Give us clearance from Clarence

The couple that thumbs their noses at the people…

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court neglected to disclose that wife Virginia received $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Federal law requires disclosure of the income of a justice’s spouse.

Virginia Thomas promoted herself as a lobbyist with “experience and connections” for would-be clients who want health-care reform overturned by the Supreme Court. The single obvious interpretation we can take away from this comment is that she claims she can influence a Supreme Court justice.

Many court observers have low expectations of Thomas to begin with. It should not surprise us that a judge could have already decided on a case before it even comes before him. A judge might also have inappropriate contacts with people who have an interest in a case or a pattern of cases linked to a particular ideology.

The Thomases are long known to share the same conservative attitudes. Virginia Thomas’ goals includes having people like her husband placed on the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. The justice likewise needs no counsel from her. A form of mental telepathy is sufficient.

This latest episode reflects some of the deficiencies of the federal courts, especially the process for choosing Supreme Court justices and the utter absence of accountability.

U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York City made a federal case of these acts when he led 73 House Democrats in signing a letter to Thomas with the request that he recuse himself from any deliberations on health-care reform, on grounds that his wife’s lobbying activities creates “the appearance of a conflict of interest,” according to The Washington Post.

The representatives wrote: “As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife’s financial stake in the overturn of health-care reform is blurred.

“Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has ‘experience and connections’ and appeals to clients who want a particular decision - they want to overturn health-care reform.

“Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health-care reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.

“This is not the first case where your impartiality was in question. As Common Cause points out, you ‘participated in secretive political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the (5-4) decision’ on the Citizens United case.

“Your spouse also received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.

“Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”

Weiner’s letter says even more about the judicial system than Thomas and his wife.

How did Thomas get there? Under the Constitution, the president nominated Thomas and the Senate confirmed him. The House is left out of the process no matter what House members think.

Of those three institutions, we can only be guaranteed that House members represent the majority of voters in each congressional district. Each House member represents their constituents on a proportionate basis.

The Senate does not. Because each state is allowed two members, the senators from the 26 least populous states could potentially control the Senate.

Practically speaking, control of the Senate depends on which political party runs it. In recent years, most large states are represented by Democrats and most small states are represented by Republicans. Texas is one of the prominent exceptions, as both senators are Republicans, while Delaware and Vermont are represented by three Democrats and a socialist.

The president, too, can potentially represent only a minority of the citizenry because s/he is selected by the majority of the electoral votes that are cast. The president can lose the popular vote or win a plurality but not the majority vote.

George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but did not nominate any justices until his second term, for which he won the popular vote. Bill Clinton only won the plurality of the vote in both of his elections, and two justices joined the court during his tenure.

The lifetime tenure for justices may shield them from political influence, but it also gives them the freedom to do whatever they please.

When justices are allowed an unlimited period on the bench, we are often able to predict the decisions of most of the justices from year to year.

Elected officials have exploited the lifetime appointments as an ideological strategy to place justices for a long stretch. Both Thomas and Elena Kagan were nominated and confirmed at the age of 50.

Why can’t each be appointed for a fixed term - from 9 to 15 years - when they are closing in on retirement age? A 60-year-old attorney with extensive experience could figure on ending his/her term at 75.

Many of us will miss some justices when they leave, depending on our attitudes, but others we will happily help pack on their way out. Enduring lifetime tenure for some justices, such as Thomas, is tantamount to a life sentence for many Americans.