Officials warn Justice Clarence Thomas's wife that her advocacy group is violating law

By GottaLaff

Remember this post, about Mr. SCOTUS's wife being a Tea Tantrumer? Yeah, me too.

Something was bound to happen... and it did:

Virginia consumer-protection officials have issued a warning letter to the wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, saying that her advocacy group is improperly soliciting contributions in the state.

Ruh roh! No free advice from the hubby about how to avoid the long arm of the law?

In a letter sent to Virginia Thomas on Thursday, the Office of Consumer Affairs directed Liberty Central Inc. to the Virginia law that requires groups to register with the office or request an exemption before seeking donations for a charitable purpose.

Now wouldn't you think she would have known that, being that she shares quarters with Mr. Legal and all? Or maybe they limit their convos to Coke cans and stuff. (Bygones)

Soliciting donations for a charitable purpose without registering with the Office of Consumers Affairs could result in fines of up to $5,000 for each violation, the letter said. Wright said it was not unusual for a group to be unaware of the Virginia law.

Even a Supreme Court Justice's spouse's group? Wouldn't they be extra double super duper special cautious?

Then again, Tea Tantrumers tend to blame others for their little oopsies:

"Although we're just getting started, we're already under attack from the left and its allies in the liberal media!" the e-mail said, noting The Times' story.

Aww, poor wittle things.

Obama losing chance to reshape judiciary

By GottaLaff

I have a lawyer friend on Twitter (he goes by "Rawls") who read the same L.A. Times article I did, and was very disturbed by it, as I was. He then linked me to a New Yorker piece by Jeffrey Toobin. You can read excerpts of that below.

But first, here are Rawls' comments from one of my earlier posts, the one about Justice Clarence Thomas' Tea Bagger wife:

At this juncture I will make the following point (Joe Scarborough loves this style of argument, only I will do it better): Thomas will never recuse himself for this issue. You will see it go away. But, Thomas opinions are, in a light most favorable to him, nonsensical. At the end of the day, he'll step down when he wants. In the meantime, we need to focus on the crap that will come from the Right when Stevens and Ginsburg step down. The craziest filibuster is yet to come. Write it down. The next two appointments will create a logjam in the Senate you've never seen.

He makes a good point.

Now for the little not-so-bitty unnoticed news item that has bothered us so much:

An early chance for the Obama administration to reshape the nation's judiciary -- and counter gains made in the federal courts by conservatives -- appears close to slipping away, due to a combination of White House inattention and Republican opposition. [...]

During President Obama's first year, judicial nominations trickled out of the White House at a far slower pace than in President George W. Bush's first year. Bush announced 11 nominees for federal appeals courts in the fourth month of his tenure. Obama didn't nominate his 11th appeals court judge until November, his 10th month in office.

Moreover, Obama nominees are being confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor, largely because of the gridlocked Senate. [...]

If the Democrats lose seats -- or if Republicans take control of the body -- then Obama likely would be forced to appoint centrist judges more acceptable to the GOP.

There are details, numbers, comparisons, and information that you can read about in that piece. The point is, Bush managed to appoint a lot of judges who are shaping our legal system, and the entire country, and President Obama has not followed suit. He's been busy, he's faced gridlock, he's got people to see, places to go...

But hey.

Our lives are affected by this. Our democracy is affected by this.

And of course, there's that little Supreme Court issue that will arise. From the New Yorker article:

In Stevens’s absence, leadership of the Court’s liberals would fall, by seniority, to Ginsburg, but she is also elderly and has suffered from a range of health problems. Even if President Obama appointed a like-minded replacement for Stevens, that person, while taking his seat, would not fill his role.

Stevens is an unlikely liberal icon. When he was appointed, he told me recently, he thought of himself as a Republican and always had [...]

But, more than anything, his career shows how the Court has become a partisan battlefield. In that spirit, Roberts last week denounced President Obama’s criticism of the Court in his State of the Union address, saying that the occasion had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” When Stevens leaves, the Supreme Court will be just another place where Democrats and Republicans fight. [...]

I asked him if the center of gravity had moved to the right since he became a Justice. “There’s no doubt,” he said. “You don’t have to ask me that. Look at Citizens United.” He added, “If it is not necessary to decide a case on a very broad constitutional ground, when other grounds are available, then doesn’t that create the likelihood that people will think you’re not following the rules?”[...]

In all areas, Stevens has favored gradual change over sudden lurches and precedent over dramatic overrulings. But, especially since Roberts took over as Chief Justice, Stevens has found himself confronting colleagues who have a very different approach—an aggressive, line-drawing conservatism that appears bent on remaking great swaths of Supreme Court precedent. [...]

In Bush v. Gore, Stevens framed his colleagues’ decision as an insult to the judicial role, one that could, he wrote, “only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.” In words that became better known than anything in the collectively written majority decision, he continued:

Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

[...] As for Obama, Stevens said, “I have a great admiration for him, and certainly think he’s capable of picking successfully, you know, doing a good job of filling vacancies.” He added, “You can say I will retire within the next three years. I’m sure of that.”

We cannot lose an opportunity to reshape the judiciary, because if we do, that is tantamount to tacit approval, or at the very least acceptance, of the status quo. And that is unacceptable.

Justice Clarence Thomas' wife launches tea party group

By GottaLaff

Guess whose "other half" is a tea tantrumer! Mrs. Clarence Thomas, aka Ginni! You read that correctly. She also happened to create Liberty Central Inc..

And what is Liberty Central, you ask? Why, that's a nonprofit lobbying group. Mrs. SCOTUS created it, and it has its very own website that will "organize activism around a set of conservative 'core principles,'" she said.

They're going to provide score cards for Congress members. They're also going to involve themselves in Election 2010, but Ginni wouldn't say how.

She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

As the Church Lady would say, "how conveeeeenient."

"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."

Aww, Mrs. SCOTUS doesn't just support the tea tantrumers, she "adores" them. How compassionately conservative of her.

Experts say Virginia Thomas' work doesn't violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses.

Gee, ya think?

Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage. [...]

In a brief phone interview, she did not directly answer questions about whether she and her husband had discussed the effects her role might have on perceptions of his impartiality.

Avoidance is always the best policy when you don't want to address a controversy. Way to go, Thomaseseses!

Mrs. SCOTUS isn't as "impartial" as her hubby Mr. SCOTUS claims to be:

Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. Dick Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP. [...]

Although Liberty Central is a nonpartisan group, its website shows an affinity for conservative principles. Her biography notes that Thomas is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."

"She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully," the bio says.

I'm sure Judge Clarence sticks his fingers in his ears and sings Lalalalala! when Bellowing Beck pops on the ol' Tee Vee Machine.

But about that pesky impartiality:

But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. He could not be reached for comment.

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors.

And of course, Mr. Impartial had nothing to do with that decision.

Because of a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the group may also spend corporate money freely to advocate for or against candidates for office.

Justice Thomas was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.

Of course, I'm sure he had to excuse himself during the deliberation process. Glenn Beck was on, and the DVR was on the blink.

Torture Watch- Clarence Thomas: Peekaboo! I see Yoo!

By GottaLaff

Talk about mirror images. First, Clarence Thomas:

According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form -- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm -- has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

If he were to look at his own reflection, he'd say, "Peekaboo! I see Yoo!"

Yoo||samohT:

The court's decision came a few days after Thomas' now-famous former law clerk John C. Yoo was charged with flawed reasoning, but not professional misconduct, as a Justice Department lawyer when he applied much the same view toward the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners.

Um, that would be "alleged Al Qaeda" prisoners. Not every prisoner was affiliated with a terrorist group. Now, let's compare and contrast:

In the so-called torture memos in 2002, Yoo reasoned that subjecting prisoners to simulated drowning or "stress positions" in cold cells was not illegal torture because it did not cause the intense pain of a serious injury, equivalent to "death or organ failure."

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the cruelest of them all?

It's a tie.

Let's not leave out Scalia. That would be rude:

Thomas' consistent record of dismissing claims of prison brutality, most of them joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, shows that Yoo's view of torture was not that of a rogue lawyer. Instead, it represents a strain of conservative thinking that looks back in history to define cruelty and torture, rather than toward what the court has called the "evolving standards of decency."

Over two decades, Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly dissented when the court ruled for prisoners who alleged they were subjected to cruelty.

Alleged? Is this what they mean by "alleged"?


And see, it all depends on what the definition of "punishment" is, see:

The two justices explained that the word "punishment" as it was used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 referred to judges imposing punishment for a crime. Prison guards do not impose "punishment" even if they mete out cruelty, they said.

Ohhh, of course... the legal system stands corrected. How could so many have been so wrong all this time? Scalia, Thomas, and Yoo clearly have the letter of the law down pat... allegedly. The rest of us are dead wrong:

When asked about torture and cruelty toward prisoners, he discounted the possibility. "Has anyone ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so," Scalia said. "What's he punishing you for? He's trying to extract" information, he said.

And that justifies everything. America, and all those tortured-- not punished-- prisoners can breathe easy now.

Allegedly.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Supreme Court narrows but preserves Voting Rights Act

By GottaLaff

This was somewhat surprising. Well, except for that whole Clarence Thomas thing:

The justices leave Section 5 safeguards intact while allowing municipalities with a clean record to 'bail out.' Clarence Thomas dissents, saying he would strike down the provision.

The historic Voting Rights Act -- the 1965 law that ended a century of racial discrimination at the ballot box and gave blacks a political voice across the South -- survived a strong challenge at the Supreme Court on Monday as justices pulled back from a widely anticipated decision to strike down a key part of the law as outdated and unfair to today's South.

Instead, the justices agreed to narrow the law's impact by allowing municipalities with a clean record to seek an exemption.

Though the court sided with the Texas water district that brought the case, its 8-1 decision preserved the core of the Voting Rights Act, including its special scrutiny for any changes in election rules by Southern states.

The ruling also protected the Roberts court from charges of conservative "judicial activism" in its refusal to tamper with an act of Congress, a often sensitive procedure fraught with political risk.

Monday's decision, considered among the most important of the term, came as a surprise and a relief to civil rights advocates.

"This is a Pyrrhic victory for those who were behind bringing this case," said Jon Greenbaum, legal director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "We are glad that . . . the Voting Rights Act remains intact to protect the rights of voters."

Anita Hill speaks out on Sotomayor

By GottaLaff

WWCTS*?

ESSENCE.COM: What do you think of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court nominee?
ANITA HILL: I think it's an excellent choice, just on the face of the selection. Here's a person who has years of experience on the bench, and has distinguished herself in private practice as well, and has been a prosecutor. I think she's got an incredible breadth of experience. [...]

ESSENCE.COM: Things like...being a woman and a person of color?
HILL: Absolutely, that's part of it. But I think she's a great choice not simply because she's a Latina. She has acknowledged that as part of her identity, in a way that I think is very responsible and wise. [...] It means she's going to be aware of who she is and understand how that plays in her decision-making, but she is also going to be quite aware of the rule of law and have great respect for the rule of law, and be able to apply it. We are enriched in the judiciary by having both those concepts in one person, and so what some people have found troubling about her I actually find refreshingly candid and self-aware.

ESSENCE.COM: Do you know Judge Sotomayor?
HILL: She and I were in law school together [...] Not only did she excel in law school - where she was an editor of the Law Review - but after leaving law school she was a prosecutor, she practiced in a law firm, she was nominated and served as a judge at the district court level, and moved on to the appellate court level. [...]

ESSENCE.COM: After Justice David Souter announced he was retiring, Vanity Fair and others raised the suggestion that President Obama should nominate you for the Supreme Court. What did you think of that idea?
HILL: I actually responded to the Vanity Fair piece. I think there are any number of people, including Sonia Sotomayor, who will be excellent choices. This is a President who has come in and really tried to promote healing between various factions. Nowhere is that more needed than in terms of how we have approached Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. In those hearings there needs to be a certain level of honesty, but there also needs to be civility and really sticking with the questions that matter about the nominee. I don't think that there is much chance that that would happen if I were nominated, because of things that people would want to get into, that wouldn't be helpful to the process.

*What would Clarence Thomas Say?

Quote of the Day

How long before GHW Bush gets kicked out of the party?

"I have followed this man's career for some time," said President George H.W. Bush of Clarence Thomas in July 1991. "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."

AUDIO-- Boss Limbaugh: "There’s supposedly a recession...Just don't participate"

By GottaLaff



Boss Limbaugh finds humor in Americans doing things like, oh I dunno, suffering through foreclosures, unemployment, starvation... Isn't that hilarious? Are we slapping our knees and guffawing yet?

Last night, Rush Limbaugh came to Washington, D.C. to address the President’s Club Dinner, a meeting of wealthy donors and supporters of the Heritage Foundation. The audience included Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), as well as various millionaire trustees of the Heritage Foundation, like Thomas Saunders. [...]

As he continued to gloat about his show’s success, Limbaugh mocked the idea that Americans are suffering, noting, “I’ve never had financially a down year” despite the “supposed” recession:

LIMBAUGH: But during all this growth I haven’t lost any audience. I’ve never had financially a down year. There’s supposedly a recession, but we’ve got - what is this May? Back in February we already had 102% of 2008 overbooked for 2009. [applause] So I always believed that if we’re going to have a recession, just don’t participate. [laughter]

Apparently his audience is just as unhinged as he is. Mocking mass misery is the tone-deaf Rushpublics' favorite pastime, quite the little diversion from reality.

And how about that Justice Thomas, folks? Once he takes off those robes, he really knows how to loosen up and have a good laugh, doesn't he?

The punch line: Sociopaths like these are currently condemning President Obama for holding his Supreme pick to an empathy standard.

Speculation of the day: Gore for SCOTUS?

Ain't gonna happen, but it sure would make Scalia and Thomas squirm.

Clarence Thomas Is One Seriously Troubled Dude: "The dishwasher is a miracle...dishes were magically cleaned"

By GottaLaff

Ouch. Mother Jones describes a New York Times piece on Clarence Thomas:

This New York Times article on a rare public appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas -- a talk with high school essay contest winners [...]

The article makes clear, simply by quoting the famously taciturn Thomas, that he believes he is dumber than all the other justices and a good number of law professors, and retreats into isolation ("I tend to be morose sometimes") to nurse his wounds and brood. What an awful purgatory of an existence: to know you are a fraud, to know that everyone else knows you are a fraud, and yet to be locked into your job more or less for life. It's enough to ruin a person. And it appears it has.

More from the New York Times:

“I am rounding the last turn for my 18th term on the court,” he added, but his work — “this endeavor,” he called it, “or, for some, an ordeal” — has not gotten easier. “That’s one thing about this job,” he said. “You get a little tired.”

Sound familiar? "It's hard work." No wonder Bush appointed him. Two peas...

And when he's down, he defaults to his fondest memories of school room crucifixes:

“Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?”

Here's something I'd like to hear Jonathan Turley respond to:

‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”

Then he goes on to expound on the mystical powers of G.E.:

“It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.”

Those are luxuries, Justice Thomas said.

“I have to admit,” he said, “that I’m one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how that dishes were magically cleaned.”

Psst. Hate to burst your bubble(s), but it's not magic. It's a combination of electricity, soap, water, and the other basic components that have been around since 1927.

There are more fascinating quotes, so please go read.