Maybe, the corporate media will actually do something with this.
I doubt it, but…
Maybe I am biased, but from my experience with judges, the worst ones for abiding by ethical mandates are the social conservatives.
The New York Times has a story on the increasingly brazen behavior of Virginia Thomas which suggests to me that either she needs to cease her activities or Clarence Thomas should perhaps start considering stepping down from the Supreme Court.
[T]o some people who study judicial ethics, Mrs. Thomas’s activism is raising knotty questions, in particular about her acceptance of large, unidentified contributions for Liberty Central. She began the group in late 2009 with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000, and because it is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, named for the applicable section of the federal tax code, she does not have to publicly disclose any contributors. Such tax-exempt groups are supposed to make sure that less than half of their activities are political.
Mrs. Thomas, known as Ginni, declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed without an agreement not to discuss her husband. In written responses to questions, Sarah Field, Liberty Central’s chief operating officer and general counsel, said that Mrs. Thomas is paid by Liberty Central, with the compensation set by the group’s board, and that the group has “internal reviews and protections to ensure that no donor causes a conflict of interest for either Ginni or her husband.”
A federal law requires justices to recuse themselves in a number of circumstances where real or perceived conflicts of interest could arise, including in cases where their spouses could have a financial interest. But the decision to step aside is up to each justice; there is no appeal from the nation’s highest court.
“It’s shocking that you would have a Supreme Court justice sitting on a case that might implicate in a very fundamental way the interests of someone who might have contributed to his wife’s organization,” said Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor and director of the Stanford University Center on the Legal Profession.
“The fact that we can’t find that out is the first problem,” she said, adding, “And how can the public form a judgment about propriety if it doesn’t have the basic underlying facts?”
TeaBircher Republichristofascists will dodge this issue until they drop. So perhaps a better way to force them into the question reality of Clarence Thomas’s unquiestionable lack of fitness to hold office is to hit them where it really hurts – namely, what we all know that their views on race really are.
Ask Christine O’Donnell and Joe Miller and all the rest the following question: Is there a federal constitutional basis for Clarence and Virginia Thomas to claim that they had the right to marry one another – and, if you say that there is, what is the specific provision of the federal constitution upon which you rest that assertion?
Its time to wrap the selective-14th-Amendment around the neck of every TeaBircher Republichristofascist – and pull tight.