Is there any better sign that Democrats are worried about the fight against ObamaCare then this trumped up call for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the proceedings?
Seventy-four House Democrats have signed a letter to Clarence Thomas asking the Supreme Court justice to recuse himself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of the national health care overhaul, arguing that his wife’s work as a lobbyist creates “the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
The move is the latest indication that the court battle over the health-care law’s constitutionality — which is expected to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court — has already become a political tit-for-tat.
“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law,” the House Democrats wrote. “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.”
Ridiculous. None of the organizations she is affiliated with are involved in ANY of the lawsuits working their way through the courts. Additionally, the suits by the states are being argued by the Attorney Generals for each state…is a AG hiring her services? I think not.
It’s all a game of tit for tat because Republicans dared to suggest Justice Kagan should recuse herself. She was Solicitor General for the administration while ObamaCare was up in Congress for god’s sake. Did she provide legal advice to the Administration on getting this thing passed? Certainly a question mark but I expect the MSM to trumpet this Thomas story for a few reasons. It involves Clarence Thomas and they love to bash anything Clarence Thomas related, plus it deflects the Kagan issues. And you know how the MSM must provide cover for anything liberal.
I don’t want to hear anything about spouses until members of Congress are banned from both hiring ‘em, and meeting with lobbyists who employ them.
See author page
The rest of the black community knows that Clarence Thomas was never qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court in the first place! The rest of the black community REMEMBERS when Clarence Thomas publically humiliated his sister (who put Clarence Thomas through law school while working two jobs) because she was on welfare! The rest of the black community remembers how Clarence Thomas treated black women and remembers when the rest of America shunned Anita Hill. The REST OF BLACK AMERICA REMEMBERS HOW INSULTING IT WAS FOR BUSH TO APPOINT CLARENCE THOMAS TO THE BENCH IN ORDER TO SIMPLY REPLACE THURGOOD MARSHALL WITH ANOTHER BLACK FACE INSTEAD OF REPLACING THURGOOD MARSHALL WITH A QUALIFIED PERSON WHO ACTUALLY HAD AN INTEREST IN CIVIL RIGHTS OR EVEN THE BOARD VS. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION CASE TO BEGIN WITH!!! This is why black America does NOT and NEVER has supported Clarence Thomas! There’s a huge difference between Clarence Thomas and Barack Obama in qualifications and morals! Remember in American history there was a huge difference in the perception of the house black slave and the field black slave. That’s why the majority of black America supports Barack Obama but the majority of black America does NOT support Clarence Thomas! Black people (as I hope all people) are not going to elect or support a person simply because they have a black or white face and will as quickly elect a black or white person with values similar to the ones that the majority of the black community shares! Remember before Barack Obama ran for the presidency, black America heavily supported Bill Clinton in his campaign in the 1990s AND they heavily supported Hillary Clinton before Obama entered the presidential race. Lots of black Americans did not like that Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against the Vietnam War because they felt that many other Americans view such a move as “un-American” (whatever un-American means considering America claims to other countries that we’re such a smorgasbord of cultures and opinions but are not reflected as such in the US government or laws). Anyways, it’s the same way that the majority of black Americans, who overwhelmingly did not support Bush but did “support the troops” (although I was taught by my US military retired dad and my current US military serving 3 brothers that “supporting the troops” meant doing what was in the best interest of the troops and our country by not unnecessarily putting them in harm’s way!) So you see, you should be VERY HAPPY that black people do not support or agree with the views of someone simply because they have a black face or because they DO NOT have a black face!!! That’s the beauty of the IDEA of America – individual opinion and the right to express it, in hopes of not being racists or prejudice while doing so. Know that not agreeing with Clarence Thomas’ views is why the majority of all to infrequently polled black Americans do NOT support Clarence Thomas. Have a wonderful day!
Man oh man….
Someone spilled the maximum strength crazee on this thread.
LOL, Aye…. beat me to it. Saw that crap from “Faith”, and wondered how Daily KOs or Huffpo landed in my inbox!
But amazing how many lib/prog talking points and revisionist history can be strung together by loons in a single comment, eh?
@Aye:
LOL!
I read report after report about FLA and the disputed ballot count.
In NO variation did Gore ever win.
Gore was the one who stood in the way of a full state recount, not the courts and not Bush.
Gore was the one who stood in front of counting military ballots, not the courts and not Bush.
But even with Gore’s selective counties, he LOST on every recount.
Sheesh, take a breath! If these don’t beg for the wisdom of President Reagan:
Hmmm. Guess CW ran off when he realized we weren’t buying his BS about Thomas or that he was an independent.
The liberals are hoping to use our standards against us. Telling Thomas that he should recuse himself is an example of that. Liberals would have no problem saying hell no, no matter how bad the conflict.
Whew! That was some run. But I have only one comment, re Faith, and I don’t really know how to phrase it in a politically correct manner, but the jist of it is why don’t you get off the “black thing” and join the rest of us “people”?
Just people, with many of the same problems, sorrows, joys, pick your own choice. If there weren’t successful black people in this world one might fall for the “Poor me” BS so prevalent, but there are, which leaves me to believe that too much of this is just plain Bull__T, kindly put of course. Really this color crap is getting real old.
It’s worn out really, someone should think of something else to take its place. SCREAM. AHHHHHHHHH
Oh, on impeaching someone, well I wouldn’t dig into that. Might just find a cause or two.
@MataHarley: Thank you again for taking an interest. I find your input most insightful and measured. Sorry to have cast doubt on the thoroughness with which you perused the material. I figured that you are a busy moderator and your questions seemed to excuse some of the points I had made. But as you said, you lacked only the time to formulate a comprehensive reply and I believe you took due time to review. Likewise, my days are filled with obligation and I haven’t the endless time to take part in this arousing debate, fun as I find it. That is to say, I apologize for my tardy reply. This is the last bit of free time I can spend on this worthwhile pursuit and let it be known that I deeply appreciate the time, effort and consideration offered by everyone who felt it worthwhile to participate.
As far as Justice Kagan’s direct ties to the federal government, and her alleged ties to the legislation in question, she has addressed that and I have provided her address. Only an oathburdened testimony can legally verify her assertion, and if that assertion is hardily doubted then petition one, but to the degree that I regard Justice Thomas’ character, I regard hers, (some may take issue with my claiming to highly regard the character of Justice Thomas, but the issue at hand, the issue I have raised, is not one of his credibility, but whether or not the letter addressed to him is worthy of the justice’s earnest consideration as it is from due consideration that a justice decides to recuse themselves. The article that all of this discussion relates to was a claim that such a prompting is motivated manipulation and undue. Perhaps those that did not cosign are motivated instead?). I give no pass. I refer to her statements only.
Anyone can, by some various degree, be linked financially or ideologically to anything, as you say. We can all agree that Mrs. Thomas is indeed an active lobbyist, and that she has, and continues, to lobby on behalf of this issue. Considering that this is not a centralized issue, such as oil or tobacco, but a vast political movement formalized only by GOP seat holders, how can it be argued that she does not benefit directly when indeed she champions this issue in a tangibly official manner, for which she is compensated, with a degree of formality only short of an actual Republican representative?
But again, this goes beyond my true argument and only refers to arguments I made for the benefit of those who demand a higher consequence. We have both agreed that “judicial behavior at all levels INRE appropriate moments of recusing in situations,” is at a higher standard than most any level of professional enterprise. I only mean to hold my highest legal representatives to the utmost standards of conduct, disclosure and accountability.
To address your final point where you attempt to damn Justice Kagan with issues of disclosure, yes, “disclosure is the key,” and Justice Thomas failed to disclose until prompted. That Justice Kagan was a staff member was hardly obscured nor am I aware of any issues raised about her disclosure analogous to those of Justice Thomas’ reprimands.
Everyone has assumed I would prefer the Health Care Reforms upheld. I have never lent evidence to this opinion, nor can I say it is wholly founded. I do not believe there is a well informed person in this nation that is satisfied with the measure and reach of these reforms. I have only tried to defend the action undertaken by this nation’s congress to instigate a thoughtful evaluation of conflict.
Finally, no, I am not a professor, or educator at any level. I work in the private sector. That you have such a high esteem of my intellectual capability is flattering.
As a side note, why is speaking well a negative thing? Why are modern conservatives intimidated by intellectualism? Why would anyone want to be represented by the ignorant and unlearned? For the record, I do like the word bandy. A+. Eloquence is the tool of the well informed to communicate effectively. To attempt to do so with only the modest mastery of language is tedious.
I make no more points. I take leave as I really need to get my focus back onto my actual occupation. I’m a bit behind. I am thrilled to have had the pleasure of discussing this with you all. You are mostly a careful and insightful group. While some took severe issue to the occurrence of a dissenting opinion, others embraced it. Such is the lifeblood of our essential freedoms. I thank you all for a worthwhile experience.
P.S. Hard Right, you would do well to work on your manners if you would ever like your voice considered legitimately instead of as a parody of obstinacy and closemindeness. Stick to issues. Antagonization is faulty and transparent. Try to follow MataHarley’s example. She is a fine intellectual.
CW, since you have taken it upon ourself to offer some of us advice, I will take the liberty to help you.
For an individual with a degree of erudition and a flair for words, who uses a style that is closer to being overburdened rather than efficient, a style that is often employed as pretense at being a man of letters, may I suggest that you read and emulate Hemingway. With an economy of words, he is one of the most effective American writers. If you can employ a facsimile of his style, you will find yourself becoming a much more effective debater and communicator: in time you and your prose will appear less pedantic and without the stain of periphrasis, your euphemisms will be more effective and in essence you will be better at expression.
Your use of the mild epiplexis style is only reminiscent of certain ancient Greeks is to be commended, but it will tend to agrevate your opponent or lose his interest. With subtleties, the insult can become an art form and combined with an economy of expression the pathos is not diluted.
I offer you this help out of feelings of compassion for a valiant effort that displayed an enthusiastic degree of sincerity that was overshadowed by an overplayed epitasis: thus rendering your dubious arguments an even less stable platform from employing an overplayed circumlocution.
I suggest you try to improve by using either our style as a didactic or adopting a style from one of the more literate erudite Liberals and thus feel free to return in the future, when you are more equipped and prepared to engage in spirited debate. You may trust that I offer this not as an aphorism, but as encouragement to an inquisitive rustic who shows promise and who could well become a worthy adversary in the future, if you are willing to put in the necessary time to become an effective writer and debater.
Ah Yes, CW departs without addressing the significant holes in his claims. Why am I not surprised? I’ll take your failure to address what I REPEATEDLY mentioned as an acknowledgement that you are as dishonest as shown.
As far as advice goes, I suggest you try being honest and admit you are a liberal. That way when you make overtly liberal remarks you aren’t called out for lying about your political beliefs.
I know this is pearls before swine because you came here to lecture, not debate on how wrong we are to say Thomas shouldn’t recuse himself.
@Skookum: You have hit it as much on the head as is possible. I envy Hemingway. His is a mastery of meaningful language that I can only modestly aspire to achieve. My literary manner it too tied to my love of Dostoevsky and Faulkner and my execution is too burdened by my hyper-academic training. You have evaluated me perfectly and I respect you for it. I’m not happy with how condescendingly my rhetoric sometimes veers, although when responding to men like Hard Right it is hard not be dismissive and pompous. His pettiness frustrated me, although it is my fault for not rising above it, (even now the condescension blooms!). Another sin, that in time, I hope to correct. You are the most acute participant I encountered here and I have only been successfully tempted to again reappear in order to express my humble and sincere regard. I will keep my eye on this collective and I hope to one day give valued criticism that might be contemplated upon meaningfully and not disregarded easily. That said, I stand by my truest point that a higher ethic should, and must always, prevail, I only hope to one day convey it more directly and effectively such that this community’s standards are met; and yours might I add. Thank you again, Skookum, and all the best!
CW said…. Quote….
“Justice O’Connor often recused herself from cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in such firms. Justice BREYER rescued himself from cases involving insurance companies because of his involvement with Lloyd’s of London.”
CW……..you’ve made an EXCELLENT point here, that Justice BREYER should recuse himself !!! Involved in Insurance, recused himself before due to this very topic, and this case is ALL about “insurance”! To NOT recuse himself here, would be hypocrisy! So HE needs to “take a hike” on this one!! GOOD JOB!!
As to Thomas…. not even close.
In the Case of Kagan,, ABSOLUTELY! She was up to her eyeballs in “constitutionality issues” for Obama…. was her JOB there, so SHE is “tainted” in this regard, on this topic, and needs to step aside. Well, that’s 2 Liberals who should not rule!
Thanks for Clearing this up!
CW, your love of Dostoevsky and Faulkner is apparent and provides logic and insight into your writing style and personality. Faulkner is Faulkner; however, Dostoevsky maintains the ethos of the Russian and his style is an emotive instrument of hundreds of years of pain and suffering.
An American writer who isn’t handicapped by a translation deficit and whose style is only hindered by the passing of years is Melville. As a child, one of my mentors told me that Moby Dick was written to explain all the passions and desires of human existence. I try to read Moby Dick every winter and I derive new insight from each effort.
Of course Doestoevsky was meant to be read in winter on the Steppes and I read him during the Northern Canadian winter, so I was in the spirit, so to speak. The mental gymnastics are fascinating, but he can be a desultory writer and when you spend the winter in 20 hours of darkness, Doestoevsky is usually the first choice of a non-Russian.
I found the writing of Melville to be just as compelling and challenging; although, some scenes tend to leave me attuned to every sound outside my cabin. As a man who has stared the Grizzly in the eye and is steady in both composure and aim: I can say with ease and confidence that when Captain Ahab cut his three heathen harpooners and drained some of their blood to quench and temper the White Whale’s harpoon and barbs and then howled in delirium the blasphemy “Ego non baptizo te in nomine patris, sed in nomine diaboli!” as the red hot iron sizzled in blood, this lone trapper can become more than a little spooked in my trap cabin, so isolated in the mountains.
Throughout the book he feeds the reader these morsels of contemplation: Our souls are like those orphans whose unwedded mothers die in bearing them: the secret of our paternity lies in their grave, and we must there to learn it.
My wayward point is that Doestoevsky is a noble endeavor, but there are American authors who offer a similar intellectual experience without wrestling the Russian winter.