The LA Times‘ Kathleen Hennesey purports to be troubled by Virginia Thomas’ activism:
“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.
Ms. Hennesey is rather selective about the things that trouble her though.
See also, Andrew McCarthy.
It’s a disgrace for the legacy media to engage in selective outrage.
That’s a job for bloggers.
“But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. He could not be reached for comment.”
Just so. I don’t see any problem given this…
Strangely, the writer seems in no way troubled by the selective activism of the current FLOTUS, much as it may be made to to touch on seeming neutral good causes.
Nor troubled by the activism of that former FLOTUS who is now SECSTATE. But that would be a rant for ‘nother day.
A backhanded slap at a sitting Justice, designed to compromise his position and, possibly, coerce his retirement. I thought Roberts and Alito would be the first targets, but this is too clever by half.
If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I certainly would not want my spouse to become publicly, a political activist, be it Right, Left, or Moderate. And my wife would agree, that it invites a perception, if not the reality of an unwanted conflict of interest within our nation’s highest court.
What a principal or their spouse does politically, before holding what is supposed to be an apolitical position, or even subsequent, is not at issue.
While seated, a Justice spouse’s political actions must remain both private and invisible. This public activism of the spouse of a Justice is a mistake, regardless of who the individuals are, or their personal politics.
But I guess it’s okay with you that political activists such as Ginsburg and Sotomayor become Supreme Court Justices?
I too am sick of the left’s selective outrage and hypocrisy.
Flit, if I tried telling my wife what she could do, who she could vote for and when and where she could speak her mind she wouldn’t be my spouse for very damn long. And I’d probably be spending a whole lotta money on dental work in addition to the new apartment and furnishings I’d need.
And let’s face it, it’s not as if, because she’s politically active, she will have any more influence upon her husband’s opinions and rulings than if she weren’t. She cannot remain unaffected by his work, he in turn cannot make a ruling without affecting her as well as every other citizen, but as a Justice it’s not like he can steer money and projects her way the same as a Congressman or President.
It’s much ado about nothing, and frankly I find it somewhat insulting. There is a reason good people do not give political service a thought, and this is one of them.
Had this been written by my spouse, I may have responded in the words of Harry Truman, “Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!”
– Max
Reminds me of the time my rater waffled me on an OER because he didn’t like the direction KtLW was taking the battalion Family Support Group — she’d instituted a day care center in an unused supply room for the single parents who made up about 5% of our unit and had a Tuesday evening CLEP program for those enlisted folks *and* their spouses.
My senior rater reminded him — in writing — that an OER was s’posed to be his evaluation of *my* performance, not my wife’s, and ripped him a new one.
That said, the biggest downside I can see to Mrs. Thomas’ activism is that Justice Thomas may have to recuse himself from any case his wife may bring before the Supremes…
“…for those enlisted folks [add] *and* their spouses who needed college creds to accelerate getting their degrees.”
%$#@! twitchy *Submit* thumb…
Sorry Flit, that train has left the station a long, long time ago, when our current VP can declare that the “ideology” of a Supreme Court Jutice is very important in assessing his/her fitness for the court. We are too far along the path of regarding the courts as simply another political branch with the same basic ideological contours of our parties – while I think that is going to eventually destroy our Republic as originally constituted, there is nothing one can do to “deideoligize” the courts and judicial decision-making now. The only real choice is to embrace the dark side of modern hyper-democratic politics.
So flit, why is it again that that she has to give up her 1st amendment right. “Free” speech vs. private and invisible.
Are you one who demands the President’s children serve in the military if the President sends the Nation into conflict?
Yeah, and so much for your liberal view of life a letting a woman have a voice in this society, not muffled of shouted down by her man.
Liberal my a$$: just another apologist for an administration/political party that wants nothing but the control of the life of all citizens, so it can have us all line up for rallies in support of the The WON.
Sorry. reminds me of an island nation to the south and another on a peninsula to the west of Japan.
And any of us here are supposed to be surprised by all the “outrage?” From the MSM? Puuleeeze…like a broken record.
Yeah. Go back to the kitchen Missus Thomas. Hey, while yer at it, take this he-ahh Co’ Cola back and bring me a Mint Julip. This Co’ Cola has a “hair” on it.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt (a Carter appointee) sits on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Reinhardt can reliably be counted on to be one of the most extreme leftists on the 9th Circus of Appeals. The 9th “Circus” has the unenviable record of being the Court of Apeals most frequently reversed by the Supreme Court. A lot of the 9th Circuit opinions that get “slapped down” by the Supreme Court were written by Reinhardt.
It’s common knowledge, and has been for more than 20 years–and acknowleged bu the L.A. Times itself that Judge Reinhardt has been sleeping with the head of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU! Well, okay, Judge Reinhardt made an honest woman of Ramona Ripston by marrying her shortly after he met her–she was then about 50 and he was about 60.
Now the ACLU is just as much a political activist group as the Tea Party–but this connection between the 9th Circuit and the ACLU has never bothered the L.A. Times at all.
Why should it, MM, don’t you know that’s the natural order of the universe?
At least it is in the universe that the 9th Circuit, the ACLU, and the LA Times inhabit, which connects with ours in a sort of Venn diagram having a *very* small “area c”…
HEH
the LA Slimes is famous for its hypocrisy:
http://patterico.com/2010/03/14/sauce-for-the-goose/
hy·poc·ri·sy
When I read the term “legacy media” my mind goes to the IT department in my division.
When they use the term “legacy” – it’s never a good thing. It refers to systems that need to have a sunsetting plan attached to them, to streamline and improve.
Seems that the same meaning could be given to the MSM at hand. Even if it’s only in my dreams.