The Teabagger in the Judge's House
This just seems ... creepy. The LA Times:
There is something about the Supreme Court, those should be venerable, wise monoliths of intellect who weigh every piece of evidence against the ponderous dimensions of liberty and history. You hate to think they're married to nuts -- worse, you hate to think they are privately nutty themselves.
That's the way I think of them, or used to. Now they're sitting there muttering under their breath while the President speaks, and dinner conversation at home is about the latest "facts" revealed on Fox.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.
As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the "tea party" movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.
"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama's "hard-left agenda."
But Thomas is no ordinary activist.
She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.
In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said. Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group
There is something about the Supreme Court, those should be venerable, wise monoliths of intellect who weigh every piece of evidence against the ponderous dimensions of liberty and history. You hate to think they're married to nuts -- worse, you hate to think they are privately nutty themselves.
The move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation's highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day.
That's the way I think of them, or used to. Now they're sitting there muttering under their breath while the President speaks, and dinner conversation at home is about the latest "facts" revealed on Fox.
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.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.
posted by JimK at 7:30 PM
38 Comments:
Sometimes you "feel like a nut, sometimes ya don't". . .la de da.
The world according to Jim is that everyone else is a nut.
nuts?
Where do you see that?
I might agree that it's not a great idea for a justice's wife to be involved in politics but her political views seem pretty mainstream.
You seem to think by simply repeating a phrase like "nuts" you can marginalize FOX news and its views but the fact remains that it has higher rating than any other cable news network so, by definition, it is mainstream.
On the other hand, CNBC, which closely reflects TTF thinking with Obama groupie Chris Matthews and the jolly gay giant, Rachel Maddow, has the lowest rating, indicating that TTF is actually part of the fringe.
Anon, I hope that Supreme Court justices are not married to nuts. It would not seem appropriate somehow. I also hope they are not nuts themselves. And you want to argue with me about that?
JimK
my argument is that there are no justices or their spouses who are nuts
you were trying to imply that Virginia Thomas is a nut and I think she has views closer to the mainstream than those advocated by TTF
Anon, nobody said any judge or their spouse is a nut; I said I hope that they are not. The judge's wife takes Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck seriously.
Having seen how you typify the views of TTF, I am sure you don't know what they are. We believe in personal liberty and respect for our fellow citizen. You may be right that those are not mainstream values in this day and age. And you may be wrong. The 2008 election suggests you are wrong.
JimK
I checked out Virginia Thomas' website. Looks cool! She's advocating a rededication to our Constitution and founding principles.
Sad and twisted that Jim thinks that being true to our Constitution and founding principles are nutty ideas.
She's advocating a rededication to our Constitution and founding principles.
And if she gets her *nutty* wish, then maybe her husband can have 3/5 of one vote on the Supreme Court.
Interestingly enough, that 3/5 rule was instituted by the North, as they didn't want the South to have too many votes.
And perhaps she wishes to return to the days when slavery was legal? She probably thinks that her "priviledged status" in society would protect her from that.
Interestingly enough, that 3/5 rule was instituted by the North
You left out a few pertinent facts according to Wikipedia:
The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes." The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."
After proposed compromises of 1⁄2 by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and 3⁄4 by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the 3⁄5 ratio proposed by James Madison. But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed). [Note: No Southern states opposed it.]
The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had obtained under the Articles of Confederation. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did, because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did [even though slaves were not allowed to vote for anyone to represent them].
Bea's comment about Thomas' wife's "wishes" seems to be implying that Thomas' wife is a racist, trying desperately to keep the Black race down!! That darn white woman racist, marrying a black man! Tricky one, isn't she? LOL!!!
Also, this is the first time in our history we've EVER had an anti-American, socialist president. People are worried. And rightly so.
Bea's comment about Thomas' wife's "wishes" seems to be implying that Thomas' wife is a racist, trying desperately to keep the Black race down!! That darn white woman racist, marrying a black man! Tricky one, isn't she? LOL!!!
Also, this is the first time in our history we've EVER had an anti-American, socialist president. People are worried. And rightly so.
Youre the anti-American, "Anonymous." Americans are proud to be part of our melting pot with its pockets of different flavors of peoples, ethnicities, religions, politics, accents, orientations and more. Your desire for Americans to be homogenized and march in lockstep or be shunned is anti-American. If you don't like America's spirit to lift the tired, poor, huddled masses of wretched refuse from foreign teeming shores, then why don't you go back to where your people came from and start over.
You can try to divine all the meaning between the lines you want, Anone, but Vigilance readers know I don't generally "imply" anything. If I have something to say, I say it.
What conservatives including both Thomases sometimes forget is that the framers were not right about everything -- the worth of black men being one rather glaring example of how wrong they could be. The framers wisely did, however, allow for a process to amend the Constitution they wrote, even to grant additional rights for citizens. We have amended that founding document several times to expand rights for citizens including freeing slaves and giving women the right to vote.
Being true to *some* of the "founding principles, like *black men are only worth 3/5ths of white men* and *women do not deserve the right to vote* is wrong.
you're guilty of implying again, inane-B
guess you can't help yourself
must be innate and unchangeable
you can deny it if that helps you delude yourself but everyone here sees it
You're right, Bea. I didn't have to "divine" anything from your statement. I was being kind to you when I said that your statement "seems to imply." Your statement doesn't imply anything. It boldly STATES that you said it is her "wish" to take our country to a place where her husband would be counted as less of a human.
It boldly STATES that you said it is her "wish" to take our country to a place where her husband would be counted as less of a human.
That's an outright lie. You really should work on that reading comprehension problem of yours.
The word "would" is not in my comment, the word "maybe" is:
She's advocating a rededication to our Constitution and founding principles.
And if she gets her *nutty* wish, then maybe her husband can have 3/5 of one vote on the Supreme Court.
"Youre the anti-American, "Anonymous." Americans are proud to be part of our melting pot with its pockets of different flavors of peoples, ethnicities, religions, politics, accents, orientations and more. Your desire for Americans to be homogenized and march in lockstep or be shunned is anti-American."
This loser, who posts as "Anonymous" and then addresses "Anonymous," has incorrectly stated that one of the other "Anonymous"es has a desire "for Americans to be homogenized".
No "Anonymous" has expressed such a desire.
Inane-B did imply that Virginia Thomas is racist, perhaps forgetting, or not being aware of, the fact that she's a white woman married to a black man.
Of course, liberals are more offended by a conservative black than a serial killer.
And that's a variety of racism.
"She's advocating a rededication to our Constitution and founding principles.
And if she gets her *nutty* wish, then maybe her husband can have 3/5 of one vote on the Supreme Court."
Virginia Thomas is discussing founding principles that haven't been amended and that we all agree on.
inane-B knows this and is lying by implication
perhaps forgetting, or not being aware of, the fact that she's a white woman married to a black man.
Oh that's a good one, Anone! I for one will never forget the pictures of Virginia Thomas sitting behind Clarence Thomas at his confirmation hearing.
Virginia Thomas is discussing founding principles that haven't been amended and that we all agree on.
If you're the one who went to her website and said it "Looks cool! She's advocating a rededication to our Constitution and founding principles," you provided no link or URL to that website and posted no specifics of what "founding principles" she's advocating that haven't been amended that you find cool.
So let's see them. What are the unamended founding principles Virginia Thomas is advocating that you find so "cool?"
How cool do you think it would be if Mr. Ginsburg set up a new nonprofit lobbying and political-organizing group catering to "citizen activists" of the "progressive" movement that will issue scorecards ranking candidates on progressive issues? Just like Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Ginsburg didn't give up his first amendment rights. But at least he, like every other Supreme Court Justice spouse throughout our history, has the good sense to not create for his Supreme Court Justice spouse the appearance of any potential conflict of interest.
I see no problem with Mrs. Ginsburg setting up such an organization for progressives as you describe.
It's a free country, in case you've forgotten that Bea.
oops - typo. Meant to say "Mr. Ginsburg." I know that distinction doesn't matter to the regulars on this website but still I must correct it!
It's rather ironic that the same people who could care less that Obama politicized the Supreme Court at the State of the Union address are now up in arms that Supreme Court spouses have political views. Hee hee.
are now up in arms
TTFers up in arms!?!? Sorry, it's tea bagger types who pack heat at political events, not progressives who come to read Vigilance.
Nobody here said Mrs. Thomas should stop what she's doing. If she wants to be the first politically active Supreme Court Justice's spouse, no one here is trying to stop her.
Some lawyers who study the Supreme Court might have a few things to say about her political activism.
Here's one.
Professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University, Jonathan Turley: Well, you know, it‘s, in a word, injudicious. I mean, you were talking about spouses of justices who don‘t fall directly under the ethics rules. But the fact that this is news is an example of the self-restraint used by most spouses previously.
I mean, this is not much to expect for spouses of justices—there‘s only nine of them—to try to refrain from direct political involvement, particularly to start a group like this, so far into her husband‘s tenure. Now, no one says she can‘t do it, but it comes at—it couldn‘t come at a worst time. It adds additional political patina to what the court has been doing and the controversies we‘ve had lately.
It's rather ironic
I'll tell you what's ironic. As Professor Turley pointed out last night, Chief Justice Roberts "recently chastised the president for the State of the Union and didn‘t mention once that Justice Alito had broken a long and important tradition of neutrality by nodding “no,” and seems to be saying “that‘s not true” to the president, it was an outrageous act in terms of the traditions of the court. And Roberts doesn‘t even mention it."
Many Presidents have been much more critical of the Supreme Court's rulings during their State of the Union Speeches, but never before has one of the Justices demonstrated the deceit of his own claims of neutrality.
Obama was way out of bounds and he was the initiator of the situation
Alito's response was restrained and appropriate
I'm not the anon commenting on this post but I actually agree generally that spouses of SC Justices should stay out of politics
it's not an easy call though because, in our age, we commonly have two career families and this may tend to marginalize someone because of their spouse
my objection to Jim's post, however, is to characterize Virginia Thomas' views as nutty
they aren't
she is mainstream with traditional American views
it's great that we have groups like TTF with a bunch of offbeat perspectives
they can get an oar in the water now and then
but let's not pretend that TTF is a fringe group
there were so many typos in that last one, let's start over:
Obama was way out of bounds and he was the initiator of the situation
Alito's response was restrained and appropriate
I'm not the only anon commenting on this post but I actually agree generally that spouses of SC Justices should stay out of politics
it's not an easy call though because, in our age, we commonly have two career families and this may tend to marginalize someone because of their spouse
my objection to Jim's post, however, is to characterize Virginia Thomas' views as nutty
they aren't
she is mainstream with traditional American views
it's great that we have groups like TTF with a bunch of offbeat perspectives
they can get an oar in the water now and then
but let's not pretend that TTF isn't a fringe group
Obama was way out of bounds
You are "way out of bounds" trying to rewrite history. Obama was not out of bounds. In fact he was in good company with your beloved President Reagan. And they are not the only Presidents who have critized supreme court decisions during SOTUS:
Nina Totenberg reported on NPR:
"State of the Union criticism of a Supreme Court decision is nothing new. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, among others, all did it. In 1988, for instance, two years after the court reaffirmed its ban on school prayer, President Reagan noted that the Supreme Court and Congress both acknowledge God at the opening of their proceedings. And he called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the school prayer ruling.
In 1984, six months after the court reaffirmed its Roe v. Wade abortion ruling, and again four years later, Mr. Reagan was strongly critical."
If that unjust decision giving corporations the unfettered right to contribute to political campaigns as if they were citizens is not overturned by newly enacted laws, I hope the President criticizes it again during the next SOTUS. And I may not be alone. Eighty-percent of Americans agree with the President and disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision to allow "corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns."
Alito's response was restrained and appropriate
Alito's response was juvenile and unprecedented. If you doubt that then find and document another single instance of a Supreme Court Justice publicly mouthing disagreement with a President during SOTUS.
No other president has so blatantly attacked the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address.
Change we can believe in!
Keep repeating the lie and I will keep repeating the truth. Reagan attacked the Supreme Court at least 3 times in SOTUS.
We all see you have provide no documentation to other Supreme Court Justices mouthing off to Presidents during SOTUS.
The truth is several Presidents have criticized Supreme Court decisions during SOTUS, but no Supreme Court Justices have ever mouthed off to Presidents there.
Oh yes, and one more truth that bears repeating:
Eighty-percent of Americans agree with the President that the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to spend freely on campaigns is wrong.
Obama is a lame duck
And you are an excellent example of someone with a lame intellect!
< eye roll >
You wish!
it's not exactly going to take a genie to make it a reality
two polls out today put Obama's approval rating at 44% AND 46%
at this point in Bush's presidency, he was considered the second coming of Abe Lincoln
the Dems did a number on Bush in 2006-2008, expoliting various crises, but his legacy is making a comeback
Obama has tacitly admitted Bush was right in Iraq and Afghanistan by following Bush's plan
in the rest of the world, Obama's kowtow diplomacy has been a disaster
unemployment went up about 25% soon after Obama was inaugurated and hasn't fallen 14 months later
look for worse effects if Obamacare passes
Americans were rolled by the Dems and they know it
meanwhile, inane-B's eyes roll in her head
she can't watch the political demise of her idol
The Democrats are as thankful for the GOP's election advice as the GOP is for the Democrat's election advice.
Real Clear's average approval rating for Obama is 48.5%.
At this point in his presidency Bush's approval rating had already dropped 14 points since its zenith right after we invaded Afghanistan. Bush's approval rating mostly kept right on dropping as his disapproval rating climbed for the remainder of his presidency.
"The Magical Legacy Tour is waiting to take you away, waiting to take you away, take you today"
Maybe FAUX News watchers think people are buying Rove's history changes but we aren't. Bush's legacy is and will always be one of shame. He lied us into an unnecessary war, bankrupted our economy, and left us on the precipice of the next great depression.
The unemployment rate did rise as Obama took office because it was continuing the trend started during Bush's last year in office. The unemployment rate rose all during 2008. The unemployment rate rose from 5.4% in Jan 2008 to 8.5% in Dec 2008, and from 8.5% in Jan 2009 to 10.6% in Jan 2010.
-Passing Obamacare means within three months people who have been denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition will be included in high-risk pools created by the government so they can find coverage.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months health insurance companies will not be allowed to deny kids health insurance if they have a pre-existing condition.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months children will be able to stay on their parents health insurance plans until they are 26 years old.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months insurers will be barred from imposing lifetime limits on benefits.
-Passing Obamacare means within six months insurers will be barred from rescinding your coverage should you file a claim.
-Passing Obamacare means that starting January 1, 2011, if you are on medicare, you will qualify for free annual wellness visits
-Passing Obamacare means that starting January 1, 1011, insurance companies will be required to spend 80-85% of their money they take in from premiums on medical care and if they don't they'll have to refund you the difference back.
-Passing Obamacare means before they can hike their rates, insurance companies will have to announce and justify the rate hikes and have them reviewed before they can be implemented.
-Passing Obamacare means in 2014 it will be illegal for insurance companies to deny anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions, not just children.
-Passing Obamacare means in 2004 insurers will not be able to impose annual limits on benefits.
Americans want these changes. Call your representative and tell them you want these changes too.
Oops typo at the end.
"2004" should be "2014"
One more typo
The unemployment rate was 8.5% in Jan 2009, and 7.1% in Dec 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home