So, how do you think I felt when I got over here and read this:
“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginny Thomas,” she said, according to ABC News. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.”
FOR REAL?
FOR REAL?
This woman has the GALL to think that she can call up Anita Hill..
FOR ANY REASON.
REALLY?
Prime Example 101 of the Unmitigated Gall of Ms. Anne.
The thought...
The thought...
that she could just call up Anita Hill and leave a message....
FOR WHAT?
What did she think was going to happen?
AN APOLOGY?
G-T-F-O-H
Maybe Mrs. Thomas is feeling the heat from folks asking about the ramifications of the Citizen United Case in how her husband betrayed the very tenants of democracy by approving a court decision that opened the floodgates to not only underground corporate monies being poured into politics, but as we've been following it here at JJP, the very real possibility that foreign corporations and foreign governments are funding political campaigns - underground. What Clarence Thomas did, with his vote in that case was undermine and betray the principles upon which this country was founded.
So, what does Citizens United have to do with Mrs. Clarence Thomas?
She runs one of those 'groups' where money is pouring in, yet nobody knows where it's coming from. I wonder if someone called her up, since folks ARE paying attention to these groups, and we've found out that Karl Rove's group's funds come from basically THREE PEOPLE...if they asked Ginny Thomas where her money was coming from, and if any of those donors had...say...
CASES COMING UP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
Cases which would be an OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST..
but, of course, that would mean that Clarence would actually be, oh, well, decent enough to know that the obvious impropriety of it all would have him recuse himself.
Then again, his wife having her own political slush fund group sort of blows the ' they know about impropriety' theory of mine out of the water.
Clarence Thomas’ Wife May Have Benefitted from His Vote on Campaign Financing
Monday, October 11, 2010
Clarence Thomas’ Wife May Have Benefitted from His Vote on Campaign Financing
By involving himself in the decision to throw out campaign contributions limits for corporations and unions, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas helped expand fundraising opportunities for his wife’s new political organization.
Virginia “Ginny” Thomas, the most partisan of any Supreme Court justice spouse ever, according to The New York Times, is the founder of Liberty Central, a conservative group that seeks to end the “tyranny” of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
In January, the high court ruled it illegal to limit the spending of businesses and organized labor, clearing the way for big-money interests to pour huge sums into the 2010 election. In order to cloak their spending, many contributors are giving to certain nonprofit groups, like Liberty Central, which are not required by law to disclose their financial backers.
Ginny Thomas launched her organization in late 2009 with two unidentified gifts of $500,000 and $50,000.
Look, the woman might be crazy.. I don't know. What would you call someone who calls another woman out of the blue after 20 years, talking about GETTING an apology from said woman?
Crazy might be accurate.
Or, just the total picture of it all - a sitting Supreme Court Justice married to someone collecting large sums of UNREPORTED CASH from ANONYMOUS DONORS.....well, the whole imagery of that is even something the GOP can't clean up, try as they might.
So, Mrs. Thomas is sleazy, corrupt, amoral - just like her husband, and maybe she's playing crazy to cover THAT up.
Whatever it is, it's not going to fly.
Good for Ms. Hill- calling the FBI.
And, Mrs. Thomas?
Nobody's forgotten about your monies and yes, we still want to know where it comes from, and why these folks are throwing money on you like you're the headliner at the best strip club in Vegas.
Yo Clarence...if you wind up getting impeached over this....
well...
Posts
7 comments:
."You know, sometimes I come back to the boards after work and I can't believe all that happened when I was away from internet access. Sometimes, you read stuff in the threads and you have to read it two or three times to believe what folks posted."
Exactly how I feel. I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I caught the report via radio this week while at work (at work is where I usually catch this stuff). I thought the CBS announcer might have made a mistake. But the same story came out the next hour.
Virginia Thomas seems a little deranged to me. To call this woman @ work? To call her @ all.
I knew she was a partisan involved in Conservative politics... but I didn't realize the extent of it. Seems to be a clear conflict of interest to me. But unfortunately there are apparently no rules regulating SCOTUS spouses.
Thomas is one of three justices who will be most likely to step down next (the other two are Anthony Kennedy & Ruth Bader Ginsburg). I have been hoping that it will be Thomas. Perhaps this incident is a hint that things are going in that direction. Perhaps they are about to make that decision (retirement) and she is concerned about his legacy. Otherwise, why would she be doing this now?
I don't remember hearing/reading anything about Thomas recusing himself from the Citizens United case...or any other sensitive major case involving political fund-raising. Should be required to do so under the circumstances.
@The Angry Independent: I don't know why you think Justice Thomas is likely to step down anytime in the foreseeable future. He's only 62, unless there's a health problem that I'm unaware of, I'd guess he's likely to be on the court for over another decade.
Speculation on my part.... based on previous talk from pundits (can't trust media pundits all that much most of the time).
There were whispers among analysts during the coverage of David Souter's retirement, that Thomas (like Souter) may not want to grow old on the Court. That he might want to enjoy a retirement and spend more time with his family, doing some of the things he liked to do such as traveling extensively.
Scalia would be another candidate for leaving, but he seems to me to be someone who will stay on until the very end...until he can't handle the work any longer, or until he passes on.
Unfortunately, Obama may not have an opportunity to really impact the court in any significant way, certainly not in just a few years...due to the courts current make-up. This is especially the case, considering the Country's political situation, with the electorate reflecting a turn towards a real-life Idiocracy. President Obama may be looking at one term.
The best chance that Obama may have to make a meaningful impact on the shape and direction of the SCOTUS would be if Kennedy leaves. A shaky fair/impartial/moderate vote could be changed to a solid impartial & a little left of center vote (moderate Progressive basically). I really wish all SCOTUS justices were ideologically independent. But because they are appointed by politicians (which means the Court is inherently tainted somewhat) that just isn't realistic.
But replacing Kennedy could make a big difference.
You could say my suggestion was really my way of crossing my fingers & hoping that he leaves. There are so many Black legal scholars and judges that absolutely dwarf Thomas; that is the case today, and it was the case 19 years ago.
Nah, Thomas strikes me as the type who really likes the idea of being a Supreme Court Justice, even if he doesn't like the actual work it involves (hence, why he never bothers asking any questions during hearings), and would not want to give that up. Like Scalia, which I agree with you on, I think he will stay on the bench as long as his health allows.
I also don't really think that replacing Kennedy will make much of a difference to the court's ideological balance. You need to replace one of the conservatives, not the moderates. Obama had his shot to promote an unabashed liberal the first two times, when had a Democratic Senate. If he gets another shot within the next two years, it will be when there's an even more conservative, possibly majority Republican, Senate. So he'll go out of his way to pick someone whose easily confirmable. I've heard they've actually got a judge in mind. A White male named Merrick B. Garland. He was interviewed in the White House, when they were looking for the last Justice, but Obama with with Kagan this time, assuming that he might need a candidate like Garland for the next congress.
Kennedy is often the 5 in 5 --4. Replacing him means a lot.
LOL! That story involving "Ginny" was a bit nutty.
@ rikyrah: You may be on to something. I just read about a death penalty case in the Supreme Court, where it was 5 to 4 against a stay of execution, and Kennedy was in the majority.
But that just means that the Republicans will be even more adamant about scrutinizing anyone that Obama nominates, if he gets a chance to replace him. So he's going to try to find someone as bland and non-controversial as possible.
Post a Comment