Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife wants to see more regular folk in positions of power in the US. Whether or not she's suggesting we put Joe SixPack on the Supreme Court is not clear.

Here are a few sentences selected from a NYT story about the September 12 Tea Party demonstrations held around the country:

Ginni Thomas, a founder of the Tea Party group Liberty Central and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, continued the theme of anti-elitism, declaring, “Every day citizens make a difference, it’s not the elitist rulers.”

“Let’s not let this country be destroyed by the elitist politicians with bad ideas,” she added.

...Speaker after speaker complained about portrayals of the Tea Party movement as extremist.

But signs in the crowd did not shy away from outright anger. “By ballot or bullet, restoration is coming,” read one sign, held over a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.


Did I read that right?

The wife of a Supreme Court justice founded a political party whose mission is to overturn government as we know it? 

The wife of a government official paid $213,900 a year (according to Wikipedia) wants the non-elite (whoever that is) running a very small government on a perfectly balanced budget? In other words, we'd turn government operations into a kind of giant ATM machine, which – without any thought, discussion or overdraft privileges -- would spend only what it has on hand. Does that include her husband’s paycheck?

According to the story, the crowd called for an end to spending cuts, but also to income tax. They want to boot out illegal immigrants and stop the proliferation of mosques. And, most of all, repeal that odious health care reform law, the one that gives everyone some of what the Thomases get in government benefits.


I can hear it now:

    “Uh sorry, soldier, but we don’t have money for ammunition this week. Maybe you can improvise.”

   “Harry, after this truckload, there’s no more asphalt. We can probably finish this road after April 15.”

   “Oh, by the way, we’re putting you and all other air-traffic controllers on unpaid leave for a week. Those planes will just have to fend for themselves. Enjoy your time off!”

    “Stop the surgery, doc!”

    “We’re sure you and the other justices won’t mind working without pay for a few weeks, right? Right?”

Yeah, right.


But, what’s really disturbing is it looks like she’s associating with—if not advocating for---people who call for violent revolution. I remember when that was a very big no-no. 

I wonder how this would play if she were involved in, say, a radical, left-wing group comprised of African Americans calling for the heads of government officials (including Supreme Court justices) it accuses of crimes against blacks?

To read the full story in the Times, go here.

 

 


Comments

09/13/2010 13:50

"Let’s not let this country be destroyed by the elitist politicians with bad ideas,” said the wife of one of 112 Supreme Court Justices in the history of the country, a man who graduated from Holy Cross and Yale Law and who is a staunch defender corporate personhood.

I'm trying really hard to understand how her husband is not an elitist with bad ideas. I'm failing.

Reply
paula
09/13/2010 13:59

K---Don't break your brain over this. It's incomprehensible. What about Bush I, the politician who appointed Thomas to SCOTUS. Talk about brahmans! Was the appointment an elitist's bad idea?

Reply
tnlib
09/13/2010 15:36

I question the ethics of a Supreme Court Justice's spouse being actively involved in any kind of political organization, whatever it espouses. I think he should step down, willingly or unwillingly.

Reply
paula
09/13/2010 15:39

tnlib---you'll get my vote on that!

Reply
09/13/2010 18:41

When my husband was active duty during the seventies and eighties and I was an officer's wife, we believed it was prudent and responsible to keep our political opinions to ourselves. We weren't confused about who deserved our allegiance and our prudence; it was the American people.

My husband has been retired for twenty years and we finally speak our minds freely now. Maybe all that prudence sounds pompous and old-school, but I cannot even fathom Mrs. Thomas's behavior. I agree with tnlib; it's a matter of ethics...and it really does matter.

Reply
09/16/2010 23:10

Admire you, Paula, for reading the Times so closely. My impatience turns the page quickly. Did the awfulness begin with Thomas' hearing leading to his appointment? There are so many markers over the past thirty years of bad choices in high places.

Reply
09/20/2010 15:01

There are members of the Supreme Court who actually remind me of characters in The Wizard of Oz. "If I only had a brain!" Roberts and Scalia and Thomas scare me more than the Tea Party.

Reply
Larry Burch
10/07/2010 18:58

"Elitist politicians with bad ideas," are of course limited to Democrats. That is why Justice Thomas and his "right thinking" colleagues agreed to permit corporate contributions to election campaigns: how else would "the people" find out which ideas are bad?

Reply



Leave a Reply