Virginia Thomas' Ethics Check

The fickle D.C. spotlight seems to have turned to Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In her new self-described role as a "social entrepreneur," she has launched Liberty Central, a new Web site that aims to serve "the big tent of the conservative movement" with educational materials and as a forum to help "new citizen activists." 

We wrote about her effort here on Feb. 23, but in recent days it has garnered more attention as a possible cause for conflict issues for her husband. NPR's Nina Totenberg reported on it here this morning, suggesting that ethical concerns might arise if corporations or individuals with cases before the high court contribute to her 501(c)4 organization.

In a statement reported by NPR, Virginia Thomas said, "I did not give up my First Amendment rights when my husband became a justice of the Supreme Court. My involvement with LibertyCentral.org has been vetted by the Supreme Court ethics office and Liberty Central's own board of directors. There have been many other judges who have spouses that are politically active."

The Supreme Court has no ethics office as such, so we checked with the Court on what she meant. Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg responded that Mrs. Thomas had "reviewed her involvement with the Court's legal office."

The Court's little-known legal office was created by then-Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1972 to assist with Court legal matters in a sort of "house counsel" capacity. The office advises on matters including contracts, legislation, and litigation directed at the Court -- such as by protesters arrested in front of the Court. The office also works on some motions and case preparation, and advises on personnel and ethics matters.

The current Court counsel is Scott Harris, a former assistant U.S. attorney in D.C. and onetime associate at the firm then known as Wiley, Rein & Fielding.

Comments

[Barry Emberlin]

Ms. Thomas carelessly couples the concepts of “politically active” with “ideologically focused” as though one were identical to the other rather than juxtaposed. That she is unfazed over public concerns about the potential conflict-of-interest in her recent efforts is real, and her arrogance toward the opinion of others, is indicative of the validity of the public’s concern.

[Mark]

John Quincy Adams -

Midge Rendell and Steve Reinhardt, to name two. Thanks for playing.

[John Quincy Adams]

"There have been many other judges who have spouses that are politically active."

Hey Virginia, name one ...

[Emma Young]

What concerns me is that she stated in another article that they would do "scorecards" on candidates for the November elections, and would raise funds as per the recent Supreme Court ruling. This controversial ruling, if not written by Justice Thomas he certainly wrote a brief concurring, basically designates corporations as having the same rights as individuals in terms of campaign contributions. Thus, just as the Supreme Court influence the 2000 election, they seem to have another way to put Republicans back in the driver's seat. No wonder Newt Gingrich told Sarah Palin to get ready for a presidential run in 2012. I hope American citizens do not sleep on this.