Skip to main content

View Diary: House Democrats call for congressional hearings on Clarence Thomas (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Retroactive Recusal (9+ / 0-)

    What the hell?

    Is Rep. Slaughter just making up shit now? Forging new constitutional law territory?

    This is going no where, will go nowhere and is completely useless. Thomas isn't going to bend to public pressure and the Republican House or Obama's Justice Department sure as hell isn't going to investigate a sitting Supreme Court Justice over these 'ethics' violations.

    Yes, I used quotes around ethics. So far, I have seen nothing the remotely rises to the level of a corruption or conflict of interest charge.

    Sigh.

    •  Pretty simple actually (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LillithMc

      As I understand it, his wife worked for -- in a high-up position -- an entity that filed an amicus brief in the Citizens United case. The fact of her position there was not disclosed until long after the fact, even though the forms clearly request (require) information on spouse's employment. Normally that would be grounds for recusal.

      Believe me, if Justice Ginsberg's late husband had represented or served on the Board of an entity filing an amicus brief in a case before the court, and that fact was not disclosed, and she sat on the case, the impeachment proceedings would have begun within 24 hours after disclosure.  

      •  Again, (4+ / 0-)

        There is no such thing as 'retroactive recusal'.

        However, the concept that Ginny Thomas was somehow sneakily working for the Heritage Foundation is just laughable.

        It was clear and common knowledge. She was a power player in Washington. People knew who she worked for, just like Justice Ginsberg's spouse was well known for his position.

      •  That's factually wrong. (6+ / 0-)

        The entity that his wife worked (I think it was still the Heritage Foundation at that time) for did NOT file an amicus.  If they had, then the lawyers advocating for upholding the statute would have IMMEDIATELY asked for his recusal.  They didn't -- because, while his wife clearly had a position on the issue, neither she -- nor her employer -- filed anything with the SCOTUS on the case.

        Your facts, again, are wrong.  

        Justice Ginsburg's late husband was a well-known tax lawyer, and thus had an interest in the issues in every tax case that came before the SCOTUS.   Justice Ginsburg never recused herself from a tax case on that ground, because her husband was not part of an entity that filed anything with the SCOTUS.  

      •  rugbymom - Heritage filed no briefs (0+ / 0-)

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:56:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Is There Any Retro Recusal For Lower Judges? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, Justanothernyer

      I've certainly never heard of such an idea. The Constitution does forbid congress from passing retroactive laws.

      IANAL.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 04:42:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's just no such thing anywhere, as far as (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Justanothernyer

        i know. At any level.  In fact, there are rules that say you can't wait until after a ruling to raise the issue of whether a judge should have recused himself or herself.  That's to prevent people from gaming the system -- only raising recusal if the judge rules against them.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site