Skip to main content

View Diary: Clarence Thomas's conflict of interest on Affordable Care Act (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wrong. His wife has a financial interest of $150k (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have a financial interest.

    Thomas is financially involved.

    •  Wrong, Wrong. So very Wrong. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leftie Gunner, Adam B, WillR, VClib, nextstep

      For Thomas to have a financial interest in the case, he or his wife has to have a a financial statke in a PARTY to a case.  Liberty Central IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE.  It does not matter at all that she will indirectly benefit from the outcome if it goes the way she likes.  That is completely irrelevant. Unless Liberty Central is either a party to the case, or is paying for one of the parties to the case, all of that does not matter and does not require recusal.  READ THAT LINK I had in my post.  It explains the law. A spouse is allowed to have very very very politically charged jobs without mandating recusal.    

       As I said, the SCOTUS' opinions on tax cases could potentially make Marty Ginsburg and his clients lots of money, but Justice Ginsburg never recused herself from tax cases.  That's because that's an indirect financial interest.  A situation where a spouse is not a PARTY but I can take the ruling and make a lot of money is not, not, not a direct financial interest in the case.

      I've been a lawyer for well over 20 years. I understand the standards for recusal of federal judges.  

      •  Rec'd for sanity. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WillR, VClib, nextstep

        We've been hearing about this for over a year now, and every time it comes up, somebody posts the realities of the situation...

        And they are roundly ignored, because we can't seem, for all that we claim to be the "reality-based community," to let go of the "we've got that son-of-a-bitch this time" outrage-fest.

        Justice Thomas is on solid legal ground here. Even though we all know that his mind is already made up, we've got nothin'.


        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Tue May 31, 2011 at 07:22:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thomas and his wife gets money from a firm that (0+ / 0-)

        lobbies against health care and wants to sit in judgement on health care and you don't see a conflict.
        In fact she is paid to publicly attack health care.

        The fact that you don't see a conflict of interest here proves you need to get out of the business of advising clients on conflict of interest.

        You don't have to be a lawyer, dude.

        •  Did you even read the link??? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep, Translator, VClib

          That was by Judge Reinhardt, who explained why the law did not require him to recuse himself from deciding the Prop 8 case when his wife ran an organization that lobbied against the Prop 8 case.  

          It does a better job of explaining the standard than I can in these short comments.  

          •  The right hand doesn't know what the left handdoes (0+ / 0-)

            Suppose Thomas directly got money from an organization that opposes heath care, should he recuse himself.
            Absolutely. His wife and him have mixed assets.

            The fact that lawyers can claim black is white only proves they're delusional and drunk with power.

          •  You are correct, but (0+ / 0-)

            do you not think that it sort of stinks?

            Warmest regards,


            Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over, then either I really love you blindly or I am a Republican.

            by Translator on Tue May 31, 2011 at 11:36:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, Thomas's wife would make more money (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          with SCOTUS ruling against striking down the PPACA on the current issues.

          If the law is struck down, her work is done, no more reason to pay her.

          However if SCOTUS rules that the objections to PPACA are wrong, opponents get to continue the battle on other challenges and continue to pay advocate organizations.

          Just like the case of an attorney paid by the hour in litigation who is not too busy.  Quickly negotiating a settlement pays far far less than a battle in courts that takes years.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Tue May 31, 2011 at 11:19:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But she loses that income if ACA is struck down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      So, in a sense, his financial interest would be in upholding ACA.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site