(Repost) Recusal! More than just an ‘appearance’ of impropriety
March 26, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The U.S. Supreme Court today begins oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act. But an issue the mainstream media is largely ignoring is the serious conflict of interest that Justice Clarence Thomas has in this matter. Justice Thomas should have recused himself from participating in these cases, but did not. And this is a serious breach of judicial ethics.
—–
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three appeals challenging the Affordable Care Act. In all of the reporting I have read on this matter, what I have not seen is any indication that Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself from hearing and deciding the case based upon his wife Virginia "Ginny" Thomas' extensive poliitcal activities with the Tea Party organization Liberty Central that she founded which very publicly opposed the Affordable Care Act.
I posted about this back when "Ginny" Thomas may have had one glass of wine too many and drunk dialed Anita Hill to ask her to apologize to her husband. Remember that? And the evil billionaire bastard Koch brothers make a cameo appearance as well. What was really going on with the Anita Hill sideshow:
On Tuesday evening, the New York Times published a story about the Billionaire Kock brothers (aka the "Kochtopus"), who are trying to buy themselves a Congress this election thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court decsion in Citizens United v. FEC, planning to host a meeting in January for the plutocratic "two percenters" and their newly purchased Congress. Koch Industries and Network of Republican Donors Plan Ahead. 21 paragraphs into this disturbing story of political corruption is this passage:
To encourage new participants, Mr. Koch offers to waive the $1,500 registration fee. And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan.
Would that have been before or after the Citizens United v. FEC decision in January 2010? Was the decision a quid pro quo for Justices Scalia and Thomas patronizing the Koch brothers biannual shindig for the plutocatic "two percenters"? Was the Citizens United ruling and how it could most benefit the Koch brothers and other far-right corporate funded 501(c)(4) non-profit political organizations ever discussed at this meeting? There are some serious ethical questions raised by Supreme Court Justices ruling favorably for their friends and associates who have business before the court, especially on something as controversial as Citizens United.
Justice Thomas' ethical lapses are not limited to his friends the Koch brothers. As I told you in March of this year, shortly after the Citizens United decision, Thomas' wife, Virginia "Ginny" Thomas, formed a 501(c)(4) nonprofit political organization. Wife of Justice Clarence Thomas launches a Tea Party organization. (3/15/2010).
Supreme Court Justices and their spouses traditionally are not politically active nor actively involved in anything remotely controversial that could bring disrepute upon the Court or give cause for the public to question the impartiality and fairness of the Justice or the Court.
Apparenlty Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny are not happy with this longstanding tradition and feel it is appropriate for them to politicize the U.S. Supreme Court. I posted that legal experts were critical of Mrs. Thomas' ethically challenged decision to establish a 501(c)(4) nonprofit political organization, i.e., Tea Party, at the time. Wife of Justice Clarence Thomas is violating law. (3/19/10).
I recently posted about Justice Thomas' conflict of interest with his wife's political activities in DNC goes on the offensive against foreign-funded "U.S." Chamber of Commerce:
It turns out Justice Clarence Thomas has a serious conflict of interest as the Citizens United decision directly benefitted his wife's 501(c)(4) conservative political action committee. Thomas should have recused himself. Activism of Thomas’s Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues:
[Virginia] Thomas is the founder and head of a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central, dedicated to opposing what she characterizes as the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and to “protecting the core founding principles” of the nation.
It is the most partisan role ever for a spouse of a justice on the nation’s highest court, and Mrs. Thomas is just getting started. “Liberty Central will be bigger than the Tea Party movement,” she told Fox News in April, at a Tea Party rally in Atlanta.
But to some people who study judicial ethics, Mrs. Thomas’s activism is raising knotty questions, in particular about her acceptance of large, unidentified contributions for Liberty Central. She began the group in late 2009 with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000, and because it is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, named for the applicable section of the federal tax code, she does not have to publicly disclose any contributors. Such tax-exempt groups are supposed to make sure that less than half of their activities are political.
Krugman takes on ALEC
March 26, 2012
by
by David Safier
Paul Krugman's column, Lobbyists, Guns and Money, doesn't cover new ground in its discussion of ALEC's role in the conservative push for privatization and other corporate-backed agendas. But it performs a great service. It puts ALEC front and center in a well respected, syndicated column. Discussion of ALEC is now officially mainstream — at least I hope it is.
Krugman begins by talking about the law that led to the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. He calls it the "now-infamous Stand Your Ground law," though I prefer a more accurate title, the "Shoot First Law." Then he moves on to ALEC's role in promoting the bill in state legislatures around the country. The rest of the article is a description and analysis of ALEC.
Some of the important passages:
[ALEC is] very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators.
[snip]
ALEC seems . . . to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.
What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism. [boldface added]
Brandon Patrick: young Democrat
March 25, 2012
by
by David Safier When you get a young, smart, educated, dedicated Democrat running for office, that's good. When the candidate gets more young, smart, educated, dedicated Democrats pounding the streets for him, that's even better. A classic twofer. Brandon Patrick is running for one of the LD-10 house seats. He's a veteran of Afghanistan who … Read more
The coming week…
March 25, 2012
By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings As usual, all committee agendas and floor calendars are subject to change without notice… At the Arizona legislature, the coming week will look a lot like the past week, except less so. 🙂 It also going to be a "keep your eyes open" kind of week, as … Read more
Historic U.S. Supreme Court arguments this week on the Affordable Care Act
March 25, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear ninety minutes of oral argument in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, on the question whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars the Court’s review of the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 USC § 2283 – Stay of State court proceedings.
CORRECTION: The provision at issue is 26 U.S.C. § 7421, Prohibition of Suits to Restrain Assessment or Collection:
(a) Tax
Except as provided in sections 6015 (e), 6212 (a) and (c), 6213 (a), 6225 (b), 6246 (b), 6330 (e)(1), 6331 (i), 6672 (c), 6694 (c), and 7426 (a) and (b)(1), 7429 (b), and 7436, no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Act bars pre-enforcement challenges to tax laws.
In this appeal, the provisions of the Affordable Care Act pertaining to the individual mandate do not go into effect until 2014. Arguably, there is no plaintiff who has standing to demonstrate immediate and irreperable harm to be enjoined. Courts are prohibited from rendering advisory opinions. The issue is not ripe for adjudication. These jurisdictional issues could provide the Court an easy out to punt on the Affordable Care Act until after 2014 when the individual mandate provisions take effect and a plaintiff may have standing to present an issue ripe for adjudication and demonstrate an immediate and irreperable harm to be enjoined.
On Tuesday the Court will hear two hours of oral argument in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, on the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act. These arguments focus on the Court's precedents pertaining to Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Help get the Quality Education and Jobs Act on the ballot
March 24, 2012
by
by David Safier The AEN (Arizona Education Network) is one of the best friends Arizona education has. Together with others, the group has created a ballot measure, the Quality Education and Jobs Act, to guarantee increased funding for our schools, which now have the lowest funding per student in the country. They need volunteers to … Read more
How Many Other Trayvon Martin’s Have There Been?
March 24, 2012
by
Posted by Bob Lord I've heard all of the right questions being raised in the aftermath the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Except one. This incident didn't even get noticed for weeks after it occurred. If the news cycle were more crowded, or if a reporter or two were less aggressive, or if someone with information had not spoken … Read more
Obama Courts the Web Geek Vote
March 24, 2012
By Michael Bryan I was recently looking at the President's campaign website, BarackObama.com. There was something in the design that I liked, so I took a peek at the page's HTML. I was surprised to find this in the code: Seems Obama is gunning for every vote; even web geeks looking at his site's code.
