Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Wife Of Supreme Court Justice Heads Conservative Consulting Firm

February 10, 2011 by  

Wife of Supreme Court Justice heads conservative consulting firmLegal ethicists have raised concerns about the latest political move by Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, claiming that her role as "an ambassador to the Tea Party movement" could affect her husband's ability to remain objective.

According to Politico.com, Virginia Thomas recently founded a lobbying firm called Liberty Consulting. The group, which promotes limited government, free enterprise and other conservative causes, pledges to use "experience and connections" to help clients with their efforts and donation strategies. The news provider reported that Virginia Thomas has already met with nearly half of the 99 GOP freshmen in Congress.

Some legal experts believe that her new role creates a conflict of interest since her husband is expected to rule on hotly-debated issues such as healthcare and campaign finance regulation.

Justice Thomas "should not be sitting on a case or reviewing a statute that his wife has lobbied for," Monroe H. Freedman, a Hofstra Law School professor, told The New York Times. "If the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that creates a perception problem."

Last week, the watchdog group ProtectOurElections.org called for a criminal investigation of Justice Thomas for failing to disclose his wife's income on past financial reports. The organization alleged that the judge omitted his spousal income from as far back as 1989 — including approximately $686,000 from conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation — which, if revealed, could have led to his disqualification from hearing certain cases that may have benefited his wife. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Wife Of Supreme Court Justice Heads Conservative Consulting Firm”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    Geepers, the pc police are at it again. Well, if Clarence Thomas’ wife rates being placed under a microscope, then there’s only ONE way to make all things equal and fair, people.
    That is, a certain recent addition to the Supreme Court must be FORCED to recuse herself. SHE is the one who did her best to BURY Obummer’s questionable past (so SHE would go to the top of the Supreme Court short list). Does that shed a little light on the topic? Don’t call it a matter of being vindictive, folks. Call it POETIC JUSTICE on a silver platter. And don’t forget to serve it COLD.

    • Kinetic1

      Good lord sc, this time you’re really grabbing at straws. There is little correlation between a close friend or past associate and one’s spouse. No one is putting Virginia Thomas under a microscope. She is openly working for parties who will be heard before the Supreme Court. As this article states, she pledges to use “experience and connections” to help her clients reach their goal. She lives with one heck of a connection, doesn’t she? If you were on trial and found out that the judge was sleeping with the prosecution, I’d bet you’d question the judges’ impartiality. So why should anyone feel comfortable knowing that a judge sitting on the highest bench in the land, a man who could be making decisions that will affect our laws for many years to come, a man who has a lifetime appointment, is living with a women who is actively engaged in and earning a wage from promoting one side of the very cases he will hear?

      • Wanda Murline

        Why should that be any different from Elena Kagan being Obama’s best buddy getting put on the bench and hearing the fight against Obamacare and the birth certificate question, since she was his legal assistant during the time we were trying to stop its inception? I truly believe that the Supreme Court must judge every case on its Constitutional merit…and if they do that, then there will be no conflict of interest. If this were a case of a liberal judge’s wife then the alphabet medias would not even be reporting it.

        • EddieW

          For Sure!!! They are violating Constitutional law by refusing to hear any case, that has to do with Obaba’s Birth Certificate…Never has it yet been produced…he don’t need to wear it on his forehead…just show it!! He was born in Kenya, therefore cannot be our president!! “supreme” Court knows this…as does Congress!! Gutless bunch there!!!

        • bbstacker

          Beautiful come back! I wonder what kind of soap, shampoo, motor oil, hair spray, vacuum cleaner, flatware, noodles, shoes…exhaustive bunch of nothingness that these clowns on the left want to offer up as influence when these vermin have every known suspect in the book working on their side of the septic tank without one response to the scrutiny of common sense.

      • lkar

        I do not think your comparison is fair. If you are on trial it is for a criminal offense. SCOTUS reviews constitutional issues with laws and/or practices. Yes, some of their cases may determine personal convictions. But they do not send anyone to jail.
        The issue is the liberal media is putting together a narrative because they know that Obamacare has a good chance of being unconstitutional. The narrative will get the sheeple mad and they will be whipped up in a frenzy (irregardless of the facts and opinions of the court).

      • Jana

        Kinectic,
        Yet it is also alright to have people surrounding the President such as Van Jones who is an avowed Communist and Annette Jenkins who thinks Mao is one of the greatest philosophers ever. Anything a liberal does is alright, but let a Conservative work for their convictions, everyone pounces.

      • Thomas S. Hutchinson

        Your comments were refreshing. Here I only thought that I only thought that way.

      • eddie47d

        SC and Wanda are full of spin for Mrs Thomas is actively influencing her husband. You all got torked when Hillary was accused of influencing Bill yet now it is all different. Is it right or is it wrong?

        • kate8

          eddie – Hillary DID influence her husband. Did you hear anyone calling for Bill to do anything about it?

          Michelle, most assuredly, has much to say to Barry, too, about how to run things. In fact, she’s VERY involved in her pet projects for furthering socialism. No one has suggested she stop.

          So what was your point again? Are the wives of black conservatives supposed to crawl under a rock?

          The whole problem is that liberals just can’t stand minorities who think for themselves. They aren’t your slaves anymore.

          • bob wire

            There seems to be a whole of thinking by poster that think they know what liberals are thinking.

            How do you do that exactly? To Know what people are thinking?

            I wish that I had such a fantastic talent. I’d be a wealthy man.

            I fail to understand how you could loose elections with such awesome skills.

          • eddie47d

            Your eyeballs are popping out you are so full of it. His wife is white so race doesn’t enter the picture. Being conservative has nothing to do with it either. So go ahead and knock yourself out with your accusations.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          eddie,
          What about Debbie Stabinow being in support of the fairness doctrine when her husband was a Vice president at Air America????

        • Dan az

          So eddiee
          you think his wife can dictate the constitution to him and influence his decision is that right?What exactly can she do to sway a decision if all arguments are based on the constitution?Inlighten me!

          • eddie47d

            Dan; Then don’t complain whether a liberal influences someone near and dear.

    • kate8

      s c Thank you for saying that. It was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the article.

      Justice Thomas is not his wife, nor should she be limited in her endeavors because of her husband’s position. Justice Thomas has always shown himself to be fair and an adherent to the Constitution as intended by our founders. His history speaks for itself.

      As for Kagan and Sotomeyor, they’ve both been involved in Obama’s agenda, and are both invested. If any should have to recuse, it would be them. But, apparently, they’ve chosen not to. (Of course. That’s why they were put there. BO’s stacking the courts.)

      • bob wire

        “Justice Thomas is not his wife, nor should she be limited in her endeavors because of her husband’s position. ”

        ahh! a clear point of contention. I love it when it’s so clear and in your face.

        Time to do some research and I’ll get back with you.

        • Jana

          bob,
          By the way, I saw where you presented a story from the Bible on the Islam Afire site. Your story was fiction based on fact. I presented back to you the corrected version.

          • Dan az

            Jana
            That will be the day!

          • bob wire

            fiction based on fact ~ how cleaver ! I don’t remember where I read that story actually. You say it’s in the bible?

      • bob wire

        Okay Kate, ~ it’s a gray area and of course I can keep looking. I did found this and thought it noteworthy;

        “Since 1789 the House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings against only 13 jurists – although about an equal number of judges resigned just before formal action was taken against them. Of these 13 cases, only seven resulted in a conviction, which removed them from office.

        Although outright acts of criminality by those on the bench are few, a gray area of misconduct may put offending judges somewhere between acceptable and impeachable behavior. What to do with the federal jurist who hears a case despite an obvious conflict of interest, who consistently demonstrates biased behavior in the courtroom, whose personal habits negatively affect his or her performance in court? Historically, little has been done in such cases other than issuance of a mild reprimand by colleagues. In recent decades, however, actions have been taken to discipline judges”

        link; http://www.google.com/search?q=judgeships+behavior+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

        It’s pretty interesting and not too long a good read.

        What I came away with was Judgeship’s deliberately project an air of aloof uncertainty and it for the senior judges to groom and direct the juniors in behavior, presence and decorum. ~ So there is a slow pasting of the torch so to speak.

        That judges are indeed active party members and almost have to be, too be consider an appointment as it the natural nature of selection.

        There is a strong and serious effort to avoid anything that could be construed as a “conflict of interest” that would require a judgeship to abstain from a ruling. To fail to abstain while conflict of interest “might be” considered, much less proven is something a Judgeship would be prudent to avoid, failing to do so come with penalties.

        So I’m left to say Clarance Thomas is lacking in prudence , when dealing with the women in his life which comes as little surprise.

        This particular issue is left for us who see this lacking of prudence to register a complaint loud enough to where it reaches the sitting seniors judgeship’s. They will be the ones to assess the issue and offer Judge Thomas council and offer any correction.

        Judge Clarance Thomas has openly compromised himself on “some issues” and people will be looking for him to abstain and spank him if he fails too.

        Bottom line, some see gray sky a gathering and hope to avoid the storm.

        • kate8

          bob wire – I still see nothing out of line with Justice Thomas.

          You failed to address the much more blatant and obvious conflict of interest of Obama’s latest appointments. They surely won’t rule against issues in which they have taken an active part.

          • bob wire

            well katey, matter of conflict applied to all.

            We were talking about a supreme court judge in the case of Clarance , what are you speaking of?

  • Warrior

    Thank the Lord we have a Clarence Thomas and a Mrs. Clarence Thomas.

    • kate8

      Warrior – Amen. And may the Lord preserve them.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        kate8,
        and with the way things are going may The Lord keep them safe!!!

        • kate8

          Joe H. – That’s what I meant!

        • bob wire

          Has there been threats? surly not. ~ I thought is was just open season on democrats!

          I wish everyone safety from harms way . It’s Cairo that concerns me most tonight. I hope these Egyptians can pull their “peaceful” revolution off without great bloodshed. There’s been no equal since Gandhi drove out the Brits, which came by accepting very harsh treatment and great suffering.

  • http://www.diyyardandhome.com Dan

    I don’t see the conflict of interest thing. They both share the same interest, laws based on the constitution and conservative ideals. How can they be in conflict?

    • bob wire

      Overbearing political party bias directed to a judgeship’s bed chamber perhaps?

      You and I both know how difficult a lover tryst can be. And this is the 2nd time Mr. Clarence has had “women issues” come before the nation of review.

      For a Judge for a lifetime, that’s just one too many. Clarance has already been “indulged”

      • kate8

        bob – Justice Thomas has long been a target of the Left. They can’t stand that he left off the plantation.

        Attacks and accusations don’t make him guilty.

        • bob wire

          oh! I don’t believe it that at all Kate. ~ They just don’t feel he of solid character. Nita Hill is either a liar, a paid agent, a scorned woman or a victim of a man that doesn’t have a firm grip on quality interpersonal skills,( a sexual deviant predisposition) Pick your poison. We lost, you won and here we go with women issues once again.

          You are being kinda of racist to suggest his sovereign personal freedom offends anyone one, much less just democrats.

          But I understand, it’s convenient to throw, the most forethought you hold and any rebuttal you might consider, difficult for a simpler mind.

          Let us refrain from going there, and keep the conversation on a higher level, what you say?

  • ldot

    Seriously, wouldn’t the same accusations be true of b.o.’s nominees to the Supreme Court, namely, Sotomayer and Kagan……seriously, does the left never realize the hypocrisy that comes out of their party?!?!?

    • 45caliber

      But that’s different! After all, they are progressives! So they don’t actually do the things they blame the conservatives of doing.

      Riigghhttt…..

      • bob wire

        Well? if you say so.

    • JUKEBOX

      If the fact that Kagan helped write the Obamacare bill isn’t a clear conflict of interest, I don’t know what would be. She will be asked to rule on the constitutionality of her own writings. Don’t you know she will rule against herself or believe that?

      • kate8

        It’s the same old double-standard coming from the Left.

        Hypocracy is their name, winning is their game.

        • bob wire

          Well Kate, I’d admit there is a DNC Hypocrisy Axillary that host a few in membership but it only a spin off branch of the RNC Hypocrisy National that boost a large membership of once John Bircher’s and KKK members.

          • kate8

            bob wire – Are you really a slow learner? For the millionth time, the KKK was a southern democrat group.

          • bob wire

            keep up Kate, not anymore. You are talking about a day when Republicans were today’s Democrats. You’d be hard pressed to find a KKK member democrat today.

          • bob wire

            “Was”??? Do you think they have all died or moved away?

          • JUKEBOX

            The KKK was originally founded in Pulaski, TN by Democrats.

          • kate8

            JUKEBOX – The Left loves to revise history to suit their own agenda, and bob wire loves being an irritant.

          • Jana

            Kate8,
            He not only loves to (I believe his own words were )”provoke”, but he also like to play ‘facts’. The only problem is most of the time, there is a difference between his facts and the truth. He throws in enough truth to make himself sound believable. Hmmm reminds me of someone????

          • bob wire

            Well,~ let’s just say the DNC hypocrisy is superseded only by the GOP and both are contaminated so bad it makes you want to take a bath to wash it off.

            and for the “provoking” record, it was the GOP that lead this particular change. If you don’t enjoy spirited rebuttal , don’t start none and there won’t be none.

            actually, I enjoy it ~ but let’s raise the bar. This is silly. Nanny nanny poo poo!

            Clarence is a clown and will continue to be an embarrassment to the courts and the GOP. He is dysfunctional and it will only get worse with age.

  • Michael J.

    Where is the outrage over Obama’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood who sponsor Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah?

    • skip

      tell me where you make that connection? Where do you come up with such nonsense? I don’t mind rational comments and commentary, but you are just screaming Beckisms into the wind and onto the web.

    • JUKEBOX

      Obama’s Director of National Intelligence testified before Congress today that the Muslim Brotherhood was a non secular organization. I guess that means Muslim is not a real religion.

  • http://www.diyyardandhome.com Dan

    I also guess this means she could not work anywhere at all. She could be flipping burgers at McDonald’s and a case could come before the supreme court (not hard to imagine with MO pushing her fat agenda).

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Dan,
      Is that her FAT agenda or her fat AGENDA????

  • http://none Roscoe

    Has her influence on his judgement effected his decision as of now. Think about what your saying..

    • bob wire

      Good point and impossible to prove one way or the other and there lies the conflict.

      Thanks for bringing the “profound” forward is such a forthright, matter of fact way Roscoe.

      • Dan az

        BW
        The thought that you said you were going to research was to much for me to comprehend.Thanks for not bothering to look up any facts my heart just couldn’t take it.

        • bob wire

          Are you attempting to annoy me Dan?

          I’m always digging for facts, I just don’t advertise it. I know plenty about your home state and I know you just hate some of my posting, sorry, nothing against you personally. Sorry.

          As for holding an appointed office, I lived inside such a privileged family for many years. I know what our family had to contend with as a Presidential Appointee family. It was a big surprise to me, things few would think of as being important. You don’t take free anythings, you don’t go just anywhere you wish to go. You don’t take photographs with just anyone. You must live a very guarded life and walk softly. ~ But it did come with offsetting privileges.

          Everything you do is a reflection of your boss ~ in this case it was Reagan. Number 1 rule, You don’t embarrass the boss or give anyone a reason to believe they can.

          Judges are no different they must live inside an insulated bubble.

          • Jana

            Now bob,
            Why would anyone ATTEMPT to annoy you? You are already so easily annoyed.

          • Dan az

            Why yes bob I am!

          • bob wire

            well~ you got me Jana ~ sweeping vile statements and general disrespect for civility trips my trigger, but it’s all in serious fun for the sport.

            You keep it up and even you might start making sense Jana.

            Dan from Arizona and I go back many months and have battled it out before.

            and thanks for getting off the holy water ~ and just offering yourself, you will do fine here. There are many “we’s” here.

          • Jana

            bob,

            It is oh so true, you are easily annoyed. The mere mention of God or truth annoys you.
            You even love giving UNSOLICITED advice.

            You have tried to present yourself, quite ineptly I might add, as oh so knowledgeable about the Bible. You condescendingly and pathetically misused and misappropriated scriptures, while under the guise of acting like my spiritual adviser and what was just best for me.
            What became evident is, if you act so pious like you know so much about the Lord, and the Bible when it was so obvious you did not, it just lets us know you are just a bunch of hot air flinging out whatever comes to your mind. In other words bob, it deeply cheapens Your credibility. (Us being anyone with common sense and knowledge of the truth.)

            As you yourself said to Conservative:
            ************
            bob wire says:
            February 4, 2011 at 11:42 am

            Who died and made you god? ~
            *************
            Go look in the mirror and repeat your own words.

  • Pete

    If the wife of Clarence Thomas is an issue of conflict of interest, then what about BO’s association with Acorn the Unions and the Federal Funding they receive from this Administration. That’s not a conflict of interest, it is possibly conspiracy.

    It’s apparent that in order to be a liberal you have to ignore facts and interject speculation and conjecture, to make a point.

    • 45caliber

      Pete:

      Facts are only things that cause problems. You should always ignore facts since the proper people in charge (them) will changes these facts to what they prefer. How can you expect progressives to want to listen to facts. They get in the way of what they want.

      • JUKEBOX

        What are you going to do, believe the facts, or your lying ears and eyes.

    • Jana

      Pete, Yes, another major point of Obama NOT being “beyond reproach”.

      • JUKEBOX

        Don’t forget the “MOST TRANSPARENT” administration in the history of America. How’s that working? Show me the records!

  • newspooner

    It should be evident to all that the communists will villify even the moderate Justices like Clarence Thomas and claim that pro-communists like Breyer, etc. are the real moderates moderates. In spite of the fact that four of the Justices can be counted on to support the Constitution on most issues, and a fifth one will hopefully side with them consistently, the truth is that all of the so-called “conservative” Justices were only allowed to be on the Court because they would continue to protect the unconstitutional agencies. Otherwise, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, OSHA, EPA, HSA, etc. would already be abolished.

    • 45caliber

      I agree.

  • Norm

    Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and are not subject to the whims of electoral politics. This is so they can make their decisions on the law and what is right, not on what would get them re-elected (as many politicians do). But that does not mean there are rules they must abide by just like all other public officials or government servants.

    One of those rules regards financial disclosure. This is so the public can be sure they are not being paid off to make certain decisions. And these disclosure rules extend to spouses of government officials. That prevents someone from funneling payoffs through the spouse to avoid financial disclosure.

    But it looks like Justice Clarence Thomas thinks that the financial disclosure rules are for other people, and he has decided that he’ll only report what he wants to report. And one thing he has decided not to report is his wife’s income — a clear violation of financial disclosure laws.

    The government watchdog group Common Cause is reporting that Thomas’ wife earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. However, Thomas’ financial disclosure statements for those years shows that he checked the box saying “none” on the part of the form where a spouse’s income was to be reported. Common Cause also believes Mrs. Thomas received an undisclosed salary from Liberty Central in 2009, and Thomas again declared no income for her on his financial statement.

    Thomas has argued in the past that he believes the requirement to disclose large political contributions are unconstitutional. It looks like he has decided that his personal beliefs are more important than federal law, and he’s going to hide some of his family finances regardless of what the law says. This is unconscionable behavior on his part and should be severely punished.

    It also makes me wonder if he’s hiding more than just his wife’s legal income. He is known to consort with fringe right-wingers like the Koch brothers (who fund many right-wing groups, including the teabaggers, and put millions into supporting right-wing candidates in the last election). The Koch brothers and others were able to spend those millions in the last election because of the Citizens United vs FEC court case decided by the Supreme Court (which removed campaign spending limits for corporations and other organizations).

    Thomas was one of the justices voting for the campaign limit removal. The question must be asked — was Thomas paid to make that decision? How can we know since he refuses to fully disclose his finances?

    • JUKEBOX

      I remember when Al Gore Sr. had all those cattle sales, where some supporter paid $500k for a $150 scrub cow. His buddy Armand Hammer helped him launder millions. Corruption lives forever in politics. We just had a state senator indicted for an alleged $2mil bribe and the sale of 100 vehicles by his Ford Dealership.

    • Casey

      If it is really a problem, have Congress impeach him. Like the Constitution says.

      Personally, I don’t see the conflict. If Justice Thomas participated in said think tank, then I see a conflict.

      As for the disclosure, he disclosed his income but not hers. Shows respect.

    • Doug

      That’s intereting how about the treasure of US not paying his taxes. That okay right? Really if she if filling separtate tax claims its none of their business.

    • bob wire

      “Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and are not subject to the whims of electoral politics. This is so they can make their decisions on the law and what is right, not on what would get them re-elected (as many politicians do).>>>> But that does not mean there are rules they must abide by just like all other public officials or government servants.<<<"

      Well we will just have to disagree. Interesting topic and worthy the research Norm. I say, yes there is and you say no there isn't.

  • bob wire

    about time!

    It’s called “being found beyond reproach”.

    A requirement for all public officials and they are paid well for it and any inconvenience that might arise in their daily lives.

    If they don’t want such a job, don’t take the money.

    It’s really very simple.

    • Jana

      bob,
      Beyond reproach???
      Barack Obama is not beyond reproach. He hangs with the Anti America crowd. He surrounds himself with advisers that are definitely NOT beyond reproach, ie: communists, socialists, Marxists etc.
      The same standards need to be for all, not just one segment of society.

      • Norm

        Jana

        He hangs with the Anti America crowd? Who and what might that be? He doesn’t pal around with Rush, Sean, Glen or Sarah.

        He surrounds himself with advisers that are definitely NOT beyond reproach, ie: communists, socialists, Marxists etc.? Who might they be? Can you name any?

        The same standards need to be for all, not just one segment of society? Who in this country is treated differently from who in your mind?

        You are full of mindless platitudes but short on reality.

        • JUKEBOX

          Have you ever heard of Van Jones, his childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayres, Bernadine Doern, and not the least, His cabinet secretary who admitted that the writings of Chairman Mao were her inspiration. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

          • Jana

            Norm,

            **************
            You said”He hangs with the Anti America crowd? Who and what might that be? He doesn’t pal around with Rush, Sean, Glen or Sarah.”
            **************

            You are truly a typical lefty. You actually think these are compliments about Obama to say he is associated with scum such as Communists and Socialists and Marxists, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Wow you ought to be so proud.

        • bob wire

          LOL ! Too funny, ~ Norm I think you just got bite.

          That will learn you. ouch!

          Where did this anti-American come from?

      • bob wire

        The thread is a focus on a Judgeship of the Supreme court and conflict of interest concerns.

        While I too enjoy indulging and taking liberties.

        Let us attempt to be respectful of the forum.

        • Dan az

          BW
          Is that the way you show facts?Good move nothing to hard about that just let other people do the work for you.What a turd!

          • bob wire

            Sorry Dan, I didn’t know that you were waiting. I posted my finding above on Katey’s posting.

            Forgive me, I don’t intend to keep you waiting. ~ I found some informative material about federal judgeship’s and worth the read.

            I was fixing supper, chicken fried steak,green beans and mash potatoes, you should have dropped in.

  • 45caliber

    “Legal ethicists” might have this problem but I suspect their biggest problem is that Thomas don’t make decisions the way they want him to do it. He prefers to follow what the Constitution says about some matter rather than what “feels good at the moment”.

    • JUKEBOX

      I thought Progressives were forbidden to criticize any action of a black man. Oh, I forgot, it’s OK if he is an UNCLE TOM.

      • bob wire

        Don’t be absurd, we have a warehouse full of them await sentencing.

      • kate8

        JUKEBOX – Progressives criticize blacks all the time, if there conservative. Mercilessly. Look what they did to Condi Rice. Now, that was viscious racism.

        It’s only conservatives who are forbidden to criticize LIBERAL blacks.

        Ya gotta learn the ropes. Conservatives have to tow a narrow line. Progressives do whatever they want.

        • bob wire

          What they do to Coni? ~ she was the brightest person in the inner circle!

      • Dan az

        The effects of liberal racism can be seen in the way black students taunt those among them who strive for achievement as sellouts who are “acting white.” Liberal racism can be seen in the unholy alliance between the Democrat Party, the National Education Association and other teachers’ unions, and black spokesmen such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, to maintain their power by opposing school choice for black children trapped in violent and failing public schools. Liberal racism can be seen in the way black voters are kept on the proverbial “liberal plantation” through scare tactics and attacks on “race traitors” such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who have defied the party line. Liberal racism can be seen, paradoxically, most clearly in the way anyone straying from its premises is immediately branded as a “racist.” This is a powerful sanction that liberal racists use like a bludgeon to control the public discussion about race.

        • Dan az

          Ring a bell bob?

          • bob wire

            That even sounded smart Dan! I’m impressed! But I wasn’t aware that there was a liberal and conservative racism? Or are you suggesting there be but one, “liberal racism”? I certainly hope not.

            that aside, there’s much we could agree on.

  • lee conard

    well them libs NEVER questioned Majority Leader Tom Dashill’s ability when his wife was(and still is) a lobbist.

    libs prove they are hippo crits, fools, misleading, deliberly misrepresent the truth and just plain lie.

    • Jana

      lee conard,
      Exactly. When we see the liberals following their own rules, then they can point fingers, but until they decide the same rules apply to all, then forget it.
      Its the same thing that Congress does not have to follow the laws that they implement for the civilians.
      The libs think they can pick and choose what they want to do and also pick and choose what the Conservatives should do. WRONG.

      • bob wire

        “The libs think they can pick and choose what they want to do and also pick and choose what the Conservatives should do. WRONG.”

        Seems fair enough to me! LOL

        So you’d prefer it the other way around I would suspect? Okay ! Take it, it’s yours.

    • JUKEBOX

      The Progressive term for LIE is SPIN.

      • Dan az

        Jukebox he is the master of spin all it does for me is make me want to puke!

  • Vick

    I don’t hear any complaints about Justice Ruth Bader’s membership in the radical left ACLU. Doesn’t that directly influence her decisions?

    • Jana

      Vick, very good point!
      The left is so used to us letting them push us around, but no more! We have found our voice, and we have found we are not the minority.

      • bob wire

        I guess that depends on exactly “We” is ~

        People have always had a voice, but they haven’t always been organized with the ability to speak in one loud voice.

        But that’s their fault unless of course there is laws enacted and organized efforts to offer opposition as we find pitted against labor organization today where they be subtle or direct.

        Who is “WE”?

        • Jana

          bob,
          Why don’t you try guessing?

        • Dan az

          Bobby Ill give you a hint its not you!

          • bob wire

            Well, that’s two and qualifies as a “we”

    • s c

      Vick, in a progressive’s world, someone like Ruthie or Obummer’s latest Supreme Court stooge can do NO wrong. It’s people on the ‘other’ side of the fence who can’t do anything right. It says much about what’s between a progressive’s ears [and what's NOT there].

    • bob wire

      In point, I agree with you. However the ACLU is not as you wish to describe it. The ACLU is a biting watch dog for personal liberty and most willing to bite “anyone” and often does! The ACLU has but two friends, rule of law for all and liberty. Most likely the reason for our judgeship’s involvement.

  • bob wire

    “Legal ethics” might have this problem but ”

    I have a problem with such statement 45 ~

    There is no room for Mights and Buts in regards to the courts and judgeship. It’s a zero tolerance zone that “all” people of such position must live with.

    This not new , but very old and comes with the job and title.

    Clarence Thomas is being called out on a conflict of interest that links his bed chamber, his judgeship and partisan politics. There is just certain things that is not acceptable.

    Ms Thomas to remain Ms. Thomas is to be on a short leash and has limits. If she doesn’t accept this short leash, it for her to distance herself from a Supreme Court Judge, a lifetime appointed member of the highest court in the land.

    They are reimbursed well for this inconvenience and if they don’t want the job, there is enough people to see it offered to someone else more appreciative of the title and position.

    This has gone on far to long and will be addressed.

    It’s for Clarence to decide who’s wearing the pants in the family. I don’t really care, but it’s one or the other and will not be both.

    This man is noted for having women problems, a man of his age should have grown passed this by now. To suggest something stinks is an understatement.

    I have been indifferent to Clarance Thomas up to the present but his history is creating a bias that I can no longer ignore.

    If we allow the camel to stick his head in our tent, it’s only a matter of time and all of the camel will be in our tent.

    • JUKEBOX

      The liberal camels have lived in the tent since Roosevelt was President.

      • bob wire

        Well see! just as I say! That’s the way it works. ~and on a very different vein but the reason there is so much opposition to gay’s and gay rights. One is left to ask, where will go?

    • Dan az

      When the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Justice Department instituted a program requiring males visiting the U.S. from Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the ACLU organized protests against what it called this “discriminatory” policy. It similarly protested an FBI anti-terrorism initiative to count and document all of America’s mosques, wherein extremist calls for violent jihad were not uncommon.

      On the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, when FBI and Homeland Security agents were tracking down illegal Iraqi immigrants considered to be dangerous, the ACLU set up a telephone hotline and conducted “Know Your Rights” training sessions giving illegals free advice on how to avoid deportation.

      • Dan az

        Yea bob they are what we need don’t you agree?

        • bob wire

          Well Dan, sadly the law cuts both ways and why laws require the utmost consideration. They are not always for us to like or agree with. I hate most of them.

          There is other ways of offering the same effect you and I seek. Like don’t allow the SOB’s over here to begin with! Raise the bar for all of them, no skin off mine or your nose.

          The ACLU has the dirty job of defending laws ~ if the results are undesirable it because the laws fails to correctly address the issue or you are found on the wrong side of the issue.

          That’s why all the protest with some parts of the laws Arizona recently proposed, some interfered with existing laws and constitution rights.

          You got part of what you asked for ~ As you should, I hope it helped with the task at hand.

          And what the latest with your fence?

  • http://com i41

    Don’t forget George Soros meeting with Onumnutts a know anti American and a Nazi Traitor sialists. Also wasn’t Soramoron who said her life and beleifs as a mexican would influence descions. As for the Muslim goatabusing Brotherhodd, Onunutts own words he said if a dust up ever occured between the muslim pervs and the Americans, he would go with the muslims, just like he said he was raised a muslim. Worrying about Mrs Thomas, think we should worry about all the relinquished law licenced pukes in the democrap party organization, like when Linda Daschle was head of a lobbying firm and her wimp slub husband in the Senate. Just to mention a couple.Now pay No Taxes sit on a board on Wall Street and has several questionable organzations and get a mllion dollars a year as a lobbyist.

  • bob wire

    don’t forget Liz Chaney and her husband in HLS!

    It’s almost like movie stars ~ they like to keep those Federal dollar in the family.

  • CJ

    Let’s see Harry Reed has his sons as lobbyist, Nancy Pelosi funnels all type of business to her husband’s business. Give me a break, do we still have any freedom left in this country or is it just if you agree with the Democrat agenda.

    • Jana

      CJ,
      It just if they agree with the Liberal Leftist Democrat agenda!

  • Dan az

    CHICAGO – An Illinois appeals court threw former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel off the ballot for Chicago mayor Tuesday because he didn’t live in the city in the year before the election.

    The decision cast doubt over Emanuel’s candidacy just a month before the election. He had been considered the front-runner and had raised more money than any other candidate.
    Some times there is some good news!

    • JeffH

      Good news for Chicago.

  • JeffH

    Ginni Thoms is nothing less than a patriot, a champion of liberty, and a leader with insistence on a limited government.

    Ginni Thomas Talks About Liberty Central
    http://www.libertycentral.org/ginni-thomas-talks-about-liberty-central-2010-05

    • Jana

      JeffH,
      She sure is.

      • eddie47d

        …and she sure does influence her husband. So lay off the liberals who you have accused of doing the same.

        • JeffH

          eddie, I’m sure you have irrefutable evidence that she is influencing her husband. Might you post a link or provide something other than your “word” to back up your “word”?

      • JeffH

        Ginni Thomas herself said, pointing out that “the Supreme Court’s ethics office had approved her new endeavor”, “I did not give up my First Amendment rights when my husband became a justice of the Supreme Court.”

        No one much noticed when Liberty Central opened shop in February. Now Thomas and her allies get lots of publicity as the champions of wife-activists who can righteously breathe fire at the left for hypocrisy.
        Forging ahead, doubters be damned, is a stance perfectly tailored to the Washington role that Thomas has long played. She is part of a cadre of strong-minded, smart, skilled Republican women who run their own shows while rejecting the politics of all those other smart, strong-minded women who identify themselves as feminists.

        Let’s run through the judicial-ethics question. Justice Thomas wouldn’t be permitted to found Liberty Central himself, but his wife is not him. In future cases, the justice will be expected to recuse himself from a case in which Liberty Central is a party or takes a position before the court. Since the conflict-of-interest rules for judges are largely about avoiding the appearance of financial self-dealing, Justice Thomas should also recuse himself from cases in which one of the parties is a company or trade group that has made a sizeable contribution to Liberty Central.

  • Dan az
Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.