The LA Times reports that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allows unlimited sums of corporate money to be used to sway elections, will likely directly benefit Liberty Central Inc., the "Tea Party" lobbying group formed by Virginia Thomas, whose husband Clarence voted with the majority in that decision.
A notion repeated over and over in coverage of the Supreme Court is that Justices are generally "insulated from politics," which means that they don't campaign or anything like that. But in reality they are perfectly willing to vote the party line if it means putting one of their own in office. When Virginia Thomas was asked about how she and her husband planned to handle perceptions of partiality, given that corporations might give to her group expecting favorable treatment from her husband, she responded by accusing the reporter of bias:
"I don't involve myself in litigation. Are you asking that because there's a different standard for conservatives? Did you ask Ed Rendell that question?" she said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is married to a federal appellate court judge.
As a matter of fact, the reporter did, and it turns out Rendell is pretty careful about making sure he's avoiding conflicts of interest:
The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses' political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor.
Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary's Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband's political office, she said.
If Virginia Thomas' reaction is any indication of how the couple plans to handle potential conflicts of interest in the future, all we can expect is the two of them taking umbrage at the mere suggestion that neither is an infallible saint. Any suggestion otherwise would be bias, perhaps even a "high-tech lynching."
-- A. Serwer
