Savage writes that what defines Thomas' career is his tendency to go
solo on his opinions, "a tendency that was almost certainly reinforced
bitter and ugly confirmation fight in the Senate..."
Uh huh. Opinions Thomas has written from the highest bench in our
nation, opinions which Savage noted include prisoners having no
constitutional right to be protected from beatings by guards and
and students having no free-speech rights at all, stem from Anita Hill's
allegations of sexual harassment, which were later proven to be more correct than false.
What Savage neglected to say - at all - is that Thomas' ethics are once
again in question, so much so that the very rules about how Supreme
Court Justices may conduct themselves are now under scrutiny. A bill
called the "Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act of 2011" (HR 862) is pending in the House of Representatives. In addition, a movement to impeach Thomas is
gaining steam. You'd think an L.A. Times piece about Justice Thomas
which was syndicated in many other papers nationwide would at least
mention those facts.
It would be enlightening for readers to remember that Thomas neglected
to disclose his wife Ginni's $680,000 income from the Heritage
Foundation. (That was reported in January
by L.A. Times writer Kim Geiger.) But how many connected those dots
from reading the Savage piece? I, for one, would like to see mention of
all relevant facts in one
Clarence and Virginia Thomas by crookandliars.com
ethical lapses become all too relevant when it is understood that the
Supreme Court is certain to decide the constitutionality of Obama's
healthcare law. David G. Savage does report that Thomas "is seen as a sure vote
to strike down President Obama's healthcare
law and its insurance mandate."
So maybe you'd like to tell us "the rest of the story," David?
originally reported at SueWilsonReports.com
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.