2011-02-11 / Top Stories

Weiner Urges Justice Thomas To Recuse Himself


Anthony Weiner Anthony Weiner Following reports that the spouse of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a lobbyist who has gained financially from efforts to overturn health care reform, a conflict of interest the associate justice failed to disclose, Representative Anthony Weiner and 73 of his House colleagues sent a letter to Justice Thomas calling on him to recuse himself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The letter, addressed to Thomas at the U.S. Supreme Court, said:

Dear Justice Thomas:

“As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act. “The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has “experience and connections” and appeals to clients who want a particular decision - they want to overturn health care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of healthcare reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.

“This is not the first case where your impartiality was in question. As Common Cause points out, you “participated in secretive political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the [5- 4] decision” on the Citizens United case. Your spouse also received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.

“Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the US Supreme Court’s decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path.

We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.”

Those representatives who have already signed the letter are Al Green, EB Johnson, Wm. Lacy Clay, Carnahan, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Karen Bass, Neal, Welch, Chu, Yarmuth, Sutton, Perlmutter, Connolly, Kucinich, Meeks, Schwartz, Doggett, Moore, Polis, Waters, Payne, Rush, Cohen, Crowley, Engel, Cicilline, Susan Davis, Sires, Doyle, Slaughter, McDermott, Velazquez, Garamendi, Carson, Capuano, Berkley, Wasserman Schultz, Tim Bishop, Barbara Lee Courtney, De-Lauro, Conyers, John Larson, George Miller, Boswell, Edwards, Capps, Becerra, Deutch, Israel, Owens, Richardson, Clarke, Hirono, Ackerman, Ellison, Grijalva, Chris Murphy, Woolsey, De- Fazio, Jesse Jackson Jr, Reyes, Maloney, Andrews, Pascrell, Filner, Tonko, Fudge, Hinchey, Honda, Eshoo, and Pallone, Stark

Return to top

More to the point would be

More to the point would be the recusing of Justice Kagan as Kagan was in charge of defending Obamacare as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general before he appointed her to the nation’s highest court. Did Weiner send a letter to her?

Kagan never accepted a

Kagan never accepted a $500,000 donation to do so, like Ginnie Thomas has gotten to defeat health care. Kagan also never had to represent the government on this issue because it never came before the High Court.

Ginnie Thomas should then

Ginnie Thomas should then recuse herself. As it turns out, she is not a justice. As for Kagan, she assisted DIRECTLY in the crafting of the health care legislation. That argument stems from the fact that Kagan was in charge of defending Obamacare as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general before he appointed her to the nation’s highest court. By definition, a conflict of interest. Whether or not it came before a high court is not relevant--she worked on the legislation that now finds itself on the brink of being found unconstitutional. Consistent for Kagan at any rate, as the majority of her arguments that have come before the supreme court ended up failing muster.


Look at this way, it's like a she worked on the defense for a criminal, then at a later time got appointed to the very same case as the judge. If that doesn't sound like conflict of interest to you, then there is no fact or truth that will do it.


Email Us
Contact Us

Copyright 1999 - 2014 Wave Publishing Co. All Rights Reserved

Neighborhoods | History

 

 

Check Out News Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Riding the Wave with Mark Healey on BlogTalkRadio