Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has launched a "Tea Party-linked" lobbying group called Liberty Central — a move which, rightly or wrongly, is casting doubt on the political impartiality of the Supreme Court. On the Liberty Central website, Mrs. Thomas notes her admiration for the both the Tea Party's "citizen patriots" and Rush Limbaugh. Justice Thomas, who was nominated by George H.W. Bush, is already a noted conservative — but could his wife's lobbying activities affect his ability to weigh both sides? (Watch a Fox report about Virginia Thomas' conservative group)
There's no conspiracy here: Why, in a "free country," should "being married to Clarence Thomas" prohibit someone from becoming "involved in politics"? asks Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review. Mrs Thomas has not kept people "in the dark" about her political beliefs. On the contrary, she is very open about "Tea Parties and her new effort." Let's move on.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
This leaves the Court open to bribery: It's not that easy, says Michael Kieschnick in the Huffington Post. What's disturbing is that Liberty Central can accept "unlimited corporate contributions," but has no obligation to "disclose them." That means Justice Thomas could theoretically "be rewarded for services rendered" in satisfying a particular donor's interests and we'd have no idea. Liberty Central needs to "voluntarily disclose" its contributors.
"How to bribe a Supreme Court justice"
This isn't what it seems: Liberty Central isn't a lobby group, says Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Its purpose is giving "grassroots activists" a "broader understanding of the philosophy of conservatism," rather than engaging in much activism itself. When the media accused Hillary Clinton of using her influence to shape her husband's presidency, she "defiantly" said she wasn't going to stay home to "bake cookies." The same applies here.
"LA Times suddenly wary of judicial activism"
.....................................
SEE MORE OPINION BRIEFS ON THIS TOPIC:
• Are Tea Partiers the new hippies?
• Tea Party vs. Ron Paul
-
Critics' choice: Outstanding new Japanese restaurantsFeature An all-women sushi team, a 15-seat listening bar, and more
-
Why do Dana White and Donald Trump keep pushing for a White House UFC match?TODAY'S BIG QUESTION The president and the sports mogul each have their own reasons for wanting a White House spectacle
-
'Quiet vacationing': a secret revolt against workplace cultureThe explainer You can be in two places at once
