Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should Thomas recuse?? He had no hand in crafting this abomination.
Really, he shouldn't. But by pressuring him to do so, it relieves the pressure on Kagan to do the same thing. It's pure projection. If they can create enough of a firestorm about Thomas recusing himself it acts as a smokescreen for Kagan to not recuse heself regardless of whether it's actually justified or not.
See, Thomas's wife earned money from organizations opposed to the bill.
The problem for the liberals is that Thomas's wife (and Thomas himself) doesn't gain or lose anything either way the case goes. It's not like she's a major investor in a company that stands to gain money if the law is overturned. She was paid by groups opposed to the bill, but it passed anyway. So her part was over and done with once the vote was held - she's not going to get more money if the case goes one way or another now. It's no different than Sotomayor. She's ruling on Obama's signature legislation and she's an Obama appointee. How likely is it that he appointed her without confirming beforehand that she supported his signature legislation? But while she may have been appointed by Obama in the past, she's not beholden to him now. So nobody's asking her to recuse herself.
On the other hand, Kagan is in the position of judging a case she had a direct hand in crafting. Judges don't decide their own cases. That's actual, blatant conflict of interest in the here and now.
Really, he shouldn't. But by pressuring him to do so, it relieves the pressure on Kagan to do the same thing. It's pure projection. If they can create enough of a firestorm about Thomas recusing himself it acts as a smokescreen for Kagan to not recuse heself regardless of whether it's actually justified or not.
See, Thomas's wife earned money from organizations opposed to the bill.
The problem for the liberals is that Thomas's wife (and Thomas himself) doesn't gain or lose anything either way the case goes. It's not like she's a major investor in a company that stands to gain money if the law is overturned. She was paid by groups opposed to the bill, but it passed anyway. So her part was over and done with once the vote was held - she's not going to get more money if the case goes one way or another now. It's no different than Sotomayor. She's ruling on Obama's signature legislation and she's an Obama appointee. How likely is it that he appointed her without confirming beforehand that she supported his signature legislation? But while she may have been appointed by Obama in the past, she's not beholden to him now. So nobody's asking her to recuse herself.
On the other hand, Kagan is in the position of judging a case she had a direct hand in crafting. Judges don't decide their own cases. That's actual, blatant conflict of interest in the here and now.
I tend to agree with you about Justice Thomas. I can see where some could reasonably call for him to recuse himself, since his wife did, indeed, earn money helping organizations opposed to the proposed law that did, in fact, pass into law. What Ms. Thomas does now, I have no idea.
As for Justice Kagan, I guess I must go with her testimony in front of the Senate where she swore that she did not have any hand in crafting the bill (which I tend to believe: I believe a lion's share of the bill was by the late Senator Kennedy; why would the solicitor general take part?), or actively involved in crafting the legal strategy to defend the bill (a part I do not believe).
Anyway, it is up to each Justice to determine if they have a conflict of interest that would warp their application of the law.
If Justice Thomas and Justice Kagan believe they can hear and decide the caes without prejudice, then I will believe them.
Why hasn't Elaina Kagan recused herself from this healthcare ruling???
Because she is a lib, and she feels she would be just as energetically in favor of government tyranny whether she was or was not a former Obama Solicitor General.
Really, he shouldn't. But by pressuring him to do so, it relieves the pressure on Kagan to do the same thing. It's pure projection. If they can create enough of a firestorm about Thomas recusing himself it acts as a smokescreen for Kagan to not recuse heself regardless of whether it's actually justified or not.
See, Thomas's wife earned money from organizations opposed to the bill.
The problem for the liberals is that Thomas's wife (and Thomas himself) doesn't gain or lose anything either way the case goes. It's not like she's a major investor in a company that stands to gain money if the law is overturned. She was paid by groups opposed to the bill, but it passed anyway. So her part was over and done with once the vote was held - she's not going to get more money if the case goes one way or another now. It's no different than Sotomayor. She's ruling on Obama's signature legislation and she's an Obama appointee. How likely is it that he appointed her without confirming beforehand that she supported his signature legislation? But while she may have been appointed by Obama in the past, she's not beholden to him now. So nobody's asking her to recuse herself.
On the other hand, Kagan is in the position of judging a case she had a direct hand in crafting. Judges don't decide their own cases. That's actual, blatant conflict of interest in the here and now.[/quote]
I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS! What is happening to this country??
What his wife does or says has no bearing on the Justice himself.
.
Well, he certainly benefits financially from his wife's "activities."
And whose income he conveniently forgot to mention on disclosure forms.
Quote:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has amended 13 years’ worth of disclosure reports to include details of wife Virginia Thomas’s sources of income, documents released on Monday show.
The documents indicate that Thomas’s wife, who goes by Ginni, had worked for Hillsdale College in Michigan, the Heritage Foundation and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, among other entities.
I think Justice Kagan should have recused herself because she had involvement in the bill's defense as Obama's Solicitor General. Justice Thomas had no involvement before the case reached the Supreme Court. However, what we, as private citizens, think is irrelevant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
