Twain: "When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Kentucky because it's always twenty years behind the times." ...

      by Rural Progressive on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 08:49:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  RP- Read about him (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rural Progressive

        If you study Justice Thomas you will understand why it's not in his DNA to be influenced by the press, politicians and those in the public who he  views as his ideological adversaries. In fact, it's easy to surmise that pressure from those that he despises make him more strident in his conservative positions. This is all speculation, but I believe that demonstrations specifically targeted at him will be counter productive. He will never resign. He MIGHT discuss issues of recusal with Scalia, or the Chief Justice, but letters from Congress and demonstrations in front of the Court will be dismissed.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 09:43:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site