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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
A lot of liberals thought they had a “legitimate cause to search for impropriety” from the second Thomas became a SC justice. So what.
“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.