Clarence Thomas has a problem? Aside from all that other stuff? Yes, the august Supreme Court justice has another woman problem.
Mrs. Thomas is the founder and head of a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central, dedicated to opposing what she characterizes as the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and to “protecting the core founding principles” of the nation.
It is the most partisan role ever for a spouse of a justice on the nation’s highest court, and Mrs. Thomas is just getting started. “Liberty Central will be bigger than the Tea Party movement,” she told Fox News in April, at a Tea Party rally in Atlanta.
Partisan politics, shady funding (enabled by the justice himself in Citizens United), and an unshakeable air of self-congratulation are now the trademarks of this shouldn't-have-become justice. None of this is anything like appropriate for a Supreme Court justice, even in a Court which has been stacking up multiple acts of not just judicial activism but judicial imperialism.
Ginni Thomas is no better, it seems.
...To some people who study judicial ethics, Mrs. Thomas’s activism is raising knotty questions, in particular about her acceptance of large, unidentified contributions for Liberty Central. She began the group in late 2009 with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000, and because it is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, named for the applicable section of the federal tax code, she does not have to publicly disclose any contributors. Such tax-exempt groups are supposed to make sure that less than half of their activities are political.
Mrs. Thomas, known as Ginni, declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed without an agreement not to discuss her husband. In written responses to questions, Sarah Field, Liberty Central’s chief operating officer and general counsel, said that Mrs. Thomas is paid by Liberty Central, with the compensation set by the group’s board, and that the group has “internal reviews and protections to ensure that no donor causes a conflict of interest for either Ginni or her husband.”
Mrs. Thomas' most effective insurance policy -- make no mistake -- lies in her husband's vote in the matter of Citizens United. That vote rewarded the Thomas family very nicely even as it fills the coffers of their political interests. The Supreme Court's lose ethical rules also provide cover for the Thomas family.
A federal law requires justices to recuse themselves in a number of circumstances where real or perceived conflicts of interest could arise, including in cases where their spouses could have a financial interest. But the decision to step aside is up to each justice; there is no appeal from the nation’s highest court. ...NYT
