# Both Thomas and Kagan face pressure to recuse **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077 "2011-11-16T00:32:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/21 "2011-11-16T16:07:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, but I don’t think statistics alone are going to tell you much, since each justice has his/her own unique history that informs the decisions to recuse. Maybe if you looked at all justices who had served in administrations vs all those who hadn’t. Why do you feel the need to spell this out? – isn’t this merely an obvious implication of what I’m asking about? If we had the numbers, we could see which justices served in administrations and which hadn’t. I feel some kind of pushback from on you on this and I’m not sure why. My question is are there numbers or aren’t there? If there are, all these factors can be looked at. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/22 "2011-11-16T16:13:21Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Why do you feel the need to spell this out? – isn’t this merely an obvious implication of what I’m asking about? If we had the numbers, we could see which justices served in administrations and which hadn’t. I feel some kind of pushback from on you on this and I’m not sure why. My question is are there numbers or aren’t there? If there are, all these factors can be looked at. Not sure why you’re taking so much offense, but you did say (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > I wonder if anyone has compiled statistics comparing Kagan’s recusals to other members of the court? Hence my suggestion to include people who are not Kagan, but who have a similar history. This is a common method used to average out other variables. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/23 "2011-11-16T16:19:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not sure why you’re taking so much offense, but you did say (emphasis added): I’m not taking offense, but I feel like you’re arguing with me and I’m at a loss because I don’t think I’ve forwarded a disputable proposition of any kind. > [@](#): > > Hence my suggestion to include people who are not Kagan, but who have a similar history. My bewilderment is the implication that what you’re suggesting is at all different from what I asked. Unless “comparing Kagan’s recusals to other members of the court” would somehow only yield statistics about Kagan and not about the other members that she’s being compared to, I don’t see how it would be possible _not_ to include such people. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/24 "2011-11-16T16:24:18Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I’m not taking offense, but I feel like you’re arguing with me and I’m at a loss because I don’t think I’ve forwarded a disputable proposition of any kind. > > My bewilderment is the implication that what you’re suggesting is at all different from what I asked. Unless “comparing Kagan’s recusals to other members of the court” would somehow only yield statistics about Kagan and not about the other members that she’s being compared to, I don’t see how it would be possible _not_ to include such people. Well, then we’re saying the same thing. I just said it more explicitly. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/25 "2011-11-16T16:25:12Z")
Okay, cool. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/26 "2011-11-16T16:42:45Z")
> [@CaveMike](#): > > I think you have an obligation to first make the case that the situation was sufficiently similar in both Thomas’ and Reinhardt’s cases before requesting a single rule that applies to both. Thought it was relatively common knowledge, and might even be inferred by the fact that I mention Reinhardt’s wife was the director of the ACLU. But to flesh it out a bit, here’s what the motion to disqualify her said: > [@](#): > > Judge Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston, the long-time Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California (hereinafter, “ACLU/SC”).1 See Ramona Ripston, Executive Director, ACLU/SC, at [http://www.aclu-sc.org/documents/view/224.2](http://www.aclu-sc.org/documents/view/224.2) > > As Executive Director, Ms. Ripston is “responsible for all phases of the organization’s programs, including litigation, lobbying and education.” Id. Under Ms. Ripston’s leadership, “ACLU/SC has taken a lead role” in what it calls “the fight to end marriage discrimination” in California. ACLU/SC 2007-2008 Annual Report 24, at [http://www.aclu-sc.org/downloads/9/204927.pdf](http://www.aclu-sc.org/downloads/9/204927.pdf). > ACLU/SC represented several same-sex couples and organizations in _In re Marriage Cases_, in which the California Supreme Court held that California’s pre-Proposition 8 statutory definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the State Constitution. See _In re Marriage Cases_, 43 Cal. 4th 757, 768-69, 786 (2008). In contrast, Thomas’ wife Ginny has a leadership position in the Tea Party, but the Tea Party has never represented any of the parties challenging the health care laws. If anything, Ramona Ripston’s involvement with the same-sex marriage cause exceeds Ginny Thomas’ involvement with the federal health care cause. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/27 "2011-11-16T16:51:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thought it was relatively common knowledge, and might even be inferred by the fact that I mention Reinhardt’s wife was the director of the ACLU. > > But to flesh it out a bit, here’s what the motion to disqualify her said: > > In contrast, Thomas’ wife Ginny has a leadership position in the Tea Party, but the Tea Party has never represented any of the parties challenging the health care laws. If anything, Ramona Ripston’s involvement with the same-sex marriage cause exceeds Ginny Thomas’ involvement with the federal health care cause. That’s not an accurate description of Virginia Thomas’ business interests. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/28 "2011-11-16T17:10:23Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That’s not an accurate description of Virginia Thomas’ business interests. I’m willing to be educated. Specifically, I’d be interested to hear in what ways Virginia Thomas’ business interest in the outcome of the health care lawsuit is dramatically different from Ramona Ripston’s interest in the outcome of the same-sex marriage cases. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/29 "2011-11-16T17:40:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m willing to be educated. > > Specifically, I’d be interested to hear in what ways Virginia Thomas’ business interest in the outcome of the health care lawsuit is dramatically different from Ramona Ripston’s interest in the outcome of the same-sex marriage cases. I don’t think Ripston ever ran a for profit business using her experience and connections in government as an advertising tool. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/30 "2011-11-16T17:44:02Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Not to hijack, but does anyone else think this will be a rout? After the Raich decision, it’s pretty clear that Congress has wide authority to impose a national program. I predict a 7-2 upholding the law with Thomas and Alito dissenting. I personally disagree, but Scalia seems to have bought into the Wickard/Raich line of thinking. The Court has been chipping away at the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause since Rehnquist took charge. I don’t think any of the conservatives would have a problem overturning Wickard. On the other hand, I don’t think any of the conservatives will have a problem with Congress imposing a tax and calling it something else. I’m inclined to think we end up without a clear majority, where ~4 members vote to uphold under Wickard, ~3 uphold in spite of Wickard (ie., under Tax and Spend), and two vote to overturn. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/31 "2011-11-16T18:34:11Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I don’t think Ripston ever ran a for profit business using her experience and connections in government as an advertising tool. I don’t think Thomas did either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/32 "2011-11-16T18:40:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think Thomas did either. And even if she did, how is that specifically relevant to the healthcare lawsuit? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/33 "2011-11-16T19:31:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think Thomas did either. I see your research hasn’t made it to her wiki page yet. > [@Bricker](#): > > And even if she did, how is that specifically relevant to the healthcare lawsuit? You really don’t see how the possibility of monetary gain brings his impartiality into question? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/34 "2011-11-16T19:51:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Court has been chipping away at the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause since Rehnquist took charge. I don’t think any of the conservatives would have a problem overturning Wickard. Scalia quoted Wickard extensively in his opinion in Raich. Kennedy was in the majority in Raich. I don’t see how you distinguish Raich and the Obama Health Care Case. Both involve a national regulation of the “instrumentalities” of commerce. Although an individual mandate is a novel idea, nothing would suggest in Raich or Wickard that Congress couldn’t mandate such a thing if it found it necessary and proper under its national scheme of health care. Personally, I am against Wickard, Raich, and the federal health care law. I’m trying to see how Scalia and Kennedy could possibly spin their support for Raich to make it consistent with a vote against the health care law. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/35 "2011-11-16T19:57:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t think Thomas did either. That was technically true up until this year. Virginia Thomas started a new business Liberty Consulting, Inc. in February 2011. Liberty Consulting is a for-profit lobbying firm. Ms Thomas has publicly stated that her “experience and connections” are one of the assets the company offers (that’s a quote from the company’s official website). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/36 "2011-11-16T20:08:51Z")
Neither Raich nor Wickard must be applied here. The Justices could just as easily apply Lopez, in which the Court expressly found that congressional enactments not strictly tied to commerce were beyond the Commerce Clause power (even when partially enacted _to reduce the cost of insurance_- in this case, liability insurance for public schools). To _me_, it’s a foregone conclusion that healthcare is by its very nature a form of interstate commerce. On the other hand, health insurance is arguably not directly related to interstate commerce because Congress has declined to allow insurers to compete directly across state lines. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/37 "2011-11-16T20:14:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > On the other hand, health insurance is arguably not directly related to interstate commerce because Congress has declined to allow insurers to compete directly across state lines. Congress can restrict interstate provision of health insurance only if health insurance is interstate commerce. Thus, if the restriction on interstate provision of health insurance is constitutional, then it must be because all regulation of health insurance is interstate commerce. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/38 "2011-11-16T21:11:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In contrast, Thomas’ wife Ginny has a leadership position in the Tea Party, but the Tea Party has never represented any of the parties challenging the health care laws. If anything, Ramona Ripston’s involvement with the same-sex marriage cause exceeds Ginny Thomas’ involvement with the federal health care cause. [Nope](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/supreme-court-health-care_b_1094867.html): > [@](#): > > Serving as President and CEO of Liberty Central, Thomas’ wife, Virginia, received a salary of $150,000, and less than $15,000 from another anti-health care lobbying firm she started according to published reports of these financial disclosures. Now, we await one of the following: 1. A cite for Ripston receiving payments from an organization _specializing in the issue at hand_ (i.e. an apples-to-apples analog to an “anti-health care lobbying firm”), or 2. An admission that it is Thomas’ involvement that exceeds Ripston’s, not vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/39 "2011-11-16T23:05:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That was technically true up until this year. > > Virginia Thomas started a new business Liberty Consulting, Inc. in February 2011. Liberty Consulting is a for-profit lobbying firm. Ms Thomas has publicly stated that her “experience and connections” are one of the assets the company offers (that’s a quote from the company’s official website). Could you give me a link to that website? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/40 "2011-11-16T23:12:29Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > [Nope](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/supreme-court-health-care_b_1094867.html): > > Now, we await one of the following: > > 1. A cite for Ripston receiving payments from an organization _specializing in the issue at hand_ (i.e. an apples-to-apples analog to an “anti-health care lobbying firm”), or > > 2. An admission that it is Thomas’ involvement that exceeds Ripston’s, not vice versa. How about 3: A request for a cite that Liberty Central was an “anti-health-care” lobbying firm? In other words, it’s the first “apples” characterization I’m attacking. [Here is the Liberty Central mission statement.](http://www.libertycentral.org/liberty-central-mission-statement/) Nothing there suggests the primary focus of the firm is to attack the health care law. And since the other “anti-health care” firm is not even identified, I suppose the claim that it’s identified accurately can be treated with the scorn it deserves. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077.md?page=3)