The Tea Party and the Supreme, is it ethical?

Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas is on the record saying he does not attend the State of the Union because it is a partisan event...never mind that both Republicans and Democrats attend this annual event. The only difference this year is that we have a Democrat as president.

It is interesting that Justice Thomas takes such an extreme postion on demonstrating political neutrality except when it comes to his wife, an active leader in the Tea Party movement. Is it ethical for the wife of a supreme to be so active in a partisan movement like the Tea Party? Is there any hypocrisy in Justice Thomas's positon on neutrality? To me, it would appear Justice Thomas is being very hypocritial in his postion on neutrality. If fact, I would go so far as to state that Justice Thomas is by his actions demonstrating extreme partisanship.

It is funny Justice Thomas had no such qualms about attending the State of the Union address when george II was president.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/nation/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is this true?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The rest of the story, as it were:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You wonder/ask about ethics, hypocrisy and partisanship...what about irony? i.e. the title of your thread. How about removing the beam from your own eye so the answers you seek can be clearly seen.

 

Funny, I just read an article about her today. Actually, she started her own political group - Liberty Central Inc.


Judge Marjorie O. Rendell of the U.S. Court of Appeals is married to Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, Ed Rendell.

Do you give them a pass?

 

Thomas is a moron

There are far greater concerns about the state of the Supreme Court today. To the one, we can finally put to bed that stupid myth about liberal judicial activism. To the other, Chief Justice Roberts is such a shill that the potential damage of his reign is beyond estimation.

What the wife of the Court's village idiot does is, really, inconsequential. Justice Thomas is only dangerous when empowered by an ambitious, manipulative, activist majority such as CJ Roberts leads.

 

LOL, a little threatened by a dose of reality are you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I asked a question, I did not render judgement. And I think the Court of Appeals is not quite the same as the Supreme Court of the land. And the Tea Bag movement is a bit extreme on the political spectrum. These are the people marching around with signs bearing Swastikas.

 

So did I...

 

You were the one given the dose of reality.

 

I guess I'll restate the question in the OP in an obvious way:

Is it ethical for a man to allow his wife to think for herself?

 

Ok, sure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If it makes it easier for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is it ok for an elected official to have a spouse or family member who actively works as a lobbyist to influence the same public body to which he/she was elected?

 

Aside from the fact that you don't seem to know that Supreme Court justices are appointed, and not elected...

I'm sure Michelle Obama does her share of fund-raising for the DNC.

 

And what pray tell causes you to come to the conclusion that I don't know that Supreme Court justices are appointed? Do you have any proof of same? No of course you don't because I never made such as assertion.

With all of the reading facts not in evidence in you do in politics, I find it hard to believe that you are a scientist.

Do you have any proof Michelle Obama does any fund raising for the DNC. I think we know the president sends cards, etc. as do all presidents. The president is a political leader and head of the DNC. So some level of politicing is expected and customary. Tradition has it that the spouses of the supremes do not play an active out front roll in politics.

The supremes are supposed to be above politics. So it is not fair to compare a political position to a position who is supposed to be the final unbiased arbiteur of the law.

 

FYI: Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt's wife, Ramona Ripston, has just stepped down from being head of the Southern California ACLU. Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth's husband was a U.S. Senator; Third Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell's husband is a governor."

-- http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-...2010mar14,0,4907274,comment-display-all.story

 

First you said:

Then you said:

Are you changing the question now?

 

Your question was about ethics. Ethics apply equally to Judges in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

What about Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt whose wife heads up ACLU?

I think what you are really saying is that you don't trust Thomas to recuse himself from cases with conflicts of interest, but you do trust those with whom you agree.

I've actually looked into some of the charges you and others make about the Tea Party. If it were half as bad as you and others would have us believe, it would have ceased to exist long ago.

 

And I'm still waiting for some clarification of this statement:

 

I was responding to your post, when I asked about the wife and family of an elected official...not the original post. You took a giant leap when you claimed that I did not know the how supremes come to office that was without foundation in fact.