Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group

Agreed. All the 'take back our country' bullshit, just means they would be taking our country from us. We vote here. We don't overthrow the government when our party looses. Unless our party owns the media and can spin the news we do hear. The monopoly of media in America will be what enables these groups to spin their rhetoric.

There's already all kinds of sensible restrictions on certain freedoms. Such as bans on insider trading. One spouse, for example, can't tell another spouse inside information to make a killing on the stock market. That's a limitation of the freedom of speech. Jury members aren't allowed to call home to a spouse and reveal details of the case or be influenced by the spouse who, being outside the jury room, has other information.

So under those circumstances -- which we all agree it's normal to restrict certain freedoms -- couldn't a spouses political activities create a conflict of interest for a Supreme Court Justice?

I think it makes sense to question the situation and ask if its appropriate.

Oh wow Glenn Beck would approve of that rebuttal!

Inside traders are not individuals married to an ”insider” within a company. Insider traders are individuals that use non-public information to increase the amount of money they make through the sale or buying of a stock. To say that Mrs. Thomas is automatically just like an inside trader for being married to a justice shows a lack of understanding of what an insider trader is, or a clear distortion of the particulars of the issue.

On top of that I never argued against sensible restrictions or whatever. All I said is that its not only highly judgmental and suspect to instantly label this women as in the wrong when there is no evidence to even support the claim that she either committed or planned to commit a crime.

“I think it makes sense to question the situation and ask if its appropriate.”

Except that in your case specifically your not asking questions. Instead you framed this event as a revelation of a Christian authoritarian plot to create a theocracy.

Insider trading was merely an example of how certain "free speech" aspects of life can come with restrictions.

Jury duty was also an example of how the "right to freely associate" is also restricted because we keep some juries sequestered and restrict their ability to associate during the time of the trial.

So in this case....the same situation applies. YOU (among others) are arguing that this woman has the freedom to do whatever she wants.

Not really. Just like jury members aren't free to do "whatever they want" under confines of the law and just like people with inside stock information aren't free to "say whatever they want" under the confines of the law.

Should I dumb this down even further for you Ricky or do you grasp the simple concepts?

Maybe you could get someone to help you with the big words.

Wow you sure like to argue against belief systems that I do not endorse. Just because I might disagree with an opinion of what is justified it doesn’t mean I completely and utterly reject any and all restrictions of free speech. Conversely while I might agree with a particular rational when applied to a particular subject it doesn’t mean that I apply that philosophy to all aspects of life. Seriously please stop wasting my time with all these assumptions.

First off let’s be honest with one another; your rational for restricting Mrs. Thomas from participating in Tea Baggery is heavily dependent on the fact that you don’t like those people. You’ve made that perfectly clear with your drawn out rant about Christian revolutionary crusades and so on. The problem I have with all that, besides you being a total slave to your own narrow minded belief set (my poop don’t stink syndrome), is that you want to ban everyone from doing or being someone not because by being in that situation they’re inherently committing a crime or offense against another but because you believe a Christian tea bagger in that same position would most certainly commit a crime or an offense against another.

It’s a politically biased guilty until proven innocent argument, pure and simple.

So now on top of that bias you’ve provided two bad analogies to justify everything. Ok Mrs. Thomas isn’t like an inside trader anymore, she’s like a juror. That’s a little better since you’re not automatically passing judgment by comparing her to a criminal but it’s still a bad analogy. Mrs. Thomas was never appointed, or summoned by the courts to perform an essential duty. She’s married to an individual that was appointed to the supreme court. Restricting her from participating in something based on the fact that her husband is a juror is retarded because if anything the individual appointed to the position should be restricted from disclosing non-public information.

It’s like you’re trying to stop pedophilia by outlawing children from talking to strangers instead of just banning pedophilia. Or here’s another one. Banning the wife of a justice from participating in the political process because she might use inside information is kinda like banning individuals from talking in a movie theater because someone MIGHT yell fire, which I’m told is illegal.

Again I’m not against certain restrictions I’m just against dumb and incredibly far reaching restrictions on non-important or irrelevant individuals when it makes a whole lot more sense to criminalize the actual source of the offense.

“Should I dumb this down even further for you Ricky or do you grasp the simple concepts?

Maybe you could get someone to help you with the big words.”

I love when you insult me crob. It’s like being savagely assaulted with a nerf ball. Keep throwing as hard as you can Einstein.

Are you kidding? Anthony Scalia went hunting with Dick Cheney right before making a ruling in his favor. They don't recuse themselves. Why should they? They can do whatever they want. 'Get over it'.

"What I don't like is the idea of that same spouse being a political activist. Justice Thomas may have to recuse himself from any future tea party court cases should they arise."

Which is a valid concern. However, such concerns don't entitle us to deprive his wife of her RIGHT to engage in political processes, and her right to free speech.

Justices SHOULD be able to set their personal biases aside to hear such cases, but recusal is often done when there's even an APPEARANCE of impropriety or conflict in the case (with a close family member being able to profit from the outcome, etc).

So yes, Justice Thomas might reasonably recuse himself from any future cases involving the Tea Party, but being that there are currently no such cases pending for Supreme Court review (!), it seems unlikely to be a concern.

If Scalia wants to risk his life by hunting with Cheney then that is his choice. Oh, maybe you were referring to the conflict of interest inherent in that scenario and not the insane lack of disregard for one's own life demonstrated by the Justice? In any event, Cheney probably cornered Scalia in the woods and gave the ol' "you wouldn't want to 'accidentally' get shot in the face" speech just to make sure the point was understood.

There are definitely some issues with Justices and bias. But are we suggesting that even if we cut them off from the outside world altogether, that it isn't naive to think that they still won't allow their political ideologies to interfere with their judgments?

Don't you think there should be a line?

Undoubtedly, but where do we draw it? With the spouse? How about the kids? Parents and in-laws? That twice removed cousin who holds a special spot in the Justice's heart?

I love the idea of an apolitical court, but reality says it doesn't happen. I do not think it unreasonable to put restrictions on Justices in addition to those which the A.B.A imposes, but I think we should be careful how far we take it. It is a slippery slope indeed.

My suggestion is that we monitor this situation closely and raise a shit-fit at the first signs of abuse. Samuel Chase was impeached (albeit unsuccessfully) for allowing his politics to affect his decision-making on the court, and the same could be done today.

I am reticent to use an old expression in this case, lest I be labeled an insensitive, racist like Dan Rather, but I will anyways because it is appropriate: "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves".

l agree. there should be.

How about the ones living in the gated community on our dime. How about the ones who live off the money we are paying to have a 'Supreme Justice'.

They should not participate in something, which divides the country along party lines. If you didn't realize it, the Supreme Court should be politically neutral. The Republicans were the ones screaming about 'activist judges', now they think it's okay? How convenient!

http://Moveon.org

Good point! If we had a Supreme Court Justice on the bench whose husband or wife was the CEO of ACORN or Moveon.org....would these neocons still be insisting that there was no conflict of interest?

Of course not. They have a clear double standard.

First lady is a political position, has been for eighty years since FDR's Wife immersed herself in public policy. Smoke some more crack crackpot

If its an officially recognized political position, then WTF were the Republicans bitching about when she was engaged in politics? Why did Republicans insist that she had "no business" involving hself in politics if...as you claim...the Republicans recognized her role as being a political one?

I call bullshit. Like all Republicans you imploy a double-standard. When Conservatives do something its "right" and when Progressives/Liberals do something its "wrong."

you can call me anything you like but I for one are no republican and for you to think I am is about as absurd as thinking the sun revolves around the earth. You must not read my threads or stories. I am about as liberal/progressive as you'll find walking the streets of the USA/ And one with a greater understanding of the world and politics than you have right now maybe in like thirty years you'll know what I know. You know why people are taught to respect elders? THEY KNOW MORE

I think the comment 'smoke some more crack crackpot, led him to think you were a Republican. Generally Republicans make that type of comments.

lol

Yawn, again with this utter stupidity.
You're an idiot!!! President Obama is a person of mixed ethnicity.
When will you racists wannabes get the memo; Americans are racially mixed.
Love it or hate it, you had better get used to it.
Imagine, in the 21st century, old slags like you still believe there are white people..
Ha-Ha jokes on you.

calm down it was a joke. god lord, now look whose being sensitive

AS the wife of a Supreme Court Justice one should not immerse themselves into politics on a public level, its called conflict of interest. But I guess you don't understand that.

she could take the lead of some of the more savvy political wives and give her time to a non-political charity

Cut this woman some slack 'my ass'. She lives in a gated community on our dime. She is 'Mrs. Clarence Thomas'. She is not free to start a political party! She if free to have her opinion, but she should at least 'fake' like she's for America, not a party. Sad, sad, sad!

I hope this is the 'straw that broke the camels back' and expose these political pawns for what they are.

Guess I missed the bit in the Constitution where it says a spouse sacrifices their own right to free speech and political opinion when they marry someone who's influential? Hmmm, interesting concept.

You guys have a hard time understanding the basic difference between Clarence and his wife: TWO people. SEPARATE. INDIVIDUALS. She didn't raise her hand to take an Oath of Office, her HUSBAND did. "Conflict of interest", my ass, LOL!....

That's the problem, the Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to be influential. They are supposed to be above politics.

"That's the problem, the Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to be influential."

Are you joking? That's the problem: idiots who don't know what they're talking about before they open their opinion holes.

OF COURSE the Supreme Court IS supposed to be influential, as that's precisely their JOB: the Supreme Courts' role is to decide the outcome for the MOST contentious legal issues facing US courts, simply so they CAN influence the Nation... I take it you've not studied the basics of how your gov't works, then?

"They are supposed to be above politics."

It would be nice if political forces didn't try to influence the Court, and the Court didn't try to influence political processes. However, that's polyannish thinking, as it's NEVER been that way, even going back to the earliest days in this country.

What I find funny is all the internet lawyers accusing Thomas' wife of breaking the law, as if she and her Husband didn't give it a bit of thought, LOL! About as funny as claiming Obama, who was a Professor of Constitutional Law and taught others, didn't know a thing or two about the Constitution; and like THEY did, when they probably dropped out of high school or community college (where Beck and Hannity fit that into the latter category)!

I guess I am naive. I had hoped the days of Republicans being able to just say 'so' and we move along were over. In 2000 when the Supreme Court stopped the count, we just moved along. Anthony Scalia's answer was 'get over it'.

George W. took us into a war of choice using fixed facts and forged documents and we just 'moved along' even after the facts were readily availabe. History isn't rewritten yet. Iraq had not killed one American and was not openly threatening us. We were spun by fear. I don't know that everyone is actually in the clear yet. Charges may still come?

How many of their own people wrote books about their misdeeds? We just 'moved along', nothing to see here, move along became the norm. No one was held accountable. Every Friday was a new news dump. By Monday, it was old news.

I thought it was because they had the power. Now I realize it's because the Democrats don't know how to use the power. What's a political party to do? I hope there are a few 'clean' Democrats left, who will study what power they actually have. I hope they don't wait till the next election.

Conflict of interests are real and need to be addressed. The attitude from our Republican friends would be wildly different if this were a Supreme Court Justice whose spouse was the founder of ACORN or the Vice President of the United States.

They would not be shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Who cares?" if this were a Supreme Court Justices spouse starting a Socialist party or organizing a Pro-Choice Abortion Outreach.....would they?

What if this spouse were championing a Same Sex Marriage Equality PAC and -- oops! -- turns out the Supreme Court was deciding a case involving same sex marriage?

Would our Republican friends still insist that there was o conflict of interest or that nothing inappropriate was happening?

Or would they be bitching that the game was rigged?

I know your not in the tax bracket you wished you were, but this woman doesnt need to be chastised by a bitter old woman who wishes she could live in a gated community. When he swore into the supreme court she didnt raise her hand next to him. She can do what ever she wants, and there is nothing you can do, but bitch to a bunch of your vegan buddies about how unfrair the right wing conspiracy is.

The issue is about political impartiality while sitting on the Supreme Court and not letting personal political views affect decisions. The issue has nothing to do with race, and liberals and conservatives alike should be outraged if ANY of the justices were in the same situation. Your race analogy is without substance and is merely a mind set that reinforces how critical it is for strictly maintaining impartiality within our Supreme Court.

Mr. Know it all name one majority opinion written by Clarence Thomas during his tenure on the Supreme Court Lets see if you can find one

Still waiting uncle charlie come on name a decision of the majority written by Clarence Thomas

still waiting, can't find one can you?

typical racist rant there...but clearly a logical FAIL .... or did you not notice that the WOMAN whose activities are in question here is WHITE?

Using race in this context is shameful. Nothing about the wife of a Supreme Court Justice making a political stand has to do with race. I would feel the same if it were Anthony Scalia's wife.

This just goes to show they really are and were 'Activist Justices' and that's why they stopped the count in 2000. They were trying to and did manipulate the will of the people. Sad, sad, sad!

Uh, and how does the success of Clarence Thomas cause outrage amongst liberals, while the success of Obama doesn't? You make little sense, Dude.

too confusing dude. Or are you confused. There is no victim mentality for a group of people who are traumatized, and have been constantly harassed and victimized by the government and other citizens for hundreds of years since brought to this land, against their will to serve as slaves.
These people are really victims!
I dare you to be anything but a comfortable fat-a^@ in your arm chair.

You sir are essentially a victim of your own ignorance, and not much else.

I said the same thing! HOT this guy is so totally cornfused eh.
Coffee anyone??? near SF

Transitioning

what happens to those who go "mixed race." Are they doomed too?