Clarence, Clarence, Clarence

Back when I was a kid, aspiring to one day enter politics, there was something incredibly inspiring about the Supreme Court.

As Republicans and Democrats sparred over every possible issue, the Court seemed to rise above all. Its members were, simply, dedicated to the letter of the law; to righteousness and fairness. I never wanted to actually join its ranks, but I always considered it to be a position of remarkable authenticity.

Supreme Court Justice—yes!

That, sadly, was a long time ago. From the Bush-Gore intervention to the siding with corporate contributions to the stable of judges who always—always—side with either left or right, the Court has become, in my mind, a joke. Even worse, it’s merely another political brand, leaning one way or the other depending on the majority.

Now, there’s the wacky news about Clarence Thomas, quite possibly the least-honorable justice in modern history. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Supreme Court will decided whether the president’s health care overhaul is legal or unconstitutional. It’ll stand as an incredibly important decision, one that needs to be ruled on with pure and clear impartiality from both left and right leanings.

This, I fear, is impossible. Turns out that Virginia Thomas, Clarence’s wife, advertises herself as a lobbyist who has “experience and connections” and appeals to clients who want to overturn health reform. It also looks like Thomas failed to disclose his wife’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2006. In other words, the Thomas family has directly benefitted from Virginia’s opposing of the law that he husband will now decide upon.

Hmm … how does this one end?

13 thoughts on “Clarence, Clarence, Clarence”

  1. It is a shame about Justice Thomas, and practically everyone else in the justice system who is corrupt. I’m sure there are others we don’t hear about. But I think this begs a question. Whether we believe that Justice Thomas (or Bill Clinton, or Elliot Spitzer) did anything “unethical” or “wrong” or “unrighteous” depends completely on our worldview. If we believe “righteousness” is subjective, then we can’t really say Thomas (or his wife) was doing anything wrong/unethical/unrighteous, because they can define it for themselves. But if we objectively believe in righteousness (it comes from a moral framework) than that is a totally different story. But to identify someone as righteous or unrighteous requires an objective moral framework. We can’t cry foul if we believe in moral subjectivity, because each individual decides that for him/her self.

  2. Maybe I wouldn’t remember the exact amount…But I simply can’t imagine having so much money that I couldn’t recall nearly $700,000 of income.
    If he is unable to recall $686,000+ of family income how can he have the mind to judge such high matters?

  3. thomas would strike down the law as unconstitutional even if there wasn’t this funny business surrounding it.

    it all comes down to kennedy, the closest thing to a moderate on the supreme court, to break the 4-4 tie that will likely come up.

  4. he is also historically the least active member of the sc by FAR. i dont think he has written ONE decision in his many years on the bench. the guy never deserved to get in there.

  5. I truly believe that Clarence Thomas is what Dick Vitale refers to as a “Space-eater”. He is simply milking this high profile job for all that its worth, without putting in much effort.

  6. This Health Care bill IS Socialism and unconstitutional and it WILL go down.
    @ Nate…..Elliot Spitzer is an elitist scumbag who thinks his is ABOVE the law and I cannot believe CNN hired him. Clinton is well….Clinton. We all knew he did it, knew he LIED about it and Slick Willie got away with it.

  7. I’m sure he is full of poo poo Jeff.
    This just puts the Anita Hill accusations into the most likely true category.
    Most of us figured they were, this just cements it.

  8. Question: what is the dictionary definition of socialism?

    Answer: Socialism is public ownership and control of capital.

    Question: How can a health care plan that leaves health insurance in the control of *private* companies, without so much as a public *option* much less full public control…how can such a plan be “socialist”?

    Answer: It can’t.

    Thank you for playing Words Mean Something. There are no consolation prizes, but you might be able to find those 50 IQ points you’ve misplaced if you turn off Fox “News”.

  9. Tom: just so you know, I agree with you, which is why I didn’t say a word about the constitutionality of the law in my post. (I don’t know if you were directing your post at me, so just in case… :)).

    I’m so sick of people making up new definitions of words when it suits them, and “socialism” is one of the biggest examples. Socialism does NOT mean “anything government does that I don’t like”.

    As for the cases you cited, excellent summation of the issues. If the Court *does* rule the Health Care Act constitutional, I’d bet money that Wickard v. Filburn shows up in the opinion.

  10. i wasn’t directing it at you, frank. 😀 i just hate hearing people argue that it’s socialist and that’s why it shouldn’t exist (so i agree with your point about the popular “definition” of socialism). one can make a strong case for the bill being unconstitutional without throwing around buzzwords like “socialism” in an uninformed manner.

Leave a Reply