Wife of Supreme Court Justice starts citizen activist group

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Mar 16, 2010.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    I know it is the judge's spouse, and I have no problems with her independence, but the Supreme Court is supposed to be neutral. Not even the appearance of bias. Judges are supposed to be unbiased, neutral and decide cases on their merits. It is starting to feel like all of the Judges have made up their minds, and are only waiting for a case to come along so they can rule they way they already have decided.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03/15/AR2010031503399.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    (edit)

    If you're curious about the GOP view of impartiality, here it is.

    http://www.c-span.org/pdf/scourt_rsc.pdf

    (edit 2)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/us/politics/13judge.html

    (edit3) Before anyone says anything about removing him...
     
  2. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    This should be illegal but it's not. she should at least recuse herself because her husband is a Justice.

    Only in Amerika
     
  3. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #3
    [​IMG]


    I am proud of both Justice Thomas and his wife for their service to the nation and to freedom...
     
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #4
    so in your mind you could be found guilty of the crimes of your spouse?
     
  5. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #5
    I agree, it reflects poorly upon her husband and the Supreme Court.
     
  6. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    You do understand that the role of a judge is to be impartial? One of the hard parts of confirmation is that they CAN NOT pre-judge an issue, so when Congress asks questions about things like abortion, they can't respond the way you might want.

    I don't think there is anything wrong with the tea party activists, but Justice Thomas is a Supreme Court judge. If his wife is an activist against a "Liberal Agenda," how can he be impartial?

    (edit) No, you shouldn't be criminally guilty for your spouse's actions, but in almost every industry, there are conflict of interest rules, and I don't think either she shouldn't be involved in this type of thing, or he needs to resign.
     
  7. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #7
    "service to freedom"

    Freedom as you narrowly define it.

    The freedom to exploit anyone or anywhere through the so called "virtues" of capitalism.

    That is not my definition of freedom.

    In a truly free society, 2 women could go to the prom together without fear of reprisal.

    In a truly free society, any 2 consenting adults would be allowed to marry.

    In a truly free society as person can't be deemed an enemy combatant and shipped off to a black site prison to be tortured.

    Need I go on?
     
  8. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #8
    Still putting words in peoples mouths I see.

    Read the whole post.;)
     
  9. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #9

    Oh bull****. You would be screaming bloody murder if Sotomayor's husband (if she had one, I think she's single) was the member of a liberal activist group.
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    In Britain if you are a civil servant you aren't allowed to get involved in politics.

    I also realise that those rules don't apply to your spouse/partner, however if you are in a serious position like a supreme court judge you really do have to be totally neutral, and that means that your partner probably does have to sacrifice their public political voice. To do otherwise is certainly bad form.

    I'm not really sure if a judges partner should even be a member of a fairly political group - let alone a founder.

    Its pretty unacceptable when Prince Charles tries to use his influence to do things and this is the much worse.

    You wouldn't say that if he was a liberal judge :rolleyes:.
     
  11. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #11
    I don't believe Virginia Thomas' efforts with Liberty Central Inc. to educate motivated citizens to "preserve freedom" are in conflict with that. Or are you recommending that wives of Supreme Court Justices stay at home?

    True... but what's this have to do with thread topic?

    The two topics you cite are unrelated in the sentence you advance.

    It didn't seem to bother you when Hillary Clinton was a senator and her husband was a lobbyist in terms of conflct of interest matters? Why are you presupposing that Justice Thomas' wife cannot engage upon work of her own choosing without the Justice retaining his impartiality? You have examples of impartial acts or just assumptions because you dislike the Tea Party movement?

    If you surface some real issue where come conflict of interest arises, in the case you depict between the Justice and his wife, we would have a legitimate case to discuss. Otherwise I see no issue here.

    If you can do so coherently please do; I didn't follow your point as posted. I take it you object to Justice Thomas and his opinions but you failed to explain much beyond that.
     
  12. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12
    Senators aren't supposed to be impartial and neutral. Duh.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13
    I can't recall ever hearing about the spouse of a SC justice before unless it was an illness.

    This is a bad move and reflects poorly on the SC and Justice Thomas.
     
  14. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #14
    I read the post. You said it should be against the law.

    While it does not look good on paper legally the is nothing wrong with it and they can not make it agaist the law because the you would the actions of said spouse could hold you crimanal liable. This is the case here. Now on some thing the justus could abstain from voting on saying a conflect of interst
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    Agreed, its just very bad form, and he should probably step down.
     
  16. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #16

    I said

    "This should be illegal but it's not. she should at least recuse herself because her husband is a Justice."

    I put the illegal in italics for a reason.

    And you forgot the part in bold.

    When it comes to the Supreme Court they are supposed to be impartial and the wife should know that and not start a subjective lobby to keep her husband from being seen in an impartial light. Which is what's going to happen.
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17
    So does sexually harassing your aides but that didn't stop him from getting appointed.
     
  18. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #18
  19. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #19
    You are just as free today as you were the day Obama was elected President.

    What Freedoms exactly have you lost? I bet you're taxes have even gone down...
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
  21. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #21
    I really don't understand how some people all of a sudden think that this type of conflict of interest is a GOOD idea. :confused:
     
  22. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    Of course not, but they shouldn't be participating in political activism when they are married to a supreme court judge. That's kind of the point.
    You really don't get it? The point of the thread is that a judge is supposed to be neutral. An example of that is that at confirmation they can't pre-judge issues. Here, Justice Thomas' wife is engaging in political activism, and there is, at a minimum, an appearance of impropriety/bias. If you were representing someone before the Supreme Court, and the issue was one the tea party disagreed with, would you think Justice Thomas could be impartial?
    Again, a judge is supposed to be neutral, and her involvement with this group creates an appearance that he is no longer neutral. As a party to a case before the supreme court, that would be very troubling. If he were a lower court judge, he would be removed from cases for cause.

    As others have said, if this were a liberal judge, and the spouse was starting a radical leftist liberal or socialist group, I guarantee you that you would think it might make the judge less neutral/impartial.

    I've heard Republican presidents decry judicial activism. But, the thing you are overlooking is that the President was talking to both chambers and asking that they fix the massive problem that the court created when it ignored a 100 years of precedent.
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23
    Please list the freedoms you have had taken away from you.

    It is quite sickening watching what a hard on you have for your ideology over anything else. Reminds me of radical Muslims.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    He's a conservative - of course its acceptable.

    It would be nice if responding to purely partisan comments didn't clog up the forum :(.
     
  25. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #25
    I think partisan is more like it. The current bunch of people who call themselves conservatives have given that ideology a bad name.
     

Share This Page