Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:21 PM ET, 02/ 9/2011

House Democrats say Justice Thomas should recuse himself in health-care case

By Felicia Sonmez

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."

The House Democrats' letter follows a suggestion made by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) last week that Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan should recuse herself from any consideration of the health care law's constitutionality because of her previous position as U.S. Solicitor General.

"I think that Kagan, who was the solicitor general at the time this was all done, probably should recuse herself, which means it might not be resolved by the Supreme Court," Hatch told Fox News last week. "That means the lower court decision will be the acting law."

Here is the full text of the Democrats' letter:

The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court Building
1 First Street Northeast
Washington D.C., DC 20543

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 healthcare 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 healthcare 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 an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the US 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

By Felicia Sonmez  | February 9, 2011; 12:21 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ron Paul holds first hearing on Federal Reserve
Next: Reports: Giffords asks for toast

Comments

REALLY drowningpuppies? How are the "dems out to lynch another black guy" when an overwhelming majority of black people don't even like Clarence Thomas?!

And it's ironic how realist201 even has the audacity to state that, "Trying to make Thomas recuse hisself because of his wife is sexist, racist and criminal on behalf of the Dems" when Clarence Thomas sexually assaulted women! It was RACIST 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!!! Thurgood Marshall was extremely qualified to be appointed a Supreme Court justice! Clarence Thomas was NOT qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court! In addition, it's DEFINITELY CRIMINAL for Thomas to continuously refuse to recuse himself from rendering a decision in Supreme Court cases where he has major conflicts of interest! The statutory basis for recusal is 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), which provides that any judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

It's time for congress to stop asking justices such as Thomas who obviously don't care what their LEGAL responsibilities are by continuing to violate the law to recuse themselves and simply impeach Clarence Thomas and ANY other justices who do not recuse themselves from cases in which they have major conflicts of interests! Thomas and numerous other justices have been given many chances to handle these situations properly and recuse themselves yet these same so-called "justices" continue to violate their duties and rule on cases where they should not! I'm tired of waiting for Clarence Thomas to do the right thing! IMPEACH THOMAS and other justices that violate their duties NOW; hold the criminal trial proceedings and get them out of office!!!

Realist201 continues, "This attempt to circumvent the will of the American Electorate and the Constitution will be brought up during the 2012 General Elections." Again, Realist201 needs to look at what Republican appointed so-called "justices" have done to circumvent the American people and the Constitution when these justices decided to ILLEGALLY appoint Bush as president of the United States!!! The Supreme Court does NOT have this power because the justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by presidents! If the Supreme Court then appoints presidents then America would have the exact type of government that Egyptians just faught against - an authoritarian government!!!

The 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States passed on March 2, 1932, details that CONGRESS - NOT the SUPREME COURT - may declare who shall then act as president!!! Since the Rehnquist Supreme Court illegally took more power than appointed to them they should have been impeached and sentenced to jail for their criminal acts!

Posted by: Faith10 | February 11, 2011 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Thomas should be impeached...

"News reports on the Thomas case generally have referenced 5 U.S. Code app. section 104, which calls for a misdemeanor punishment of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment, or both, for each violation. Given that Thomas apparently violated the statute for roughly 20 years, he could wind up with a substantial penalty under that law.

But the punishment becomes much more severe under 18 U.S.C. 1001, which also appears to apply in the Thomas case. It is a felony statute carrying at least five years in prison, and a former official with the U.S. House of Representatives currently is under indictment for actions that almost mirror those in the Thomas case."

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/clarence-thomas-is-trying-to-get-away.html

Posted by: larrytall | February 10, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Uh-oh. Dems out to lynch another black man. What else is new?

Posted by: drowningpuppies | February 10, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

If Justice Thomas should recuse himself from healthcare case, then Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should definitely recuse theirselves from all future 2nd Amendment/gunrights cases, due to their lifetime connections with the anti-gun lobby.

Posted by: gatorman770 | February 10, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Only a "weenie" like Weiner would be partner to this absurdity! How many times have we heard the "wee-wee" democrat profess to defend womens rights and independence? Now he condemns not only a successful woman, but also her successful husband solely because they have stepped on "progressive tenets" by actually being married! The panic and disarray in the "progressive "sector is palatable as these ideologues realize the silent majority of American loving workers have awakened to the assault being mounted against American tradition! If anyone on the court deserves the position, Thomas does after surviving the racist, left wing ideological assault that was launched against him during confirmation hearings!

Posted by: stonemike | February 10, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Only a "weenie" like Weiner would be partner to this absurdity! How many times have we heard the "wee-wee" democrat profess to defend womens rights and independence? Now he condemns not only a successful woman, but also her successful husband solely because they have stepped on "progressive tenets" by actually being married! The panic and disarray in the "progressive "sector is palatable as these ideologues realize the silent majority of American loving workers have awakened to the assault being mounted against American tradition! If anyone on the court deserves the position, Thomas does after surviving the racist, left wing ideological assault that was launched against him during confirmation hearings!

Posted by: stonemike | February 10, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

How come Dianne Feinstein a scumbag liberal senator from California, was on a committee which directly influenced a financial announcement in the millions for her husband. Your president appointed two justices, neither one is qualified and very activist. Since neither is married, would they have to be recused if their significant other were in the same position

Posted by: nomobarry | February 10, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Justice Thomas has received little respect within his home as on the bench. No one respect this guy; yet, he continues to reside on the highest court of the land.

Posted by: ronhamp | February 10, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Recuse Thomas and Kagan.

IMPEACH SOTOMAYOR!

Posted by: DonnaAngelStar | February 10, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Recuse Thomas and Kagan.

IMPEACH SOTOMAOYOR!

Posted by: DonnaAngelStar | February 10, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

ROFLMAO!

Libs are now desperate as they KNOW the bill is unconstitutional and is going to be rightfully flushed by the SCotUS during the Presidential election season.

Posted by: illogicbuster | February 10, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

ROFLMAO!

Libs are now desperate as they KNOW the bill is unconstitutional and is going to be rightfully flushed by the SCotUS during the Presidential election season.

Posted by: illogicbuster | February 10, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

ANTHONY D. WEINER is an obnoxious radical leftwing twit.

I wonder if he believes that Justice Ginsberg should recuse herself in every case involving the ACLU, for whom she
advocated as a volunteer lawyer and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsel in the 1970s.

How about cases involving "Women's rights" since in 1970 she co-founded the Women's Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the U.S. to focus exclusively on women's rights. From 1972 until 1980, she taught at Columbia Law School, where she became the first tenured woman and co-authored the first law school casebook on sex discrimination.

And how about all the other justices who've actually done something, or whose spouses have done something during their lives - other than whine like Weiner seems to do 100% of the time.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | February 10, 2011 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Is it just coincidence that the links to this article go elsewhere? THis blog/article is not listed under the Supreme Court section, it is hard to find...has someone directed the WaPo to stop with this line of investigation. Thomas SHOULD recuse himself, but this article is now buried and there is no follow up. This is a very important question and one that deserves serious consideration and investigation by all!

Posted by: shredder1 | February 10, 2011 10:11 AM | Report abuse

are the democrats trying to say that a supreme court justice can be bought off like a politician.

Posted by: SISSD1 | February 10, 2011 8:36 AM | Report abuse

This letter is not a short-term strategy. Clarence Thomas is as likely to recuse himself on hearing the health-reform suits as he is to quit the Court.

If the Supreme Court overturns the health-reform law on a 5-4 vote, and Clarence Thomas is one of the votes to overturn, the Democrats will make a pledge to impeach Clarence Thomas on the basis of apparent conflict of interest a centerpiece of their 2012 Congressional campaign.

You think Obama has negatives? Compared to Clarence Thomas', Obama's negatives are miniscule.

--------------------------------------
Ok, but then even if Kagan doesn't recuse herself it would most likely go 4-4 which would also serve to uphold Judge Vinson's ruling.

Either way obamacare is done. Thanks to all who spoke out against it and didn't let ourselves be railroaded into accepting what we told them we didn't want. We wrote letters to our Congressmen, I even wrote to some out of my state, and we attended town hall meetings. Our wishes were clear, and we were the majority.

Posted by: cathyjs | February 10, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

I guess the Dems still haven't learned that throwing dirt is not an effective way to derail logic as there's always dirt to be thrown right back at them. Still, their tactic remains of trying to cover the truth with mud thinking no one will wash it off.

Plain and simple Judge Vinson's ruling was thorough and well explained and I believe will stand. If Thomas recuses himself then Kagan must also. In any case Kagan should recuse herself.

Both federal judges in Florida stated congressional over-reach, and it's time the citizens see it too. 26 states' AGs obviously saw Congress's open disregard for the Constitution, and this is not the only instance, not by far. But it is the most public and the attention being paid to this issue may well be a catalyst for reviewing many other cases of Congress overstepping their bounds. Let's hope so.

Posted by: cathyjs | February 10, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Thomas should be impeached...

"News reports on the Thomas case generally have referenced 5 U.S. Code app. section 104, which calls for a misdemeanor punishment of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment, or both, for each violation. Given that Thomas apparently violated the statute for roughly 20 years, he could wind up with a substantial penalty under that law.

But the punishment becomes much more severe under 18 U.S.C. 1001, which also appears to apply in the Thomas case. It is a felony statute carrying at least five years in prison, and a former official with the U.S. House of Representatives currently is under indictment for actions that almost mirror those in the Thomas case."

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/02/clarence-thomas-is-trying-to-get-away.html

Posted by: larrytall | February 10, 2011 7:38 AM | Report abuse

I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check search online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: martinmorriss | February 10, 2011 5:22 AM | Report abuse


Mortgage refinancing means re-funding the mortgage loan with better terms as well as conditions, most likely from a different lender. It is one way to save money. Search online for 123 Mortgage Refinance they found me 3.1% refinance rate and also gave free analysis of my mortgage.

Posted by: nelsonbentz | February 10, 2011 4:24 AM | Report abuse

Nice try, liberals. There's no conflict in Justice Thomas's case, but for Justice Kagan, it's another matter. She, herself, actually had some involvement in the particular matter while serving as solicitor general. This is all about trying to cool off the Kagan recusal chorus, by raising a bogus Thomas recusal demand.

Posted by: franciskiley | February 9, 2011 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Kagan was working for Obimbo before she got on the SCOTUS, so she should recuse herself. Sotomayor should also consider this, as she has talked many times about racial discrimination in making her court judgments, and the Demonrat racism against Justice Thomas is obvious. Breyer should recuse himself for talking to Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker how he wishes to find new ways to advance Obimbo's agenda---another recusal required. So Scalia, Roberts, & Alito [& Kennedy] versus ancient fossil Ginzburg, is she can stay awake through the proceedings. Anyone I left out?

Posted by: djman1141 | February 9, 2011 11:33 PM | Report abuse

The author's arguments are strong. But, we must defer to stare decisis. The emanations emanating from the penumbras have found a right to privacy (through solid legal reasoning), particularly between a husband and wife, in the first iteration. Then, given this homage to precedent, Thomas would be derelict in his duty as a judge if he ignored his solemn right to privacy and recused himself from the nation's business. Shall we have government agents in the bedroom, after all?

Posted by: IowaCityEh | February 9, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse


Come on guys, this is not rocket science, it's called
"PILLOW TALK."

Ginny disrespects Clarence, along with the majority of Americans and has proven it time and time again. Pitiful.


Posted by: bizlearn | February 9, 2011 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Attacking an African American Supreme Court Judge? Those democrats are such hateful racists.

Posted by: techresmgt | February 9, 2011 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Thomas should step down. He has long since lost any claim to judicial impartiality.

Posted by: samsara15 | February 9, 2011 9:51 PM | Report abuse

So impeach Justice Thomas.

Posted by: joy5 | February 9, 2011 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely laughable. Nice try Dems. No...that's being too generous. Elected representatives of the citizenry are supposed to have some modicum of priciples. That letter is an insult to our intelligence.

Posted by: TelecomSteve | February 9, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse


Barry the incompetent boob's Obamacare boondoogle is unconstitutional and the Dims know it.

Miserable failure Obama

Posted by: screwjob23 | February 9, 2011 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Earlier, Realist201 wrote: "and they will not dare to impeach him, so it is time for the loony left to shut up and take your medicine. The Dems brought this on themsleves (sic) and will have to expalin (sic) to the American voters in 2012 how they wasted two years passing a Health Plan the Supreme Court threw out as Unconstitutional!

=======================================

The fact remains that if Thomas doesn't recuse himself, he will be in apparent violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) - see my previous post. If you disagree with that assessment, I'd be interested in continuing that discussion, based on objective evidence such as U. S. statutes and case law.

You will also notice that my earlier posting had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the health care act.

FInally, you don't know me nearly well enough to call me "loony." I only let my friends, professional associates, and closest enemies do that. Right now, I'm pretty sure you don't fall into any one of those categories.

Posted by: apn3206 | February 9, 2011 8:39 PM | Report abuse

One conclusion seems pretty clear: the Supreme Court has lost its facade of wisdom, balanced judgment and impartiality. It is nothing more than just another political hangout where extremists spew their own ideologies. Sad.

Posted by: frodot | February 9, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

It appears to me that Thomas & Kagan should recuse themselves; that leaves the court able to render a decision.

As to the constitutionality -- I believe that Congress overstepped the constitution in mandating that coverage. Might as well mandate life insurance. disability, and nursing home coverage as well under the same logic. The only way it can be constitutional is to impose a tax and redistribute the proceeds via deduction or voucher.

I own a small business that would be exempt under the law. There is no way my employees can afford health insurance and no way that I can raise prices high enough to be able to pay them enough to afford health insurance. So they'll end up either coverage-less, or on the public (medicaid) rolls anyway. I'd suspect all the surrounding small businesses in my mall are in the same circumstance.

That said, the law creates a big hole for businesses. Why grow to 25 employees if you'll then be forced to offer health insurance? Keep your business small, or organized under different companies to stay small enough to be exempt. This is just a start of another abomination like the tax code.

Posted by: WalterGr | February 9, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: washpost16....And, once again, you've lived down to yours.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ahhh yes, birds of a feather!

Posted by: erodrik | February 9, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Recuse this:
The NAACP has become increasingly irrelevant in recent years, by refusing, for example, to condemn overtly racist remarks by members of the New Black Panther party.
Now the organization can claim the additional distinction of being hypocritical. It has refused to address racially charged comments leveled at black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by liberal protesters last month.
The Daily Caller reports having sent the NAACP a video in which protesters of the Koch Brothers meeting in Palm Springs hurl vicious racial slurs and threats at Thomas. Among the comments are calls to “string up” the high court justice, to “send him back into the fields,” and to “cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one.”
A request for a reaction by the NAACP was met with silence. The Caller indicates that it received an email from Hilary Shelton, a spokesman, which read:

Posted by: erodrik | February 9, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

recuse himself.

yeah.

that'll happen.

Posted by: silverfish1 | February 9, 2011 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Sotomayor and Kagen didn't even acknowledge the formal motion to recuse themselves from deliberations regarding Obama's legal qualifications to be president, even though they were appointed by Obama and their continued service on the court was at stake. Talk about the appearance of a conflict of interest. This was a real, serious conflict of interest but they got away with it because they are Democrats.

Posted by: mike85 | February 9, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

"Posted by: Rob_ | February 9, 2011 6:26 PM |Once again, Anthony Weiner lives up to his name."

And, once again, you've lived down to yours.


Posted by: washpost16 | February 9, 2011 7:05 PM | Report abuse

This is a clear sign that the Libs know the Supreme Court will toss Obamacare in its entirety. All that's left is to keep the margin of overthrow to a level they can keep a straight face about when they complain afterwards. Nancy Pe-loser and Harry Ried are about to find out that "Constitution" is not a reference to their digestive functions.

Posted by: hofbrauhausde | February 9, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

This is a clear sign that the Libs know the Supreme Court will toss Obamacare in its entirety. All that's left is to keep the margin of overthrow to a level they can keep a straight face about when they complain afterwards. Nancy Pe-loser and Harry Ried are about to find out that "Constitution" is not a reference to their digestive functions.

Posted by: hofbrauhausde | February 9, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

If Ginni and Clarence in any way commingled, as community property, the money she received from Heritage Foundation, then he effectually benefited from that money as if it were paid to him directly, and he must recuse himself from ANY cause before the Court in which Heritage has publicly expressed an opinion or interest.

During the time that Lady Ginni was employed at Heritage (2003-2007), that organization filed NUMEROUS amicus briefs with the Supreme Court. This creates problems that go far beyond the Health Care Reform Bill.

Posted by: Ryan1954 | February 9, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Anthony Weiner lives up to his name.

Posted by: Rob_ | February 9, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

The Thomas' need to permanently recuse themselves from influence peddling. If Ginny is a lobbyist, then Clarence should step down. I've yet to witness a shred of integrity or grace from either one, so impeachment would be a worthy place to begin.

Posted by: right_as_rain | February 9, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

The Thomas' need to permanently recuse themselves from influence peddling. If Ginny is a lobbyist, then Clarence should step down. I've yet to witness a shred of integrity or grace from either one, so impeachment would be a worthy place to begin.

Posted by: right_as_rain | February 9, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

If Thomas recuses himself so should Kagan. She was involved in healthcare discussions while serving in the Obama administration.

Posted by: bethg1841 | February 9, 2011 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I know its apples and oranges, but consider that forcing people to buy health insurance is one thing. Forcing the rest of us that seek to buy health insurance to subsidize the growing uninsured population (through increased premiums and taxes) is another. Even with so called Obamacare, we still end up paying for them because that's part of the plan, that they would be given vouchers or whatever to pay for it. And guess who will pay for the vouchers. You got it.

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | February 9, 2011 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Get on with declaring the mess unconstitutional, so we can arrest all who breeched their swear in, and we can get a decent set of people placed as Public servants.

Get it over with and Move on.

Posted by: dottydo | February 9, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

This letter is not a short-term strategy. Clarence Thomas is as likely to recuse himself on hearing the health-reform suits as he is to quit the Court.

If the Supreme Court overturns the health-reform law on a 5-4 vote, and Clarence Thomas is one of the votes to overturn, the Democrats will make a pledge to impeach Clarence Thomas on the basis of apparent conflict of interest a centerpiece of their 2012 Congressional campaign.

You think Obama has negatives? Compared to Clarence Thomas', Obama's negatives are miniscule.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | February 9, 2011 6:05 PM | Report abuse

mola59 @ February 9, 2011 3:45 PM
++++++++++++++++++

I see your point, but my opinion about the appearance of corruption simply isn't as disapproving as others. It's the reason why I'm also not aggressively opposed to generous campaign contributions. While I completely agree that offering people money opens the possibility of corruption, there is no fundamental law that makes that corruption inevitable.

Further, as some other readers have noted, there is very little reason to suspect that Thomas would have opined in favor of the health care law in the absence of his wife's lobbying activities. Thomas's political philosophy is fairly strongly rooted to a natural rights understanding of U.S. constitutionalism, so it's a safe prediction to say that his opinion about the law would be same regardless of his wife's actions.

Posted by: sanberdoo23 | February 9, 2011 6:02 PM | Report abuse

What needs to be explained is why the spouses of the other jurists on SCOTUS aren't actively involved in political pursuits, yet Clarence Thomas' wife is. It would be prudent for the Chief Justice to seek recusals from both Thomas and Kagan for obvious reasons. There need not be any improprieties suggested in their ruling by having either participate. As it is whether the HCR law is approved or not, the opinions rendered are going to bear implications as to the requirements for insurances for auto, credit card, and home alike. The problem no one is considering is if one doesn't have auto insurance and is involved in an accident, the policyholder's insurance company bears the brunt of expenses and thus passes those costs to others who are insured by virtue of higher premiums. So everyone pays one way or another. Given that as fact, the same situation is implied with health care. I know there are those who focus on HCR as socialism. I'm quite certain those very same people are avid lovers of the game called football...US-style. And tuned in like so many others to the Super Bowl year after year. The economics of the NFL are such that there are salary caps, teams share their profits which enables even teams like the Green Bay Packers in a city of about 100,000 and the Pittsburgh Steelers in a city of about 300,000, both small markets, to participate in the Super Bowl. Yet no one complains about that economic model. Is it because it works? Then what is wrong with using that same economic model with which to model the nation's economic model. The NFL economic model blends capitalism with a degree of what one might call socialism...but it works. It would make 'the American dream' for all a reality as opposed to a pipe dream for the many and reality for the very few.

Posted by: ewjazzed | February 9, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Clarence Thomas as been questionable from the beginning of his Supreme Court appointment, including his wife, Ginny. They both are not viewed with any level of integrity from the allege sex discrimination pointing ag Clarence; the call Ginney made to the female that leveled the charges against Clarence; and to Clarence "forgetting" the big bucks his wifey, Ginney, has been adding to their household. Clarence needs to take this request seriously and consider us the American people that need integrity with this Affordable Act bill which really helps so many Americans. Clarence just does NOT give the image of strong character and/or integrity with what we expect from SUpreme court justices. He adds diversity to the group but that is the beginning and end of what we as Americans see. You and/or your wife are generally not seen with the highest degree of discretion and you appear to lack impartiality that we demand from our Supreme court justices. As an American citizen, I too request that you recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this Affordable Act.

Posted by: netstoy | February 9, 2011 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Is this the new Anita Hill?

Posted by: Jsuf | February 9, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Obviously Weiner is just scared. He's grasping because he doesn't know what to do to ensure that no one takes obamacare away from him. The arrogant little snip is totally lacking in every dept. If o-care is so great, why doesn't he welcome it to go before the supreme court? Kagan is must more the candidate to recuse herself than Clarence Thomas. Supreme court will find this unconstitutional ultimately, Obama's signature legislation will be gone and rightly so he, and his crony's, will be humiliated. Hopefully they will let him keep the plaque since all he really wanted was something important with his name on it. Democrats... bringing you failure in a myriad of different ways.

Posted by: eugeneiswrong | February 9, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Basically, this case will be decided on the basis of constitutional theory. Thomas's approach to the Constitution is an open book by this time if it was not before. One would also assume the same of Kagan. If any justice of the Supreme Court were to recuse, it should have been the sainted John Marshall, who fathered the doctrine of deciding constiutionality in a case (Marbury) where a decision to hear the facts would have reflected more negatively on himself than on Madison. I would love to have the case decided and to have each justice write a concurring or dissenting opinion--a la Dred Scott v Sanford. But my purpose is to force second year law students who are the real experts (just ask them) on ConLaw to wade through and analyse the differing approaches to the case.

Posted by: JarlWolf | February 9, 2011 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. Failure to do so exacts a series of penalties spelled out in law.

Is this not the regulation of inactivity?

How is the requirement to purchase health insurance inherently different?

Posted by: SC_observer | February 9, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhm, Congress has the right to raise an Army.

That is different from using the interstate commerce clause to regulate non commerce.

Posted by: oldiesfan1 | February 9, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Ok, Yes it is true that the presidents health care plan is unconstitutional because it requires that it be mandatory. The health care plan needs some tweeking, but all together it has a good foundation for the change needed for the health care system.

Posted by: jillrocks2011 | February 9, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

We've all known for years that Clarence Thomas is utterly corrupt and a liar to boot. It would be better for the Democrats to seek his impeachment.

Posted by: dsrobins | February 9, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Huge difference between what Kagan herself did and what Thomas' WIFE did. Doesn't Mrs. Thomas have a right to express herself freely without binding her husband to recual on various issues?
Apples and oranges, leftist Posties

Posted by: pd2710 | February 9, 2011 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone think that Justice Thomas is going to pay any attention to this letter?

Posted by: janye1 | February 9, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

For those who believe that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to enact Obamacare, I would ask what legislation do they believe would not be allowed under their interpretation of the Constitution? The Democrats' interpretation of the Constitution would appear to allow a law requiring all citizens to purchase a Chevy!

Posted by: concernedcitizen3 | February 9, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. Failure to do so exacts a series of penalties spelled out in law.

Is this not the regulation of inactivity?

How is the requirement to purchase health insurance inherently different?

Posted by: SC_observer | February 9, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Corporations already had the best congress and executive branch money can buy. Now they've also got the Supreme Court in their pocket. Our "democracy" is an illusion. There is now no doubt we live in a plutocracy.

Posted by: billyvw | February 9, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

He should be prosecuted by the Justice Department for filing false financial statements.

Posted by: DarrylScott | February 9, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

If we prosecuted all the Dems and members of Obama's cabinet who are tax cheats, there wouldn't be to many of them left or are you forgettintg Geithner, Daschle, Rangel just to name 3.

Posted by: phyllbc | February 9, 2011 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. Failure to do so exacts a series of penalties spelled out in law.

Is this not the regulation of inactivity?

How is the requirement to purchase health insurance inherently different?

Posted by: SC_observer | February 9, 2011 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Justice Thomas must be very proud of his little woman. She is bringing home a lot of bacon! Hopefully, it is lean bacon or maybe.....

Posted by: judithclaire1939 | February 9, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

An obvious political move by Democrats, but it offers comic relief when we see it's signed by Anthony Wiener.The New York City Congressman makes Chuckie Shumer look shy and Harry Reid a candidate for Menser

Posted by: bowspray | February 9, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse


____________

Sauce for the goose. If Kagan can't, Thomas can't. IMHO, both can. The issue is the bailiwick of every Supreme Court justice.

Posted by: Martial | February 9, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I'd add that other Justices, like Scalia and Roberts have bigger conflicts, having personally benefited from perqs provided by industry. Their conflict is more obvious even that that of Thomas' potential issues via Ginny.

Posted by: abqcleve | February 9, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

For realist, who posts so much he or she must be on welfare or SSI: Ginny Thomas is the first Supreme Court spouse EVER to engage in nakedly partisan political activity and to sell herself as a consultant to companies that have, or might have, business before the court. Her activities, and the silence of Chief Justice Roberts on this issue, are indicative of the decline of ethics in the American judicial system. Now, refute my historical recounting, if you can.

Posted by: jhpurdy | February 9, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Please. Thomas doesn't even know the meaning of the word "recuse". He probably thinks that a recuse is a hermit living on a mountaintop somewhere.[the word is recluse--for those of you who might be in the Tea Party]

Posted by: PepperDr | February 9, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"I think that Kagan, who was the solicitor general at the time this was all done, probably should recuse herself, which means it might not be resolved by the Supreme Court," Hatch told Fox News last week. "That means the lower court decision will be the acting law."
*************************

Respectfully, Senator Hatch, you have gone senile. I read The Hill article and I imagine Hatch is envisioning Kennedy siding with "libs" on this, which, with Kagan's recusal, would result in a 4-4 split; but even if that happened, which lower court would prevail?

Retire Hatch.

Posted by: abqcleve | February 9, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

An obvious political move by Democrats, but it offers comic relief when we see it's signed by Anthony Wiener.The New York City Congressman makes Chuckie Shumer look shy and Harry Reid a candidate for Menser

Posted by: bowspray | February 9, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm no big fan of Thomas but I have to say that this is one case where "conflict of interest" is unimportant. Thomas has been clear for 20 years that he views the Commerce Clause so narrowly that to him practically every major program since FDR is unconstitutional, so his vote to declare the health care reform constitutional would be no surprise and completely within his well known judicial viewpoint.

Posted by: greenmountainboy | February 9, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

steven7753 wrote: "Hey my girlfriend votes Democrat and I vote Republican. Does that mean that I should be considered a Democrat? Gee, maybe Thomas's cousins or mother is a Republican...gasp! Then he should really recuse himself! What idiots these Democrats are. "
--------------------------------
If your wife pulled in a few hundred thousand dollars to lobby for Democratic causes, I cerainly would not trust you to make a decision against their interests.

Posted by: billyvw | February 9, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"I highly doubt that Justice Thomas' wife lobbies that particular issue. Even if she did, if you wanted to be that picky you could find something to request recusal of any one of the Justices. They are sworn to uphold the US Constitution, the last I looked, and do it to the best of their ability - partisanship aside."

There is nothing picky about this; it's clear cut. Your attempt at moral equivalency fails.

Posted by: Observer691 | February 9, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

A correct move by the Democrats.

Posted by: kms123 | February 9, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Thomas is unfit for the bench for so many reasons. His presence on the court, along with Scalia and Roberts and Alito, are all ultrapolitical, ultraright, and completely corrupt.

Posted by: greeenmtns | February 9, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

kagan should on anything dealing with bho adm and soto on anything dealing with hispanics -- same logic

Posted by: oldhat | February 9, 2011 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The whole contention of knocking down the law is that one cannot be force to enter into a market. True, one does not have to drive and one does not have seek medical care. I see people refuse it everyday. Most states require you to maintain a finanical status to drive to ensure payments to the others in the same market. Health care is no different. Those uninsured people enter into the market yet they may not pay. The end result is that those others in the market place are injured by higher prices to be paid to recover lost profits. Insurance companines pay more and the person who buys pays more the stock holder of the insurance company recieves less on his invest and is injured by non-insured patients. Clearly health care is a market place and to enter that market place one should be financial able. The only other choice is health care is a right and should be furnished by governments just as an accussed is furnish with representation in a criminal procedure.

Posted by: Bhawk1 | February 9, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

kagan should on anything dealing with bho adm and soto on anything dealing with hispanics -- same logic

Posted by: oldhat | February 9, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments about this not being a healthcare or health insurance issue is correct, as far as the USSC goes.

The USSC should be reviewing this on the issue of whether or not Congress has the right to regulate "inactivity" under the commerce clause.

I highly doubt that Justice Thomas' wife lobbies that particular issue. Even if she did, if you wanted to be that picky you could find something to request recusal of any one of the Justices. They are sworn to uphold the US Constitution, the last I looked, and do it to the best of their ability - partisanship aside.

Methinks that the liberal side of Congress and politics is very worried that this bill is going to be found unconstitutional when these very particular issues are reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Posted by: nancycrichton | February 9, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Sanber, the problem lies in the fact that he and his wife are profiting by the groups fighting the issue. He and his wife as a couple receive money from any reform groups. It is therefor a conflict. If she volunteered with the groups, it would be unfortunate, but perhaps not as clear cut a case of conflict.

Posted by: mola59 | February 9, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

of course he should recuse himself, as Scalia should have when the case invovled Cheney, his hunting buddy.

Posted by: newagent99 | February 9, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Realist201 really needs to get on his meds and re-enter reality. He's living in bizarro world.

Posted by: luridone | February 9, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse
---------------------------------------
So true, but it ends in 2012 when Obama gets slaughtered in the General Election ala Jimmy Carter! It is a bizzarro world with a socialist trying to impose his will on a free market democracy.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Besides challenging the intelligence of the American people by his actions, and those of his wife, Mr. Thomas is damaging the integrity and respectability of the Supreme Court, and the leadership of his Chief Justice Roberts.

The members of the court are granted wide latitude in their powers and their behavior, by the Constitution, and these are being stretched by Thomas and his colleague Scalia. Although both these justices are senior to Roberts by years served, he is designated chief justice, and in historical terms, the court is recognized as the "Roberts Court". We will probably never know if he has cautioned his colleagues on questionable acts that may impact the court, but he certainly should do so. What is regarded by many as unacceptable behavior by the justices will further erode the reputation of the court.

Posted by: robinx | February 9, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

As others have already pointed out, Justice Thomas was not personally involved in lobbying efforts, so there's really no reason for him to recuse himself from any case that deals with health care. For that matter, Justice Kagan also should be allowed to stay, despite her previous work as a solicitor.

Too many Americans are absurdly obsessed with the "appearance" of corruption, as opposed to corruption itself.

Justices, like all human beings, are inevitably going to be influenced by their private political ideas. Thomas's conservatism and Kagan's liberalism aren't cabalistic plots; they're simply very political, and thus very human, ideas about constitutional law.

That's not to say, of course, that my judgment of them is relative. I tend to agree with Thomas's political philosophy more than any other justice; however, my agreement with Thomas doesn't mean that Kagan ought to recuse herself simply to satisfy my political desire to see conservative ideals succeed. I hope thoughtful liberals feel the same.

Posted by: sanberdoo23 | February 9, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The case before the SC will be whether the ‘commerce clause’ can be used to require commerce between people and private companies.


The case has NOTHING to do with health care and how that should be addressed in the US.


The WHOLE case is about EXPANDING Congressional power and if that is okay with the Constitution!


NO body should recuse themselves on this one!


Posted by: bcarte1 | February 9, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------------------


....and nobody will as Sotomayer isn't going to recuse herself. The final decsion is going to come out at 7-2 or 8-1 against Obamacare, which will send the Dems completely into the toilet, along with Obama.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Realist201 really needs to get on his meds and re-enter reality. He's living in bizarro world.

Posted by: luridone | February 9, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the loony toon leftists know Obamacare is going to go down in defeat, so they of course, are going to make up excuses for its demise.

Posted by: EagleHasLanded69 | February 9, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"If Thomas goes, so must Kagan ."

Of course, the Thomas household lied on their role and self-interests in desiring to reverse the recent health care act by lying on their taxes. Kagan has not lied at all about her role.

Not that facts and lies are relevant with conservative commentators in this era.

Posted by: josh13 | February 9, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The relevant Federal statute in this case is 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which states that "Any justice, judge or magistrate ofthe United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This would provide relevant and ample grounds for Thomas to recuse himself.

Unfortunately, there's no enforcement provision for this statute, so impeachment is the only remedy.

Posted by: apn3206 | February 9, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

---------------------------------------------
..and they will not dare to impeach him, so it is time for the loony left to shut up and take your medicine. The Dems brought this on themsleves and will have to expalin to the American voters in 2012 how they wasted two years passing a Health Plan the Supreme Court threw out as Unconstitutional!

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Because of his wife? We all agree on that, but, how about them? They themselves are so very guilty of the same thing.

Posted by: citigreg | February 9, 2011 1:19 PM
_____________________________
Whatever the accuracy of your accusation, they're not on the Supreme Court. He is.

Posted by: luridone | February 9, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

The case before the SC will be whether the ‘commerce clause’ can be used to require commerce between people and private companies.


The case has NOTHING to do with health care and how that should be addressed in the US.


The WHOLE case is about EXPANDING Congressional power and if that is okay with the Constitution!


NO body should recuse themselves on this one!


Posted by: bcarte1 | February 9, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

If the SC declears this unconstitutional what all does it knock down? States forceing one to buy auto insurance, interstate licence, drug laws, FDA. The whole ability to pass laws to control interstate commerece will be knock down. Just as the state forces one to maintain financial responsibility to drive can't congress do the same with health care. Scalia already wrote an opinion in Calf med. marijana case upholding that power.
To knock down the law--health care can't be interstate commerece and all federal laws relating to health care are null and void.
--------------------------------------------

You are stupid - the state CAN mandate payment, but the Federal Governemnt CANNOT mandate on state residents. In addition, you not HAVE to buy auto insurance, since you don't HAVE to drive, but if you want a state license and to have your car registered, you must have insurance. If you are deadset against it - don't buy a car and don't drive...then you don'tneed auto insurance. Its time you on th eloony-left start doing a little research before posting your garbage so you don't look so naive and ignorant.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The case before the SC will be whether the ‘commerce clause’ can be used to require commerce between people and private companies.


The case has NOTHING to do with health care and how that should be addressed in the US.


The WHOLE case is about EXPANDING Congressional power and if that is okay with the Constitution!


NO body should recuse themselves on this one!


Posted by: bcarte1 | February 9, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The relevant Federal statute in this case is 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which states that "Any justice, judge or magistrate ofthe United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." This would provide relevant and ample grounds for Thomas to recuse himself.

Unfortunately, there's no enforcement provision for this statute, so impeachment is the only remedy.

Posted by: apn3206 | February 9, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse


The case before the SC will be whether the ‘commerce clause’ can be used to require commerce between people and private companies.


The case has NOTHING to do with health care and how that should be addressed in the US.


The WHOLE case is about EXPANDING Congressional power and if that is okay with the Constitution!


NO body should recuse themselves on this one!


Posted by: bcarte1 | February 9, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

=========================

HEY DUDE
That was brilliant
You just validated the Congressman's point!

To you Republicans
The Law is irrelevant.
The Decision is!!

Like the Florida ReCount!
Declaring Corporations Sentient!
Removing you right to protect your property from Corporate predators!


Posted by: pdq5 | February 9, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Dems are sore losers aren't they. Still crying about the chads. Count your lucky stars that Gore,inventor of the internet and global warming liar, wasn't elected. No cheating was proven, was it. Did we investigate the Franken election in Minn where ballots found there way into peoples care trunks? Or Reids victory in Nev where machines mysteriously changed Angles name to Reids and SEIU were the maintenence people fixing the machines? Or how about all the foreign contributions to Obama's campaign. You know the ones in the amounts of $23.17, $32,46 etc. You know, because of the exchange rate. Or the ACORN voter fraud on Obamas behelf. Or the Black Panthers intimidating voters but not charged by Holders justice dept. Does that prove the Dems are above board? Puleeeeze, give me a break. If Thomas goes, so must Kagan . The hypocrisy of the left is amazing. You don't think you do anything wrong the slighest hint of improbriety from the Right, you go ballistic.
Obama is delaying it from going straight to the Supreme court. He hopes his puppets, Weiner etc, can try to fix it before it goes in. They are delaying it because they know its unconstitutional. Just another injustice performed by Obama. If you believe in him you are a fool. No better way to say it. You just refuse to face the truth but I know Dems value ideology over facts.

Posted by: phyllbc | February 9, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

A corrupt judge? Who would have guessed?

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | February 9, 2011 3:15 PM | Report abuse

And what about the Obama Lacky who was just made, is she going to recuse herself ?

Posted by: puck-101 | February 9, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Remember the smirk laughs from Pelosi as she rammed through this unconstituional socialist Health Bill. She and Reid bribed hesitant Democrats and wrote 22 tax increases into a 2,000 page bill that was never read or debated on the open House floor. Pelosi laughed when reporters asked whether the mandate was even legal.....well now the tyranncial behavior out of the Dems is about to get its comeippance, as this "hail-Mary" appeal to Clarence Thomas makes it clear the Dems know they will losee the appeal to the Supreme Court.

I bet all those smucks that voted for Obamacare in the House and Senatethat lost their seat in the midterms must be furious now as they realize they lost their seat voting for a socialist Health Bill that will NEVER be implemented.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Typical libs, always finding something to WHINE about.

LIBERALISM........THE GUTLESS CHOICE

Posted by: EagleHasLanded69 | February 9, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Hey you DEMs. Never mind Thomas, if anyone should step aside it should be the Jug-Eared boob squatting in the Brown House. If Thomas resigns, it will only make you misfits happy. Why not get Obama out of there, and make the entire world happy ?

Posted by: puck-101 | February 9, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

If Thomas does not step aside in the Healthcare Debate he is corrupt and should be removed if possible. Thomas should have never been able to get on the Court anyway.
And his wife is just as bad as he is.

Posted by: sumo1 | February 9, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

If the SC declears this unconstitutional what all does it knock down? States forceing one to buy auto insurance, interstate licence, drug laws, FDA. The whole ability to pass laws to control interstate commerece will be knock down. Just as the state forces one to maintain financial responsibility to drive can't congress do the same with health care. Scalia already wrote an opinion in Calf med. marijana case upholding that power.
To knock down the law--health care can't be interstate commerece and all federal laws relating to health care are null and void.

Posted by: Bhawk1 | February 9, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Thomas is a fool who knows it. He keeps his mouth shut and does what Scalia tells him to do. I imagine he's pretty obedient to his crack-pot wife too. I suggest they both issue apologies to the nation for his perjury at his confirmation hearing and for the discredit he has brought to the Court. We're also waiting to hear an apology from the crack-pot for her insane middle-of-the-night harassment of one of her husband's sexual victims. (There were more.)

That this unqualified idiot sits on the court is an outrage. That he could, even for a second, consider ruling on his wife's favorite causes is illegal, unethical and grounds for impeachment.

While he will forever be known as the worst Justice in American history, he should be grateful for the job and protect it by avoiding impeachment.

Posted by: Casey1 | February 9, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

A justice, besides brains, needs to have a sense of decency. Uncle Tom Clarence doesn't have either. This sack of right-wing garbage needs to told what to do.
Of course, False News, with the Three Stooges, will try to derail his recusal alledging any possible excuse.
In fact, that derranged, morbidly obese radio psychopath will begin to spread his excrement at the first chance.

Posted by: analyst72 | February 9, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse
-------------------------------------------
This is exactly the kind of leftist rant that Loughner posted, as the left and the Obamites continue their assault on the cosntitution and anyone that dare defend the American people or the constitution from thier socialist onslaught - this is also why the Dems got massacred in the midterms and will be slaughtered again in the 2012 General Election.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if he would recuse himself from a lawsuit involving Coca Cola?

Posted by: ozpunk | February 9, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if he would recuse himself from a lawsuit involving Coca Cola?

Posted by: ozpunk | February 9, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

If appearance were REALLY of concern, the Ds would NOT have made BRIBES to get this BAD bill passed! Or not posting it as they said they would, or making statements like "we have to pass it to see what is in it" and other red herrings.
The issue is the left is worried they will get caught, they could not care less about the Constitution. They told us that during the debates.

Posted by: REBEL-1 | February 9, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

If appearance were REALLY of concern, the Ds would NOT have made BRIBES to get this BAD bill passed! Or not posting it as they said they would, or making statements like "we have to pass it to see what is in it" and other red herrings.
The issue is the left is worried they will get caught, they could not care less about the Constitution. They told us that during the debates.

Posted by: REBEL-1 | February 9, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Racist House Dems.

Where is the NAACP ? oh he's an Uncle Tom !

Who knew ?

------------------------------------------
Exactly - if Thomas were one of the liberal judges or appointed by a Democrat, the Post and the Dems would be screaming racist right now. Just read the posts here as all the "Lefty-Loughners" come out of hiding and attack Thomas, because they know their Obamacare is going down the toilet, along with Obama and 15 or so Demcratic Senators in the 2012 election!

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone remember Tom Daschle wife ? Her name is Linda Hall Daschle. Now what is this about Mrs Thomas ? Progressives can not handle the vicissitudes of reality, it that because they concern themselves with Occidental women married to Justice Thomas"

Is Tom Daschle on the SCOTUS? Try to keep up.

Posted by: Observer691 | February 9, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Ginny Thomas is not a Supreme Court Judge..."

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 2:53 PM
======================================
Neither is Tom.

Posted by: kishorgala | February 9, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

A justice, besides brains, needs to have a sense of decency. Uncle Tom Clarence doesn't have either. This sack of right-wing garbage needs to told what to do.
Of course, False News, with the Three Stooges, will try to derail his recusal alledging any possible excuse.
In fact, that derranged, morbidly obese radio psychopath will begin to spread his excrement at the first chance.

Posted by: analyst72 | February 9, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Why should Thomas step aside?

He hasn't said a thing in two decades!

Posted by: kishorgala | February 9, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Thomas is truly a blot in SCOTUS. How do we get rid of him from the bench, permanently!

Posted by: pelohoki | February 9, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

What a joke Weiner is - a die hard leftist trying to change the outcome of a Supreme Court decision with absurd requests of Justice Thomas. Now if Weiner were a Republican, the Post and all of the Dems would be calling Weiner a racist for demanding Thomas recuse himself......but since he is a Loony-left Democrats and Thomas appointment came from a REpbulican, noone says anything. Doesn't matter as Thomas will NOT recuse himself and Obamacare will be invalidated.

Posted by: Realist201
******************************************

You apparently haven't been keeping up with Ginny Thomas's activities. The Justice's wife has been very, very busy in a way unheard of, and completely unacceptable for the wife of a Supreme Court Justice. Money has been exchanged, apparently in return for promised favor. She has made it perfectly clear that the Justice has NO choice but to recuse himself in this matter, or risk completely destroying the credibility and incorruptibility of the highest court of the land.

That you, or anyone else, would question such a thing based on your own desire to see a law overturned for political reasons is detestable.

------------------------------------
Ginny Thomas is not a Supreme Court Judge - what she does is not the issue. Did Clarence Thomas. Apparently your backward views of what supreme court justice's wife "should do" come right out of the Taliban handbook. Clarence Thomas is his own man and what his wife does is her business...PERIOD! It is amazing how the leftist and socialists in Congress think they can do whatever they wish, regardless of the constitution of the laws of the land.....and now they are going to pay for it when this ridiculous, partisan, job-killing, unconstitutional, socialist Health Bill gets thrown to the garbage pile where it belongs.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Thomas should recuse himself, but because he, like so many Republican hacks, is genetically incapable of knowing right from wrong, the damage that a perceived, let alone a real conflict of interest causes for the court system, or have any sense of ethics; we know he won't, and will instead, in his usual thin skinned manner, blame the "liberals" for being racists and engaging in a high tech lynching. Why some of his poor ignorant supporters are already doing the work for him on this board....

Posted by: pblotto | February 9, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Someone will have to explain what the word "recuse" means to Thomas.

Posted by: chucky-el | February 9, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone remember Tom Daschle wife ? Her name is Linda Hall Daschle. Now what is this about Mrs Thomas ? Progressives can not handle the vicissitudes of reality, it that because they concern themselves with Occidental women married to Justice Thomas

Posted by: buckaroo5 | February 9, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Realist201 is a very ironic name for someone addicted to crack.

Posted by: Observer691 | February 9, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Racist House Dems.

Where is the NAACP ? oh he's an Uncle Tom !

Who knew ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | February 9, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

So, doubly stupid. For years, Thomas apparently understood the instructions. But he suddenly became stupid in 1996 (maybe because he was distracted by memories of pubic hair on coke cans), and only now just emerged from his stupor?


Now, how would the IRS treat this same defense if someone had a "misunderstanding" of the requirement to report income on a tax return?


This really isn't a trivial issue, at all. If Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying about a blow job, how can a justice of the SCOTUS not be held accountable for lying year after year on a federal reporting form?


The entire "conservative" wing of the court should resign. They're a bunch of highly partisan jerkoffs who do nothing but play politics from the bench.


.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 9, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Trying to make Thomas recuse hisself because of his wife is sexist, racist and criminal on behalf of the Dems. This attempt to circumvent the will of the American Electorate and the Constitution will be brought up during the 2012 General Elections. These Dems make Hugo Chavez and Admadinejad look like fair politicians.

Thankfully, Thomas will ignore the rants from the socialist.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

He should be prosecuted by the Justice Department for filing false financial statements.

Posted by: DarrylScott | February 9, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Hiding his wife's financial ties to companies with a stake in Supreme Court decisions suggests that Thomas is not capable of impartially fulfilling his Constitutional duties. Along with Sotomayor, who lied to Congress in her testimony, Thomas should be investigated for possible impeachment.

Posted by: SageThrasher | February 9, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Thomas won't do it. I have experience with COI regulations and IMO it is a clear conflict, not just the appearance of a conflict. Thomas should be impeached but that won't happen either. He has been a woefully inadequate jurist. What else is new. America, land of the free, home of the corrupt and clueless.

Posted by: mraymond10 | February 9, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I see the Dems ignored the constitution when they created this Obamacare, and now they want to rig the court so it isn't thrown out - these Democrats are criminal as they are now attempting to circumvent the Constitution of the second time on Obamacare. They act as if they are working for Hugo Chavez.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Clarance Thomas should excuse himself.

Posted by: Lefty_ | February 9, 2011 2:34 PM | Report abuse

What a joke Weiner is - a die hard leftist trying to change the outcome of a Supreme Court decision with absurd requests of Justice Thomas. Now if Weiner were a Republican, the Post and all of the Dems would be calling Weiner a racist for demanding Thomas recuse himself......but since he is a Loony-left Democrats and Thomas appointment came from a REpbulican, noone says anything. Doesn't matter as Thomas will NOT recuse himself and Obamacare will be invalidated.

Posted by: Realist201
******************************************

You apparently haven't been keeping up with Ginny Thomas's activities. The Justice's wife has been very, very busy in a way unheard of, and completely unacceptable for the wife of a Supreme Court Justice. Money has been exchanged, apparently in return for promised favor. She has made it perfectly clear that the Justice has NO choice but to recuse himself in this matter, or risk completely destroying the credibility and incorruptibility of the highest court of the land.

That you, or anyone else, would question such a thing based on your own desire to see a law overturned for political reasons is detestable.

Posted by: borntorun45 | February 9, 2011 2:26 PM | Report abuse

TO: FLvet who wrote:

"Yo Dems just repeal Obamacare and start over."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I got a better idea, just tell us how much of a bigger cut you want insurance companies to get, and we'll think about it.

Until then you can consider HCR being rammed down you throat, and try not to choke on it.

Posted by: lindalovejones | February 9, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Justice Activist Thomas should recuse himself!

Posted by: angie12106 | February 9, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Thomas should recuse himself from all Supreme Court rulings, because he's hardly qualified to be a judge in a traffic court. His ruminations on the various cases in which he has made comments are idiotic, his judgments are based on ideology rather than law. He's one of the "worst of the worst" of those who have served on the court. Don't thy have a room they can put him in and simply forget about him?

Posted by: garoth | February 9, 2011 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey my girlfriend votes Democrat and I vote Republican. Does that mean that I should be considered a Democrat? Gee, maybe Thomas's cousins or mother is a Republican...gasp! Then he should really recuse himself! What idiots these Democrats are.

Posted by: steven7753 | February 9, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Thomas will not step aside and will not explain himself. But he and Scalia will chuckle about it afterward. Those two simply have no concern for judicial ethics.

Posted by: karlmarx2 | February 9, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Simple question; Ms. Thomas advertises her "connections". Were it not for her husband being on the Supreme Court, what connections could she claim?

Posted by: GabsDaD | February 9, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow, sounds like the Democrats believe that the Supreme Court will find the healthcare law unconstitutional unless they can change the composition of the Supreme Court.

Could it be that they read the law and now know what it contains?

Posted by: RandyM1 | February 9, 2011 1:29 PM
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

No, sounds more like the Democrats are holding Clarence Thomas to the same standard that all other Supreme Court Justices are held to. Just like Republicans expect Elena Kagan to recues herself from certain cases, Clarence Thomas should adhere as well. It is clear with his wife lobbying against health care reform and receiving money from foundations who want to see this bill be repealed that Thomas has benefited. And you know darn well if this had been anyone other than the Supreme Court activist Judges on the right, you people would be all over the boards calling for impeachment. It is a conflict of interest for Clarence Thomas. We all know that! Spin it any way you want, it is a conflict of interest.

Posted by: catmomtx | February 9, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

What a joke Weiner is - a die hard leftist trying to change the outcome of a Supreme Court decision with absurd requests of Justice Thomas. Now if Weiner were a Republican, the Post and all of the Dems would be calling Weiner a racist for demanding Thomas recuse himself......but since he is a Loony-left Democrats and Thomas appointment came from a REpbulican, noone says anything. Doesn't matter as Thomas will NOT recuse himself and Obamacare will be invalidated.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 9, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

He won't do it. And, Roberts will back him up.

Posted by: jckdoors | February 9, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Yo Dems just repeal Obamacare and start over.

Posted by: FLvet | February 9, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

How many other 'cases' (points of law) should Thomas have recused himself? For one who breaks the law (not reporting his wife's income since 1996) how can one hope he even knows how to interpret the law? His wife's comment that "she has connections" says it all. Also, it was not have been needed for Orin Hatch to recommend Justice Kagen recuse herself for any health care decision. Look at her record and the number of cases she did recuse herself (without being asked). Justice Kagen knows WHEN to recuse herself, unlike other Justices.

Posted by: rbsher | February 9, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Wow, sounds like the Democrats believe that the Supreme Court will find the healthcare law unconstitutional unless they can change the composition of the Supreme Court.

Could it be that they read the law and now know what it contains?

Posted by: RandyM1
=========================

HEY DUDE
That was brilliant
You just validated the Congressman's point!

To you Republicans
The Law is irrelevant.
The Decision is!!

Like the Florida ReCount!
Declaring Corporations Sentient!
Removing you right to protect your property from Corporate predators!

Posted by: pdq5 | February 9, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

It it isn't already bad enough that half of the justices on the SCOTUS are activist, doing the bidding for their Conservatist Corporate Lobbyist buddies. Now we have the wives of some of those sitting on the SCOTUS running around lobbying against HC Reform.

The SCOTUS is no longer "Supreme" anymore, and it's because the conservative court is turing it into "sewage" with their outright abuses of the court.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | February 9, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Wow, sounds like the Democrats believe that the Supreme Court will find the healthcare law unconstitutional unless they can change the composition of the Supreme Court.

Could it be that they read the law and now know what it contains?

Posted by: RandyM1 | February 9, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

This is not an appearance of a COnflict of Interest..

IT is a Conflict of Interest !!!

Impeach Thomas !!

Posted by: pdq5 | February 9, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

As if Thomas actually gives a crap about appearances, or even the truth, for that matter.

Posted by: daweeni | February 9, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Yes because of his wife. If she's raking in over $700K plus whatever other lobbyist fees she collects, this would be a factor in his decision.

Posted by: Anglo_Rider | February 9, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes because of his wife. If she's raking in over $700K plus whatever other lobbyist fees she is raking in, this would be a factor in his decision.

Posted by: Anglo_Rider | February 9, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Because of his wife? We all agree on that, but, how about them? They themselves are so very guilty of the same thing.

Posted by: citigreg | February 9, 2011 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company