Despite the similarity of their names (and the Virginia Thomas connection), Liberty Central and Liberty Consulting are two separate companies. Liberty Central is a non-profit advocacy group which Thomas was President of until December 2010. Liberty Consulting is a for-profit lobbying firm that Thomas founded in February 2011.
What I haven’t been able to find is what specific connection there is between either business and the health care industry. Can somebody provide a cite as to what health care companies gave money to either organization?
Liberty Central has other issues involved. First, Liberty Central was a non-profit advocacy group. So arguably, it’s free to accept donations from anyone without being obligated to advance the interests of that donor. Liberty Central could in theory accept donations from a health care company and then argue in favor of legislation that would harm the health care company. Realistically, I think most people would recognize that possibility as remote and would concede that the commonality of the interests shared by an advocacy group and its donors affect the flow of money between them.
But the second and more important issue is that, as I said, Virginia Thomas no longer works of Liberty Central. So any decision made by Clarence Thomas on matters related to Liberty Central would have no effect on his wife at this point. I feel that’s a legitimate argument that Clarence Thomas doesn’t have to recuse himself based on Virginia Thomas’ involvement with Liberty Central.
The manufactured “calls” for Kagan’s recusal are just another example of standard Rove/Fox tactics - if your side, or guy, has a weakness, first accuse the other guys of something superficially similar enough to convince your true-blues. That inoculates you against the charge, because even mentioning it at that point simply sounds like rubber-glue.
Re Thomas and Scalia, is there really any doubt they hold their party above their oaths? Or at least that, even if they do vote consistently with precedent, that they’ll be retching over it?
The court has differentiated between wholly intrastate and interstate markets in the past. They could do so here. The court has also allowed congress to define the scope of its own powers at times, such as when it finds that state laws are preempted because congress had filled the scope of regulation in a particular area.
Unfortunately I cannot. I can provide you with cites that report that Ms Thomas’ “experience and connections” were mentioned on the official company website. But the actual website - libertyinc.co - appears to be offline.
I’d like to know something more beyond those three words. Did the next sentence talk about her experience lobbying, or did it hint at her husband’s job?
Every lobbyist presumably sells his or her experience and connections. I daresay that experience and connections were in part what led to the ACLU to offer the director’s job to Ramona. I’d like to see just how those connections were mentioned before I conclude that there was anything remotely improper. I can hardly expect Ms. Thomas, or any lobbyist, to say, “Hire me, even though I have no experience and no connections.”
Supporting evidence here. The focus there is on Tea Party activism - and what do you think got them riled up? Some specific example of socialism being rammed down their throats?
And hmm, what “connections” could she have been referring to? Wonderwonderwonder …
So, are you saying that Thomas would rule a certain way if he wasn’t married to his current wife, and that he rules a different way because of her influence over him?
I thought the meme was that he just ruled with whatever Scalia says. Maybe I didn’t get the memo with the update.
In Lopez and Morrison, the activities in question were not directly tied to commerce (gun possession and domestic violence respectively). In Raich, Wickard, and this case, the underlying products (wheat, marijuana, and health care) are economic products tied directly to commerce. The “inference upon inference” that Rehnquist talked about in Lopez is not present here.
On the other hand, the Court ruled in the Lottery cases that Congress can regulate interstate commerce by completely outlawing interstate commerce in a product (lottery tickets in that case, health care in this case)
Judges are not supposed to avoid only impropriety, they are supposed to avoid the appearance of it. Your wife taking money specifically to influence people in power is over the line. Maybe Thomas and his wife has successfully firewalled their relationship, but we have no real way of knowing. I sure know that if I were in front of the SCOTUS, I’d be pretty concerned to find out that the other side paid money to Thomas’ wife for lobbying.
That is the point. The illusion of impropriety is as damaging to the court as factual impropriety.If it looks bad and will cause the decisions to be questioned, you should recuse yourself.
I am sure every judge believes that can rule properly in spite of their connections. That is not the point, whether it is true or not. They have a responsibility to preserve the image of the court. Scalia and Thomas don’t seem to care about that at all.
The distinction is that Congress hasn’t outlawed interstate commerce in health insurance; it just hasn’t legislated to allow it. In the absence of federal legislation, the states have taken it on themselves to bar foreign insurers from offering health insurance products across their borders.
It’s possible, but not exactly consistent with the role of the Attorney General. I think a better argument is that it’s possible for her to have supported its passage without making up her mind about its constitutionality, but that would depend on whether she was in office when it was drafted (I think she was).
I just don’t really see why having advocated something disqualifies one from objectively evaluating it afterwards. Kids on the debate team would never be allowed to judge anything ever again.