NYT Editorial: "The Thomas Issue" (Clarence, that is)

[G_j]

worth a read, in case you missed it..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/opinion/18fri3.html?_r=1

Editorial
The Thomas Issue

Published: February 17, 2011

When the Supreme Court hears arguments next week, it will mark the fifth anniversary of Justice Clarence Thomas’s silence during oral argument — unless he chooses to re-enter the give-and-take. We hope he will.

This milestone has stirred a wide conversation about his effectiveness as a justice following another about his ethics. They are actually related. How Justice Thomas comports himself on the bench is a matter of ethics and effectiveness, simultaneously. His authority as a justice and the court’s as an institution are at issue.

Last week, 74 Democrats in Congress cited the threat to the court’s authority when they asked Justice Thomas to recuse himself from an expected review of the health care reform law. This came after an announcement by his wife, Virginia, a lobbyist, who said she will provide “advocacy and assistance” as “an ambassador to the Tea Party movement,” which, of course, is dedicated to the overturning of the health care law.

The representatives based their request on the “appearance of a conflict of interest,” because of a conflict they see between his duty to be an impartial decision-maker and the Thomas household’s financial gain from her lobbying. If Mrs. Thomas were involved as a party in the litigation about the health law, or the litigation’s outcome proved central to her professional life, those classic conflicts would require him to recuse himself. The annual requirement that the justice disclose the sources of his household income is designed to address that issue.

..MORE..

[G_j]

1. why hasn't Thomas uttered a word in court in 5 yrs?

:shrug:

[northoftheborder]

2. In a C-Span special about the Supremes last year....

....each of the justices were interviewed by Paul Lamb about the behind the scenes process of the Supreme Court, how the cases are chosen, and make their way through the process to a final decision by the group. (It was very interesting, the different justices not only have such different views of the law, their personalities and interests are different and interesting.)

One thing that stands out in my memory of Justice Thomas's interview was that by the time the court actually hears the oral arguments, he has already made up his mind. The judges individually are given the reviews of the case, already, how they went through the system, and the basic arguments of each side. Thomas said outrightly that he is totally disinterested in hearing the oral arguments, thinks they are a waste of time, is not interested in asking any questions. That's why we never hear him ask anything. The other judges were asked if they had already made up their mind before orals, and they had varying answers, some said they had a pretty good idea of how they would rule, but wanted to make sure there wasn't something they had missed, and wanted to hear the others questions and answers.

A few said they had occasionally changed their minds after the oral arguments. But Thomas, unequivocally said he absolutely never changes his mind, doesn't care about the lawyers answers, or further comments, and that's that. That is the first opportunity they have to consider the case all together at the same time. Immediately after the oral arguments, they meet privately together to discuss and present their opinions.

I can't remember just how they decide who will write the majority and minority opinions, but it is during this process that they talk and write back and forth with each other to try to influence the opinion. I don't know if Thomas ever changes his mind during that period, but probably not. He impressed me with having a rigid, unbending attitude toward the law and justice.

[G_j]

3. wow

That is rigid all right! How did he ever become a judge in the first place?
Thanks for the insight.

[Tesha]

5. How did he become a Judge? A foolish Senate confirmed him. (NT)

[malaise]

7. 52-48

It was that close. The fugger should be impeached

[Tesha]

8. By modern standards, that was eight votes too few to confirm.

I wonder how it happened?

Tesha

[malaise]

9. That only happens to Democrats

ReTHUGS get a pass.

[Tesha]

4. I expect he'd made up his mind long before he's even read the first brief.

He came to the bench as an ideologue with an agenda
and that's all he'll ever be. He's a disgrace,
personally and to the Court as a whole.

Tesha

[BuelahWitch]

10. Doesn't he vote the way Fat Tony tells him to vote? n/t

[lpbk2713]

6. Alternate title ...

"The Thomas Clown Affair"