Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: "Supremely Bad Judgment" (Maureen Dowd, NYTimes.com 10/23/10)


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"Supremely Bad Judgment" (Maureen Dowd, NYTimes.com 10/23/10)
Permalink  
 


Please read this article in its entirety.

Read @ NYTimes.com Opinion  (Emphasis added below)
Op-Ed Columnist

Supremely Bad Judgment

[SNIP]

Joe Biden, the senator who ran those hearings, was leery of the liberal groups eager to use Hill as a pawn to checkmate Thomas. He circumscribed the testimony of women who could have corroborated Hill’s unappetizing portrait of a power-abusing predator.

For the written record, Biden allowed negative accounts only from women who had worked with Thomas. He also ruled out testimony from women who simply had personal relationships with Thomas, and did not respond to a note from McEwen — a former assistant U.S. attorney who had once worked as a counsel for Biden’s committee — reminding him of her long relationship with Thomas.

It’s too late to relitigate the shameful Thomas-Hill hearings. We’re stuck with a justice-for-life who lied his way onto the bench with the help of bullying Republicans and cowed Democrats.

We don’t know why Ginni Thomas, who was once in the thrall of a cultish self-help group called Lifespring, made that odd call to Hill at 7:30 on a Saturday morning. But we do know that the Thomases show supremely bad judgment.Mrs. Thomas, a queen of the Tea Party, is the founder of a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central, which she boasts will be bigger than the Tea Party. She sports and sells those foam Statue of Liberty-style crowns as she makes her case against the “tyranny” of President Obama and Congressional Democrats, who, she charges, are hurting the “core founding principles” of America.

As The Times’s Jackie Calmes wrote, Mrs. Thomas started her nonprofit in late 2009 with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000, and additional sums this year that we don’t know about yet. She does not have to disclose the donors, whose money makes possible the compensation she brings into the Thomas household.

There is no way to tell if her donors have cases before the Supreme Court or whether her husband knows their identities. And she never would have to disclose them if her husband had his way.

The 5-to-4 Citizens United decision last January gave corporations, foreign contributors, unions, Big Energy, Big Oil and superrich conservatives a green light to surreptitiously funnel in as much money as they want, whenever they want to elect or unelect candidates. As if that weren’t enough to breed corruption, Thomas was the only justice — in a rare case of detaching his hip from Antonin Scalia’s — to write a separate opinion calling for an end to donor disclosures.

In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court chose the Republican president. In Citizens United, the court may return Republicans to control of Congress. So much for conservatives’ professed disdain of judicial activism. And so much for the public’s long-held trust in the impartiality of the nation’s highest court.

[SNIP]

Full article @ NYTimes.com

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

I agree with Maureen Dowd on this.

The fence has eaten the garden of democracy.

What recourse do we individual citizens have?  How do we get democracy back on the rails?



-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 25th of October 2010 05:51:02 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

Anita Hill was treated extremely unfairly. and Dowd does seem to make some valid points.

Regarding Mrs. Thomas' involvement with Lifespring, in fairness, she did terminate her relationship with the group.

From Wiki:

One prominent critic of Lifespring is Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Mrs. Thomas asserted in an interview with The Washington Post that she chose to seek counseling after her decision to stop participating in Lifespring. In order to avoid phone calls from fellow Lifespring members, urging her to remain in the course, she chose to hide in another part of the United States. One explanation for the criticisms and actions taken by roughly 8% of all Lifespring graduates comes from clinical psychologist and Lifespring graduate Bronson Levin. Levin said, "people who are not prepared for the intense emotional experience of Lifespring or who have hidden traumas tend to become overwhelmed as childhood memories come thundering back to them during training." Virginia Thomas went on to speak on panels and organized anti-cult workshops for congressional staffers in 1986 and 1988. [2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifespring

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

freespirit,
I was looking the new nonprofit "Liberty Central" that Mrs.Thomas started as a political organization right off the gate. 

I was much interested in this all the way from 2008 because it was originally about the movie "Hillary" that was made by a nonprofit group as an expose' on Hillary.

If Mrs. Thomas had already started a new non-profit "Liberty Central" in  September 2009, given the SCOTUS decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company (June 2009), that judges must recuse themselves if there is actual or appearance of conflict of interest.  (They supreme court gave long list of 40 or so things to consider.) Dont you think he should have recused himself from the case? Citizens Unived v. Federal Election Commission was decided in January 2010.  This was a 5-4 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas was one part of the conference of judges that decided this.

Not only was he one of the 5 voting yes, he was very vocal defending it. Justice Thomas Addresses Citizens United, While Justice Kennedy Punts (WSJ Feb 4, 2010)

Could F.E.C. formally challenge Citizens United?

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

Democracy needs defending!! said Hillary Clinton, Sept 2010 and she has inspired us all over again with that.

Happy Birthday Hillary!
Thank you for being such a warm inspiration to me and so many others. smile

typos corrected, condensed


-- Edited by Sanders on Tuesday 26th of October 2010 09:01:30 AM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 


Judge H. Lee Sarokin

Posted: October 21, 2010 01:43 PM

Should Justice Thomas Recuse or Resign Based on His Wife's Conduct?

EXCERPT:

Recusal -- the duty to step down in a case -- arises when the judge has an interest in the outcome or has demonstrated some bias for one side or the other. It is also required when there is an appearance of a lack of impartiality. We -- the citizens of this country -- may be wrong and unfair in assuming that, like other husbands and wives, the Thomases talk, share their views, describe their days and express their opinions to one another, but that is real life for most of us. It is this common perception that justifies a finding of an appearance of a lack of impartiality on the part of Justice Thomas. In the absence of greater disclosure as to the source of funds and what has been communicated between them regarding contributions and issues before the Court (the law also prohibits ex parte communications with a judge about a specific matter outside the presence of all interested parties), it is impossible to know what specific cases should require voluntary recusal. Absent such specifics, resignation may be the only alternative in order to maintain the integrity of the Court, if Mrs. Thomas persists, as she has a right to do, in this blatantly partisan pursuit. To my knowledge, no other Supreme Court spouse has ever placed a sitting Justice in this awkward position. Before the accusation can be made, a request for disclosure and accountability is not a "lynching," high-tech or otherwise.

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

The good judge author of the above article is talking about ongoing place in the court... And, I agree, there is a question of ongoing conflicts of interest.

But, there is a more basic question about the regularity of Citizens United decision itself.

There is, and was a mechanism and a set of guidelines that requie a SCOTUS judge to recuse him-/her-self should there be an actual or appearance of conflict of interest.  It was in the SCOTUS decision in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company (June 2009).  They are required to recuse themselves..  And, he didnt... in joining the 5-4 decision on Citizens United.  I think Citizens United is a flawed decision.


-- Edited by Sanders on Tuesday 26th of October 2010 05:19:51 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard