Who Hijacked Our Country

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Retroactive Recusal to Overturn a Supreme Court Decision

I have no idea whether this is a real possibility or just a far-flung theory that’ll never see the light of day.  Rep. Louise Slaughter (D—New York) has suggested that a retroactive recusal of Justice Clarence Thomas could lead to the overturning of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

Supreme Court justices are entitled to their opinion that anonymous multi-million-dollar bribes are just hunky dory.  But this opinion can NOT be based on any conflict of interest.  That quaint old phrase again is
conflict of interest.

Clarence Thomas’ wife may have benefited financially from the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and this fact was never disclosed.

Clarence Thomas has indicated on financial disclosure forms that his wife received no income since Thomas became a Supreme Court justice in 1991.  Well, except that she did.  She “earned” $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007.  Sounds like a conflict of interest to me, if not perjury.

Louise Slaughter said:

“What I’m very interested here is the votes that he has cast that may be in conflict.  Of course, his wife can work. But the fact is there are only nine justice on that Supreme Court and it certainly should be a given that a family member of any of those people lucky enough to be a Supreme Court justice should not in any way involve themselves in matters that will go before that court. Now, we all know that she worked very hard for the Citizens United case, which I think is one of the most egregious things that have ever happened in the United States Supreme Court.  There is such a thing as a retroactive recusal. We’re looking into that. That case, if you remember, was decided 5-4. If we could take away his vote, we could wipe that out. It would lose…you know, the judiciary is the last place for all of us to go. We’re only as good — all of us — as the courts are, only as safe as the courts are good. Their interpretations are really what give us the freedoms when you come down to it. They have enormous power.”

All right.  Let’s hear it for retroactive recusal.


Labels: , , , ,

17 Comments:

Blogger Lisa said...

Hmm picking up where Anita Hill left off?
I guess you are working feverishly to find some juice on Herman Cain now?

October 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM  
Anonymous S.W. Anderson said...

It's an intriguing idea and I hope with all my heart Slaughter and other Democrats can pull it off. But realistically, I won't hold my breath. For one thing, I think the entire Obama White House would suffer paroxysms of apoplexy if it looked like this was going to precipitate a constitutional crisis. I think they would deep-six it faster than you can say, "Nothing doing."

October 7, 2011 at 12:06 AM  
Blogger Randal Graves said...

Clarence Thomas is still alive? He used to be so chatty.

October 7, 2011 at 5:58 AM  
Anonymous Jolly Roger said...

Hmm picking up where Anita Hill left off?
I guess you are working feverishly to find some juice on Herman Cain now?


Leave it to one of the biggest idiots I've ever seen to come down on the side of both misogyny and racism.

Speaking of that.... Lisa, why aren't you in the kitchen, or shopping? Everyone knows broads don't have sense enough to talk about things like politics. You have admitted as much yourself many, many times now, and we all know that all of you wingers believe it to be true. So.... why are you such a hypocrite? Really... go make your husband a killer dinner and leave us men to discuss the important stuff.

October 7, 2011 at 7:19 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Excuse me JR I must have you mixed up with those racist Tea Baggers.
Now go order your little woman to fetch you a beer.

October 7, 2011 at 7:39 AM  
Anonymous Jess said...

Were it to be a real possibility, I would be overjoyed that Justice pubic hair on a coke can would be gone from sight even, I don't see it happening though. Much like I don't see this going anywhere which is sad.

Wonder how many pugs will be out there fighting to help Clarence and his little woman through this heartache.

October 7, 2011 at 7:50 AM  
Blogger Snave said...

Go for it, Louise. Let's get the job done. People who are corporate tools and ideological hardcores ought not to be on our nation's highest court.

October 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

Feverishly trying to find some juice on Herman Cain? Why, because he's black and you think lefties don't like some people because of their skin color? If that's what you are suggesting, well... that's the general right wing outlook about Obama, Lisa... so what you are saying is merely projection, and laughably so.

Cain's lack of foreign policy experience ought to be enough to turn off most voters. He has plenty of experience as a campaign adviser and has run for office a few times, but that doesn't really suggest he is "experienced" enough to be president. Even Sarah Palin has more "experience" than Cain as far as I'm concerned, because she has held office (at least she did until she quit).

Lots of people love that notion of an "outsider" running for office, but, sad to say, in order to get anything done in our political system nowadays, you'd just about have to have some experience at playing the game... otherwise you'd just get played, taken advantage of.

Cain could well be a man of good character, and he might have some good leadership qualities.

But I don't care if someone if black or hispanic or white or whatever. I'm more concerned about their political ideology, and in Cain's case, it's all about whether or not he wants to "run the country like a business".

So yes, when it comes to someone like Clarence Thomas, I put him on an equal par with Antonin Scalia. Both are so ideologically biased that they have no place on the Supreme Court. Reagan's worst contribution to America may well have not been his wars, but it may have rather been adding Scalia to the Court. Dubya's worst contribution may well not have been his wars but adding Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Court. So by your logic, I guess that must mean I don't like black people, Italian-Americans, or people whose are descended from east Europeans.

I don't give a hoot about any of that. It's all about the ideology. 8-)

October 7, 2011 at 12:26 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

And by Reagan's wars, I mean the Iran-Contra matters, Grenada, and then of course the "war on drugs" (which I consider to be mostly his).

October 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

I don't give a hoot about any of that. It's all about the ideology. 8-)(see Sotomayer and Kagan)

Which is the exact reason some on the right didn't and still don't want Obama. I wouldn't call him a leader either as much as a speech giver. But I think Cain could be a good VP unlike Joe the buffoon. We have a finger pointing whiny president and a foot in mouth VP, Not a hard act to follow.

October 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

what's wrong with running the country like a business being the politicians have screwed it up

October 7, 2011 at 1:42 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

SW: You're probably right; it's an intriguing idea that could actually be brought to reality if there were enough spines in Congress and the White House. That's a big If.

Randal: Nobody knows for sure.

Jess: There'll probably be a bunch of Astroturf groups staging spontaneous demonstrations on behalf of Clarence Thomas against those mean liberals.

Snave: My sentiments exactly -- go for it Louise. Good answer to Lisa, not that'll do any good.

Lisa: If we were running the country like a business in 2003, we couldn't have afforded to invade Iraq.

October 7, 2011 at 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Jolly Roger said...

Lisa, didn't we already decide that broads belong in the kitchen? Really..... I don't think Clarence would appreciate your lip. Or Herman, even. Now don't you worry your pretty little head about things that are beyond your kind.

October 7, 2011 at 9:18 PM  
Blogger Dave Dubya said...

It's too late. Thomas and Scalia both trumped democracy with their conflict of interests back in 2000.

October 8, 2011 at 10:40 AM  
Blogger Jeannie said...

IN 1997, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE
RUTH BADER GINSBURG FACED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGES

Questions Were Raised About Judge Ginsburg And Recusals From Cases Affecting Her Husband’s Work:

“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg May Have Violated A Federal Law 21 Times Since 1995 By Participating In Cases Involving Companies In Which Her Husband Owned Stock.” (Richard Carelli, “Justice Took Part In Cases Involving Husband’s Stocks,” The Associated Press, 7/10/97)

“Appointed To The Nation’s Highest Court By President Clinton In 1993, Justice Ginsburg Did Not Disqualify Herself In Cases Involving Eight Companies In Which Her Husband Owned Common Stock In 1995 And 1996. The Companies Are Nynex, Exxon, General Electric, American International Group, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, American Home Products And AT&T.” (Richard Carelli, “Justice Took Part In Cases Involving Husband’s Stocks,” The Associated Press, 7/10/97)

•“The Problematic Stock Holdings Are Traceable To A Smith Barney Account Martin Ginsburg Opened Sometime In 1995.” (Richard Carelli, “Justice Took Part In Cases Involving Husband’s Stocks,” The Associated Press, 7/10/97)
•“The Nomination Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg To The Supreme Court Poses Anew A Question That Two-Career Couples Are Making More And More Common: When Can The Legal Work Of A Judge’s Spouse Or Other Loved One Require That He Or She Bow Out Of A Case?” (Jonathan Groner, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Recusal Questions,” Legal Times, 6/28/93)

October 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM  
Blogger Jeannie said...

Nope. We don't like Obummer because he's a closet socialist. You guys always bring up race because you're really the racists.

October 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM  
Blogger Jeannie said...

IN 2006: DEMOCRATS PLAY PARTISAN POLITICS AGAINST CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEE TERRENCE BOYLE TOO

October 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home