At the Corner, Andrew McCarthy explores the L.A. Times’ hit-piece on Clarence Thomas’ wife, Ginni:
So let me make sure I have this straight. If you’re a “progressive” lawyer who volunteers to represent America’s enemies for free in offensive lawsuits brought against the American people during wartime, and then you are placed in a policy-making position in the Justice Department, we’re not allowed even to suggest that you be identified, much less to infer that the sympathies that impelled you to donate your talents to al Qaeda might affect your decision-making at DOJ.
If you’re a hard-Left ideologue and pro-abortion zealot like Dawn Johnsen, who has analogized unwanted pregnancy to slavery, we’re supposed to avert our eyes from your record and put you in charge of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, an influential government position that calls more than any other for even-handed, non-partisan, non-ideological scholarship.
AdvertisementBut if you are the wife of a Supreme Court justice — not the Supreme Court justice himself, mind you, but the justice’s wife — and you dare to have your own career and further dare to be a public conservative who defends core American principles of individual liberty against the Leftist onslaught, we are supposed to assume that the impartiality of the Supreme Court (on which the wife of the justice does not sit) has been compromised.
That’s the upshot of the Los Angeles Times hit job this morning by Kathleen Hennessey on Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. It’s an unmitigated disgrace.
I’ve looked through other articles by Ms. Hennessey, searching for one about whether she thought the high court would be compromised by the appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Prior to her appointment, Justice Sotomayor herself — not her spouse, herself — was a Leftist activist (board member and top policy maker at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education fund) who infamously opined that a “wise Latina” is more apt to make good decisions that a mere “white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Doesn’t seem to have troubled Ms. Hennessey, though.
Nor did the journalist fret about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg also had an extensive pre-Supreme Court career in Leftist causes (e.g., co-director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project in the 1970s) — and on while on the Court she has been a reliable Leftist vote who, for example, champions resort to international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution and, in a bizarre extrajudicial comment, favorably linked abortion with eugenics (“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion” (emphasis added)).
No, none of that bothers the media. The Court’s ballyhooed “impartiality” is only threatened because a conservative male justice is married to a conservative woman who has a life and career of her own, which was once thought to be the feminist ideal.
Read the whole thing, and then check out Ed Morrissey’s take, along with his interview with Mrs. Thomas. To get a sense of the mindset that drives the L.A. Times, and much of the legacy media, don’t miss Hugh Hewitt’s interview last month with James Rainey of the L.A. Times, as transcribed on Hugh’s site.
Update: Tammy Bruce on “Today’s Racist Tea Party Activist.”
I do not understand how you call that a hit job. All the article said is that justice thomas needa to be aware that possible conflicts might arise.also, your compaison with the doj is dishonest. What peoplke did before is different from what they are currently doing. I would think that is clear. Most lawyers do pro bono work and that should not be used againt them. Everyone deserves a defense attorney. Unless you think we should try people without letting them have a defense council. Do you wqant our legal system to look like some third wourld country?
Absolutely everything in this post by andy except the name of the principals is a delusional fantasy.
Wow, Andrew really struck a nerve, huh?
Brian N, you haven’t caught on to the nuance of the DOJ appointees. It is one thing to be appointed to defend a citizen as with the mythical Aticus Finch in “To kill a mocking bird”. It is another thing entirely to solicit the appointment as with the real-life lawyers at Gitmo defending terrorist who should of been executed in Afghanistan as allowed for by the Geneva convention (armed combatants wearing civilian clothes). As for idea that people’s prior history has no bearing on their future actions. Do you not understand current events? Obama successfully ran as a centralist despite the fact that he hung out with socialist radicals of all sorts and had some dirty financial dealings with some folks who are now in jail. Now Americans are learning what the “Chicago way” really means, and it goes against every value most of us learned as kids. So getting back to the DOJ appointees, just what values do these guys subscribe in? Just like the ACLU that opposes everything from the Boy Scouts to Christianity, they always seem to oppose the values that most Americans invest in.
4. loFlyer: Sorry, let me clarify. I think the comparison the author is making between a current possible conflict of interest, and where someone had worked in the past is not honest. Clearly the past will have some influence on the present. This is true of everyone. However, it is not a fair comparison to say it is the same thing. You cant really compare questioning someones moray value against whether they have a Judge has a conflict of interest. I would hope we hold Judges to a higher standard. Especially Supreme Court Judges. The LAT article was showing that Justice Thomas might now come into conflicts of interest with his wife, because of her clients. Is anyone really that happy with the citizens united case? The ACLU is one of the greatest institutions in America. While I do not support all their cases. What they do to protect our constitution is invaluable. They have no political affiliation, they are the guardians of the first amendment.