# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/121 "2011-11-20T18:04:09Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Plus, it sets up a far too easy pay to play system. Does paying Thomas’ lobbying firm 500k get me a favorable ruling? Probably not, but that possibility is going to cross most people’s mind. Great for her and her firm. Still doesn’t mean that Thomas decides as his wife tells him to. There is simply no evidence of that. Give me some “iffy” Thomas decisions - that is, ones that you think Thomas the justice should have decided a different way than Thomas the Ginny’s husband would. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/122 "2011-11-20T18:30:02Z")
Does the concept of the appearance of impropriety, and its effects, mean anything to you? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/123 "2011-11-20T18:51:37Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Great for her and her firm. Still doesn’t mean that Thomas decides as his wife tells him to. There is simply no evidence of that. Give me some “iffy” Thomas decisions - that is, ones that you think Thomas the justice should have decided a different way than Thomas the Ginny’s husband would. Since I’m not a mind reader, nor do I have access to a what if machine, obviously I can’t provide those examples. But again, you are missing the point here. The bedrock of our judicial system and legal system is ultimately the faith that the system is on the up and up. The loss of that faith would be very damaging to the country, even if no reason for that loss truly existed. That’s why we want judges to not merely avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of it. If I am a party to a case, and I see a direct payment of money to the wife of the judge to advocate against my side of the argument, well, that is troubling. There might be a firewall there, or it might be a scheme for the Judge to sell rulings. It makes me question the impartiality of the system, and that is an accusation that shakes the foundation of our legal system. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/124 "2011-11-20T20:10:56Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > I posted about this in a thread 6 or 12 months ago. Supreme Court Justices get a salary of about $214k plus substantial benefits. Here’s a [wiki link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States). > > Ginny Thomas is getting, what, $150k salary as a lobbiest. She got something similar as the “head” of a non-profit, and IIRC didn’t have to disclose who the financial backers of the non-profit were. > > It stinks to high heaven to have a spouse that makes a monetarily significant salary vis-a-vis Clarence Thomas. This stinks to high heaven in the appearance if not fact of impropriety stakes. (and yes, we should pay the supremes more money with the requirement their spouses don’t work and they can pay for their own vacations). How much money did Ramona Ripston make as the Exec Director of the ACLU, and how did her husband make as a circuit court judge? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/125 "2011-11-20T20:12:28Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Thomas’ wife is getting paid specifically for her contacts with people in power, which may or may not include her husband. no, not true. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/126 "2011-11-20T20:19:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > no, not true. > > Cite? Yes, yes true. It’s already been cited in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/127 "2011-11-20T20:36:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Since I’m not a mind reader, nor do I have access to a what if machine, obviously I can’t provide those examples. But again, you are missing the point here. The bedrock of our judicial system and legal system is ultimately the faith that the system is on the up and up. The loss of that faith would be very damaging to the country, even if no reason for that loss truly existed. That’s why we want judges to not merely avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of it. Thomas is about as conservative a SC justice as there is. Any suggestion that he can be MORE conservative because his wife tells him to be is laughable. There is no impropriety and there is no appearance of it. Anyone who thinks that Thomas is ruling as he does because someone pays his wife a bribe is an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/128 "2011-11-20T20:45:28Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Since I’m not a mind reader, nor do I have access to a what if machine, obviously I can’t provide those examples. But again, you are missing the point here. The bedrock of our judicial system and legal system is ultimately the faith that the system is on the up and up. The loss of that faith would be very damaging to the country, even if no reason for that loss truly existed. That’s why we want judges to not merely avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of it. You contradict yourself. First you say you cannot give an example where YOU think Thomas ruled as he did because of his wife. Then you say you’re losing faith that he rules by himself and not as his wife asks him to. It’s either one or the other. If you cannot give even one decision in which you don’t have the faith that Thomas ruling was independent of his wife’s opinion, then you have faith that he’s on the “up and up”. And if you don’t think he’s on the “up and up” you should be able to give an example where you think he wasn’t. And no, you don’t need to be a mind reader or have a “what if” machine for that. I am not asking for solid proof. Just your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/129 "2011-11-20T21:19:48Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Whats wrong with the ACLU? Er… you just insisted that Thomas and Scalia should be forced to resign because they’ve been “attending right wing political functions, with no regard of how it makes the court look.” If you’re going to insist that Justices shouldn’t be attending right-wing political functions or be members of right-wing political groups then you’d feel the same regarding Justices who attend left-wing political functions and are members of left-wing political groups. To do otherwise would make you look quite hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/130 "2011-11-20T21:35:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Sure… Because spouses are not their own people and cannot have their own professional interests and lives, but have to be tied to their Supreme Court spouse at the hip and live off their salary. How 19th century of you. How dare the little woman have any aspirations to anything outside of home. My what a sexist little rant this is. Did no one tell the author that some SCOTUS justices are women? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/131 "2011-11-20T21:39:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Great for her and her firm. Still doesn’t mean that Thomas decides as his wife tells him to. There is simply no evidence of that. Give me some “iffy” Thomas decisions - that is, ones that you think Thomas the justice should have decided a different way than Thomas the Ginny’s husband would. Let me ask you this: do you think Thomas will vote for or against the health care law? IF you think he will vote against it, do you think his vote will have been influenced one way or the other by his wife’s lobbying? If you think his vote will not have been influenced by his wife’s lobbying, do you think that it would be okay for any SCOTUS justice or their spouse to take money from people that they are already politically aligned with? I mean, it’s not as if it’s going to influence their decision making, right? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/132 "2011-11-20T21:42:45Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Er… you just insisted that Thomas and Scalia should be forced to resign because they’ve been “attending right wing political functions, with no regard of how it makes the court look.” > > If you’re going to insist that Justices shouldn’t be attending right-wing political functions or be members of right-wing political groups then you’d feel the same regarding Justices who attend left-wing political functions and are members of left-wing political groups. > > To do otherwise would make you look quite hypocritical. Cite that the ACLU is left wing? I don’t see anything leftist about their mission statement: [ > [@ACLU](#): > > The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. > > These rights include: > > Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. > Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination. > Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. > Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs. > > The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities. > > If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled. ]([About the ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union](http://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0)) Are you now arguing that the preservation and defense of our constitutional rights is somehow “left wing”? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/133 "2011-11-20T22:20:39Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > My what a sexist little rant this is. Did no one tell the author that some SCOTUS justices are women? No current female SC justice is married. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/134 "2011-11-20T22:22:10Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Let me ask you this: do you think Thomas will vote for or against the health care law? > > IF you think he will vote against it, do you think his vote will have been influenced one way or the other by his wife’s lobbying? 1. Against. 2. No. > [@](#): > > If you think his vote will not have been influenced by his wife’s lobbying, do you think that it would be okay for any SCOTUS justice or their spouse to take money from people that they are already politically aligned with? I mean, it’s not as if it’s going to influence their decision making, right? Justice himself - no. SC is his job, nothing else. Spouse - of course, her job is not related to his. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/135 "2011-11-20T23:04:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 1. Against. > 2. No. > Justice himself - no. SC is his job, nothing else. Spouse - of course, her job is not related to his. So if, after this ruling, someone buys Virginia Thomas a G4, a new million dollar home, and deposits US$100 million into her bank account, as far as your concerned, nothing improper happened? Do I understand your position correctly? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/136 "2011-11-20T23:13:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You contradict yourself. First you say you cannot give an example where YOU think Thomas ruled as he did because of his wife. Then you say you’re losing faith that he rules by himself and not as his wife asks him to. > > It’s either one or the other. If you cannot give even one decision in which you don’t have the faith that Thomas ruling was independent of his wife’s opinion, then you have faith that he’s on the “up and up”. And if you don’t think he’s on the “up and up” you should be able to give an example where you think he wasn’t. And no, you don’t need to be a mind reader or have a “what if” machine for that. I am not asking for solid proof. Just your opinion. I’m not nearly up to speed enough on current SCOTUS cases, Thomas’ wife’s clients, and Thomas’ voting record to point out a specific case. But again, you are missing the point. If I have legitimate cause to search for impropriety, then the faith is already shaken. A judge should never give any reasonable person cause to question their impartiality. ---
**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 20, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/137 "2011-11-20T23:15:12Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’m not nearly up to speed enough on current SCOTUS cases, Thomas’ wife’s clients, and Thomas’ voting record to point out a specific case. But again, you are missing the point. If I have legitimate cause to search for impropriety, then the faith is already shaken. A judge should never give any reasonable person cause to question their impartiality. Or else, what? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/138 "2011-11-20T23:15:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Or else, what? I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/139 "2011-11-20T23:25:23Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So if, after this ruling, someone buys Virginia Thomas a G4, a new million dollar home, and deposits US$100 million into her bank account, as far as your concerned, nothing improper happened? Do I understand your position correctly? Is this in the context of her job? And if not, then how is this relevant? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2011, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077/140 "2011-11-20T23:27:22Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’m not nearly up to speed enough on current SCOTUS cases, Thomas’ wife’s clients, and Thomas’ voting record to point out a specific case. But again, you are missing the point. If I have legitimate cause to search for impropriety, then the faith is already shaken. A lot of liberals thought they had a “legitimate cause to search for impropriety” from the second Thomas became a SC justice. So what. > [@](#): > > A judge should never give any reasonable person cause to question their impartiality. “Reasonable” is the point where I differ with you. I think it is completely unreasonable to think that Thomas will rule even more conservatively due to his wife’s pressure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/both-thomas-and-kagan-face-pressure-to-recuse/603077.md?page=8)