Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court Justice's Wife Launches Tea Party Group

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:10 AM
Original message
Supreme Court Justice's Wife Launches Tea Party Group
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 11:27 AM by democracy1st


Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group


Reporting from Washington
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.

The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

"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."

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.

Justice Thomas, 61, recently expressed sensitivity to such concerns, telling law students in Florida that he doesn't attend the State of the Union because it is "so partisan." Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, has been a reliable conservative vote since he joined the court in 1991.

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. The couple have been married since 1987.

"I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics," said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. "Scot" Powe, a court historian.

He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. "I really don't know because we've never seen it," Powe said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14,0,6505384.story



Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit

Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html


Spontaneous Uprising? Corporate Lobbyists Helping To Orchestrate Radical Anti-Obama Tea Party Protests

Despite these attempts to make the “movement” appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests:

– Freedom Works staffers coordinate conference calls among protesters, contacting conservative activists to give them “sign ideas, sample press releases, and a map of events around the country.”

– Freedom Works staffers apparently moved to “take over” the planning of local events in Florida.

– Freedom Works provides how-to guides for delivering a “clear message” to the public and media.

– Freedom Works has several domain addresses — some of them made to look like they were set up by amateurs — to promote the protests.

– Americans for Prosperity is writing press releases and planning the events in New Jersey, Arizona, New Hampshire, Missouri, Kansas, and several other states.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/09/lobbyists-planning-teaparties/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. "I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha."
Elites love that fantasy and teabaggers et al always fall for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. I remember Boehner telling a group I was in about some policy "for middle class incomes like ours."
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 11:29 AM by bulloney
That year, his reported income was just under $1 million. At that time he owned a corrugated box factor in suburban Cincinnati.

If that's middle class, then the rest of us in that group were a bunch of skid row bums.

That's how detached from reality these people are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
34. "I am a corporation from K Street" would be more accurate than
the Nebraska housewife BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
Noam Chomsky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. "Freedom of expression" is one thing,
manipulating public opinion with lies and money is another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. What do think is the purpose of the freedom of speech right? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. The purpose of "freedom of speech" is to come to a consensual truth
through rational dialogue.

This is not the objective of the Teabaggers or their corporate sponsors who want only their voices to be heard, not yours or mine.

Quixotic, your concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. You need to study Supreme Court Freedom of Expression Cases, link below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. You need to make your point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
41. ROFL I've made my point already. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Um, no it's not. Not even a little bit.

Freedom of speech is exactly what those three words imply: freedom of speech.

There is NO "purpose" to freedom of speech other than to limit the power of the state to intimidate you. "Truth" hasn't shit to do with it.

Read a book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Freedom of thought and expression is an Enlightenment ideal,
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 12:15 PM by mix
meant to counter the "absolute" truths of the church and feudal classes, particularly after the Wars of Religion in the 16th and 17th centuries. The United States, a quintessential Enlightenment project, enshrined the idea of freedom of expression in the Bill of Rights. Why? Because the "truths" necessary for society to function rationally and progressively had to be arrived at through democracy and science, i.e. discussion and proofs.

The concept of freedom of thought, speech, and expression is meant to counter--via democratic dialogue and debate--the asserted and unproven truths of reactionary nonscientific institutions. At least in its original inception. The recent SCOTUS ruling has managed to pervert this.

The "truths" that freedom of speech help to establish are "objective" in the Rortian sense of being contingent and consensual. In others words, they may change. Freedom of speech, thought and expression--these ideals, in their original inception, were meant to move society forward by providing it with a nonviolent means to find the ideas and practices, i.e. the truths, necessary for a just society.

It's a shame that people like you forget this.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Show me where it says any of that in the Bill of Rights
Show me where freepers calling Bill Clinton "Klintoon" is pursuant to establishing a just society. Explain to me how calling GWB "Chimpy McCokespoon" advances consensus of thought. How exactly does Fred Phelps' philosophy fit into the putative "intent" of free speech, under your interpretation?

You've badly confused the origins of freedom of speech with the implications of it. Great, you know your history: go enjoy a cookie. But don't make me laugh by trying to claim that freedom of speech is supposed to be used for some greater social purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. What else is it for then?
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 12:33 PM by mix
As for the purpose:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Ring a bell?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. It's for you and me to say what the hell we want to say
that's it. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Corporations too, I suppose. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. We need a corollary to Godwin's Law
WTF do corporations have to do with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Do you support the recent Citizens United v. FEC decision?
Your interpretation of the First Amendment would seem to suggest that you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. My "interpretation" of the first amendment? REALLY?
I said the 1st Amendment provides you and me the right to speak without being muzzled by the government, and that's an INTERPRETATION?

Jesus H. Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Should corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individual citizens? nt
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 01:25 PM by mix
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. No. There, have I passed your purity test now? Did I jump through the hoop?
Do I get a cookie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Yes you do get a cookie.
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 02:11 PM by mix
By answering no, you accept that the state should also play a role in guaranteeing freedom of speech, expression, and thought for individual citizens. In other words, the state should also be a positive mediating force in promoting this ideal, not simply a repressive one.

The First Amendment explicitly says "Congress should make no law...", which suggests the dangers of an oppressive state that limits or prohibits freedom of expression. But it also suggests that the state has to guarantee the 1st Amendment by not allowing political factions, like the Dominion churches and corporate lobbyists of today, to impose their views on society via the government, bureaucracy and/or courts.

Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
43. "But it also suggests" - Baloney. Try that nonsense out on a first year law school student and see
how quickly they reduce that silly legal reasoning to powder.

"Dominion churches" - More baloney. Churches of any kind are actually protected under both the free expression and freedom of religion clauses of the First amendment. And conflating religious bodies with "corporate lobbyists" is simply absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. i see where you're coming from clearly nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AvaMae Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
28. Mrs. Clarence Thomas is a Teabagger
I beg to differ:

the Teabaggers exercise their freedom of assembly and freedom of speech to shout down others and the congress members holding the town halls.

The Teabaggers support, encourage, and foster the most racist of attacks on this President and his family.

The teabaggers threaten members of congress with activism, money and threats from outside the district to Primary any who don't kow tow to them. This deprives the citizens of those districts their Constitutionally guaranteed representatives of the people.

Any member of the immediate family of any Supreme Court Justice who associates themselves with the blatant prostitution of our constitutional rights to this degree is unAmerican, and needs to be divested of any power and influence over other Americans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
35. And where do you stand on Citizens United v. FEC?
Should corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individual citizens?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. You keep changing the subject because you don't like getting schooled on the true meaning of free
speech for individuals.

That pedestrian tactic doesn't impress or fool people as much as you obviously think it does, know it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. And how do you define "individuals"?
As citizens or corporations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. If you don't understand my post #2 then you won't understand if I responded to your question. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. Clarence gave up canned Coca-Cola for tea?
My, how civil this man has become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. See I have been telling you guys that these teabaggers are just downtrodden folks just like us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
8. She has every right to be as big an embarrassment as she wants to. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
13. Progressives will need to follow this closely, the MSM will ignore it for
the most part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TriplD Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. So he decided a case in which his wife will now profit?
Now that corporations can spend unlimited funds targeting politicians doesn't her new lobbying business stand to make a ton of money because of it?

Why didn't Clarence recuse himself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. The essence of Republicanism...
Edited on Sun Mar-14-10 12:41 PM by RufusTFirefly
.. is the unbridled and unprincipled acquisition of wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. bingo and welcome to DU! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. whadda moron!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
21. She has nothing to do with anything regarding the Supreme Court.

Her husband's job isn't her job and restricts her no more than anyone's spouses job does. She is a free human being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Do you think she is part of a spontaneous grass roots movement?
Like the teabaggers claim to be.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. No, but I don't think they are either. So what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
37. In your world, does everything happen in a vacuum?
Nothing is related, and no action is influenced by outside events.

Gotcha.

Must be nice to live life unfettered by reality.

But, she can do what she wants, even though no one except the simple-mided believe her drivel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Believing or not believing it doesn't matter, she's a free human being who can associate with
whomever she wishes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AvaMae Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
22. Mrs. Clarence Thomas as Teabagger

the Teabaggers are an incoherent group organized first around racism, then hatred for America.

They rant and rave about spending, but had no complaint about two wars and a huge tax cut for the wealthy..

They are the tools of, and are being manipulated by, republican activists who pay the bills.

They are NOT mainstream America... they are lily white and racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
38. Welcome to DU!
and spot on..

These groups are all about the fact that before the election, they dared not "go after" Obama, but now that he's president (ad much as that kills them), they are free to criticize and can cloak it in "concern"..not the racism it really is.. bastards..

the are the grassroots, like Fox is a "news" channel... and both are fully subsidized by the RNC..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
36. WHY ISN'T THOMAS' CITIZEN'S UNITED VOTE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? READ THIS:
As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors.
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.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/14/846102/-Clarence-Thomas-wife-starts-Tea-Party-group
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
46. Does she know that those racists aren't particularly fond
of mixed couples?

This is a major conflict of interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-14-10 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
48. If anyone should know the dirty implications of the word "teabagger", it's that dude.
I mean, come on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
50. STEPFORD n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC