The controversies surrounding Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas just never seem to end. We witnessed this during his confirmation hearings and now, his wife seems to want a piece of the notoriety too.
The New York Times is reporting that Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is now a lobbyist and self-appointed “ambassador to the Tea Party movement.” The Times reports;
Virginia Thomas, the justice’s wife, said on libertyinc.co, a Web site for her new political consulting business, that she saw herself as an advocate for “liberty-loving citizens” who favored limited government, free enterprise and other core conservative issues. She promised to use her “experience and connections” to help clients raise money and increase their political impact.
Ms. Thomas’s effort to take a more operational role on conservative issues could intensify questions about her husband’s ability to remain independent on issues like campaign finance and health care, legal ethicists said.
Wait a minute! There’s something wrong with this picture!
The Supreme Court, often called the court of last resort, is the final say on how laws are interpreted in this country. According to Article III, §1, of the Constitution, “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.” The court has jurisdiction over all cases, including Laws and Equity, to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States.
Every judge takes a lifetime oath to uphold and form decisions on cases based on the law. How can any judge be objectionable when he/she comes home and is greeted by a lobbyist spouse?
The Teaparty is in a push to get the Supreme Court to declare President Obama’s Health Care Law as unconstitutional.
A Virginia Thomas is lobbying for the Teaparty.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is married to aforementioned Virginia Thomas…
Yeah!–something’s fishy up in here alright!
Read the rest of the article here.
"How can any judge be objectionable" Do you mean "objective"?