Conservative Supreme Court justice’s wife to start Tea Party Lobby Group

This is unethical.

 

Is it? Should the spouse of a SC Justice be forced to refrain from being politically active if they choose to be? Obviously, if he makes rulings specifically to help her or her group, that is unethical, but nothing has happened yet. You might say that his vote in the Citizens United decision benefits her, but how do you know (and how can you prove) that that was the basis for his decision. I thing he would have voted the same way regardless. It is certainly something to be watched but any accusation of impropriety is purely speculation at this point.

For the record, I don't like it either, but I have a hard time telling a spouse that their not free to do something just because their husband is on the Supreme Court.

 

They can but I agree with Cannonball's post that I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest that Thomas was somehow influenced by his wife's actions to rule the way he did.

 

I agree with you we don't know whether Thomas' decision had anything to do with his wife's actions but at the sametime judges have to be mindful of potential conflicts like this. There is nothing stopping the spouse of a justice from doing something but at the sametime the Justice has to be aware of that conflict and should recuse themselves in cases where such a conflict might take a role.

If it can be proven that Thomas was aware of what his wife was planning at the time of the Citizens United ruling he should've recused himself but that is hard to prove and even if it can be shown that his wife influenced his decision I'm not sure that overturns the decision.

 

The timing of this is just too convenient.

I learned a long time ago that the goal in a government position should not only be to avoid impropriety, but to also avoid the appearance of impropriety. If this story is true, Justice Thomas has done a very poor job of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Judges have recused themselves for lesser reasons than this. If his wife was planning on embarking on this endeavor, Justice Thomas should have recused himself.

 

Yes, he should have recused himself because of the appearance of impropriety, no doubt about that. Also, there is no doubt that the decision would have been 4-4. It is very unlikely that this lobbying group was a new revelation to Thomas or not in the works a couple months ago.

This is not considered illegal or unethical, but rather unprofessional under our Rules of Professional conduct. However, from what I have seen, the Rules of Professional conduct are taken more seriously by law students and recent graduates rather than lawyers who've been practicing for 8+ years.

 

He and his family had financial incentives for the ruling as is. The Justice is supposed to be impartial, but that was clearly not the case.

 

Not surprising. Quick recap of her wingnut-laden career:

Lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce
Lobbied against the Family Leave Act
Labor Dept Atty during Bush I... argued against a law that would mandate equal pay for men and women.
Staffer for Dick Armey.
Consultant for the Heritage Foundation.
White House liaison to the Heritage Foundation
Active in the Federalist Society

The issue is not whether there was a conflict of interest regarding a possible money-making opportunity for Clarence's wife after the decision... the issue is whether we truly have impartial members of the SC who will make decisions based on the best interest of society instead of catering to a small group of people who support the same wingnut ideas.

We knew the answer before this decision.

 

Not to mention (and correct me if I'm wrong): aren't a husband and wife considered a single financial entity from a legal standpoint? In other words, as long as they are married, aren't her investments also his investments? I just don't see how this isn't a violation that warrants some punitive or disciplinary action.

 

Generally yes...right up until the time that the lawyer in question is mailing his/her Bar Card back to Austin.

The Rules apply, and those of us who do not want to worry take them seriously.

 

clarence's wifey better be careful not to use any roundup ready tea at her party or clarence might just have to call her ass out for patent infringement

 

Elections have consequences. I hope those of you who voted for Bush in 2004 have come to realize that. Had he lost that election, which he so deserved to lose, whatever conflict of interest, stupidity, and crapping on the judicial system practiced by Thomas would not have mattered.

 

Had the Democrats run a better candidate in 2004, Bush very well may have lost that election. The bottom line for me is that John Kerry did not inspire feelings of confidence that he was the guy for the job.

 

Quoted for truth. I voted for Kerry, and I'm still not convinced he was capable of being a good President. I just knew he had to be an upgrade from what we had at the time. Kerry was about as lackluster a candidate as the Dems have put forth in the modern era (with the possible exception of Dukakis). I still think (crazy screams notwithstanding) Dean would have made a good President.

Back on topic: can anyone tell me if there are disciplinary processes in place for SC justices, and what those might be? If a SC justice is subject to disciplinary review, who reviews him/her?

 

I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary and was disappointed both in the choice and the way he ran his campaign (more than anything, this is what ticked me off... the campaign was inept, to be kind). I think Kerry would have made a decent President, certainly compared to Bush, and sometimes we're just faced with the least lousy of two lousy choices. At the time, I pleaded with people to think of the future choices that would be made for vacancies that were sure to come up in the Supreme Court. Not only the SC, but the other lifetime appointments to the federal bench. I heard a lot of complaints about Kerry and a lot of poo-pooing of the consequences of another Bush term. After all, how could he be any worse? So, of course, he was.

Ah well, c'est la vie.

 

This is going to be a very Interesting topic. Is there really a confict of Interest if a sitting judge's spouse is a lobbyist ?

 

If a judge is going to be in a position to rule on a case of material benefit to their spouse, or anyone else they have a close personal relationship with, judicial ethics require that they recuse themselves from the case. Thomas did not.