DOWNLOADS: (147)

PLAYS: (812)

Embed

Oops! Richard Mourdock got ahead of himself and released this video celebrating the end of the Affordable Care Act at the hands of the Supreme Court.

Via Politico:

Indiana Treasurer and GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock applauds the Supreme Court's decision invalidating the Affordable Care Act in a new video uploaded to his YouTube account.

The catch, obviously, is that the Court hasn't ruled on Obamacare just yet, and won't do so until next week. Mourdock's video, titled "ObamaCare3," is apparently a pretaped message in the event that the health care law goes down, but it hit the web early.

“Well, we’ve had our brief moment of celebration, because the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is, in fact, unconstitutional. It’s what many of us argued all along," Mourdock begins. "But don’t sit back and think the fight is over because it isn’t. Barack Obama and Congressman Joe Donnelly are already putting Obamacare 2.0 together and they’re going to try and pass it once again. We cannot let that happen."

Subsequent to Politico's report, the Mourdock campaign pulled the video out of public view, but you know, once a bell has rung, it can't be unrung. A copy of the ad is at the top of this post.

I admit that I was bothered by Mourdock's premature dance in the endzone, even if it appears he did make videos for every possibility. Conventional wisdom holds that what is done at the Supreme Court stays at the Supreme Court until the opinion is released.

But there's that Ginni Thomas factor, and her ties to right wing organizations. Her past includes cozy and deep-pocketed connections with the Kochs, and she's now hard at work for Tucker Carlson's Foster Friess enterprise, The Daily Caller.

I note over on the SCOTUSblog there's a calendar entry for a June 26th summit at the Cato Institute to discuss the "meaning of the Obamacare ruling." Once again, that could simply be contingency planning for whatever the ruling ends up being. But it's worrisome to me that Ginni Thomas is the common denominator in an equation that includes premature end zone spiking by Mr. Mourdock even as John Boehner warns that Republican congressmen should definitely not under any circumstances celebrate if SCOTUS strikes it down.

By now, I'm assuming the court is putting the finishing touches on the opinion(s) and dissent(s) in order to release everything by Monday of next week. So why would Mourdock behave as if he knew the outcome already? Wishful thinking, or inside information? I suggest keeping an eye on The Daily Caller to see how they handle the decision when it's released to the public.

DOWNLOADS: (244)

PLAYS: (989)

Embed

While discussing the upcoming arguments before the Supreme Court starting Monday on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, ABC's Terry Moran and guest Matthew Dowd both pointed out the obvious, much to the chagrin of This Week regular George Will, that there is politics involved with the Supreme Court deciding to hear this case.

MORAN: They took it at a different time, in some ways. The Republicans, Michele Bachmann, are making this the number-one issue. Some of the biggest mistakes the Supreme Court has ever made is when they decided cases they didn't have to. And John Roberts as chief justice, loves the court, is very protective of its institutional authority. The more it gets involved in politics, the more that authority comes down.

WILL: I really disagree with Terry on this. I think the Supreme Court is composed of nine intelligent, conscientious judges who are prepared to judge in this case. Why did they take it? Because the circuits are in conflict, and the circuits -- some important circuit judges say -- in very persuasive opinions -- that portions of the law -- at least two portions -- are unconstitutional, the Medicaid expansion, which is a burden that eviscerates (ph) federalism and, of course, the mandate.

What Will, Moran or any of the rest of them on this panel failed to mention was the name Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni and whether Thomas ought to be recusing himself from the case. It's been astounding to me to watch most of the media coverage over the last week and not see their names mentioned once.

If anyone needs a reminder of why Thomas should not be hearing this case and just how "political" his involvement is, I'll just refer you to these posts:

Clarence Thomas "Forgot" 20 Years of Disclosure? Really?

Justice Clarence Thomas Should Resign For His Egregious Conflicts of Interest and Unethical Behavior

Ginni Thomas as Lobbyist? Really?

Clarence Thomas Fails to Disclose Citizens United In-Kind Contributions

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (293)

PLAYS: (3355)

Embed

Politics Nation's Al Sharpton went after Fox for their continued drum beat to have Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the upcoming hearing on the whether the individual mandate is constitutional and ignoring Justices Scalia and Thomas and Thomas' wife Ginni and their many conflicts of interest in hearing the case, the latest being a fundraising dinner they attended with opponents of the health care law.

Here's more from Media Matters on Fox's ridiculous attacks on Kagan -- Fox Cites Non-Existent Part Of The Constitution To Hype Argument For Kagan Recusal:

For the second day in a row, Fox's "straight news" division has hyped the claim that U.S Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the case involving the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act. Fox pointed to an email Kagan sent to then-Justice Department adviser Laurence Tribe on the day the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Care Act in which Kagan said, "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

Legal ethicists have thrown cold water on the argument that Kagan needs to recuse herself over that email. But Fox seems to have an argument that the legal ethicists haven't thought of: Fox national correspondent Steve Centanni said Kagan's recusal may be required by "Article 28 of the Constitution." Fox's graphics department provided the relevant quote from the "U.S. Constitution, Article 28, Sec. 144":

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (230)

PLAYS: (921)

Embed

Anthony Weiner has resigned, but thankfully we've still got someone out there pushing for something to be done about Clarence Thomas and his unethical behavior while serving on the Supreme Court, Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Rep. Chris Murphy: Thomas Gift Scandal ‘Undermine[s] The Integrity of The Entire Judiciary’:

ThinkProgress has obtained a draft letter Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) circulated this morning to his fellow members of Congress asking the House Judiciary Committee’s leadership to hold a hearing on the Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act, a bill that will end the Supreme Court’s immunity to judicial ethics laws. As Murphy’s letter explains, his bill addresses the bevy of recently revealed ethics scandals involving members of the Supreme Court, including the Clarence Thomas gifting scandal [...]

In a message attached to the draft letter, Murphy asks his colleagues to join him in signing his request for “Judiciary Committee hearing on the alarming number of reports of possible unethical conduct by Supreme Court justices.” Rep. Murphy’s full draft letter requesting a hearing is copied below the fold.

Murphy is now inviting the public to co-sign his letter. You can do so here.

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Murphy Says Thomas’ Actions Call Into Question Whether He ‘Can Continue To Serve As A Justice’:

In an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress, Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) — the lead sponsor of a bill which would strip Supreme Court justices of their immunity from a code of ethical conduct that applies to other federal judges — suggests that an investigation may be necessary to determine whether Justice Clarence Thomas’ many ethics scandals rise to the level where Thomas is no longer fit to serve on the nation’s highest Court [...]

Justice Thomas has sat on at least 11 cases where a Harlan Crow-affiliated group filed a brief — adopting the group’s preferred outcome in all but one case. Moreover, Thomas has yet to explain the full extent of his connections to Crow, despite news reports that Crow lavished gifts and other expensive favors on Thomas and his family. Nor has Thomas explained how his gifting scandal differs from the very similar gifting scandal that brought down Justice Abe Fortas.

Much more in both posts, so go read the rest. Keith Olbermann discussed the issue with professor of law at George Washington University Jonathan Turley who wrote about Thomas in an op-ed this March here -- Clarence Thomas' dangerous conceit.

DOWNLOADS: (472)

PLAYS: (3317)

Embed

Those of you on twitter this weekend can't help but have been drawn into Andrew Breitbart's latest smear festival. The details are sordid and involved, as is usual with anything Breitbart touches.

Given that his latest victim is Rep. Anthony Weiner, it's important to remember what of Weiner's activities might be drawing the right wing fake video impresario's ire. Weiner discussed one of his current concerns with Rachel Maddow last Friday night.

Weiner is pushing hard for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself on any decisions involving The Healthcare Reform Act.

From the link:

Clarence Thomas’ wife earned $700,000 from half the radical right-wing ideologues in Washington. Opposing health care reform was her specialty. For 13 years, Thomas didn’t disclose a penny of that income.

He’s trying to conceal a blatant conflict of interest. His family is getting rich off an issue that’s very likely to come before the Supreme Court.

I don't expect Breitbart is getting paid for this directly. Smearing Weiner is an end in itself, and I doubt it was specifically in order to distract attention from Weiner's efforts to shame Thomas into recusing himself. Weiner is an unapologetic liberal, which draws the hate of Breitbart and his drinking buddies no matter what issues Weiner promotes.

But it is essential that we as progressives don't get distracted by Breitbart's lies. The issue is Thomas and what a complete conflict of interest it is for him to vote on anything to do with the constitutionality of the Healthcare Reform bill. Given that conflict of interest didn't stop him from voting in favor of Bush in Bush v. Gore (when Thomas's wife was on the Bush transition team) I doubt Thomas has any shame but Weiner's efforts are still commendable.

I refuse to get distracted by Breitbart's promotion of lies. It is immoral for Thomas to vote on an issue for which his WIFE is a LOBBYIST. He should be shamed into recusing himself, and if he doesn't, he should be publicly reviled and ultimately impeached.

H/T Heather for the transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (755)

PLAYS: (4111)

Embed

Donald Trump and the field of potential GOP presidential candidates weren't the only ones Saturday Night Live's Seth Meyers had a bit of fun with at the White House Correspondents' Dinner this year. He also gave President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. Paul Ryan and our leaders in Congress who are proud of "adult conversations" and yammering on about bills being too long to read some grief as well.

He also got a shot in at the "tea party" and Ginni Thomas. After complimenting Michelle Obama for how good she looked right now compared to the day President Obama was inaugurated, Meyers said this:

MEYERS: Now you on the other hand Mr. President, have aged a little. What happened to you? When you were sworn in you looked like the guy from the Old Spice commercial. Now you look like Louis Gossett Senior. I've never said this to anyone before, but maybe you should start smoking again.

Is this the change you were talking about? Mr. President look at your hair. If your hair gets any whiter the tea party is going to endorse it. Oh, I'm going to get an angry voice mail from Ginni Thomas in 19 years.

President Obama took the ribbing pretty well tonight which is more than I can say for Donald Trump who looked like he was sucking on a lemon by the time this thing was over. Granted Meyers went a whole lot easier on the President, but I'm curious how Trump's going to react after tonight because everyone knows his ego isn't going to let the roasting he just took go without him saying something about it.

No one can honestly say that Trump should not have seen this coming after all of the birther, racist crap the corporate media has allowed him to go out there and spew for the last couple of weeks or that he didn't deserve to get skewered for it at this event.

I await Trump melting down on national television in 10... 9... 8...

DOWNLOADS: (247)

PLAYS: (702)

Embed

Rep. Anthony Weiner joined the set of John King's show to discuss whether Supreme Court Justice Clarance Thomas should recuse himself from any case involving the healthcare law given his wife Ginni's conflicts of interests. And who better for King to bring on to counter him than our favorite flame thrower, Erick Erickson.

The Hill has more -- Democrats: Justice Thomas should recuse himself in healthcare reform case:

A group of 73 House Democrats on Wednesday demanded U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from any case examining the constitutionality of healthcare reform.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and 72 other colleagues wrote Thomas on Wednesday to ask him to sit out any Supreme Court review of President Obama's healthcare law, citing the work by Thomas's wife on behalf of efforts opposing that healthcare law.

"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," the Democrats wrote. "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 letter reflects the growing political gamesmanship on both sides of the aisle in regard to court challenges to healthcare reform. [...]

The Democrats' demand in this instance is based on concerns about the political advocacy conducted by Ginny Thomas, a Tea Party and conservative activist. Mrs. Thomas advertises herself as a lobbyist for "clients who want a particular decision — they want to overturn health care reform," the Democrats said.

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (614)

PLAYS: (4823)

Embed

Well I hope teabagger Ginni Thomas is proud of herself for her phone call to Anita Hill asking her to apologize for her testimony about her husband during his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court 19 years ago, because it seems she's brought some other women out of the woodwork to defend Anita Hill. I can only hope that McEwen isn't the last of them.

One of Clarence Thomas's ex-girlfriends, Lillian McEwen appeared on Larry King Live and pretty much threw Thomas under the bus and backed over him a few times. Here are some of the more devastating portions of the interview and you can read the entire transcript here.

LARRY KING: Good evening. In 1991, Anita Hill leveled some explosive charges during the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas who ultimately became an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those accusations resurfaced recently, when one of Thomas' former girlfriends spoke out about them. Lillian McEwen is that person. She is a former federal prosecutor, administrative judge, and council to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is her first and only network, prime-time interview.

Silent all these years, Lillian, you could have been a valuable edition to those hearings, why not?

LILLIAN MCEWEN: I was not subpoenaed by either side.

KING: Did they know about you?

MCEWEN: Yes.

KING: Both sides?

MCEWEN: Yes.

KING: Well, obviously, Judge Thomas 's side wasn't going to subpoena you to appear, right? That would not have been in their best interests?

MCEWEN: I don't know.

KING: Joe Biden was head of the Senate Committee, right?

MCEWEN: Yes.

KING: What was the reason for not hearing your story?

MCEWEN: I don't know.

KING: Well, what happened, they just rejected it?

MCEWEN: What I asked Clarence about was, what position should I take in reference to any reporters who wanted to talk to me, or anything that he wanted to emphasize as far as my relationship with him was concerned. His response to me was the position his first wife had taken, Kathy, was fine with him, which said to me that his wishes were that I would say nothing to the press. So I acceded to his wishes as far as my -- making myself available to the press.

KING: But you did write to Senator Biden then, right?

MCEWEN: I did write a note to Senator Biden's staff saying that- reminding them that Clarence and I had a very close relationship, and reminding them also, that he used to come frequently to the office space. And was friendly with much of the staff there, on Biden's staff, in the Russell Senate Office Building, just in case they had forgotten.

KING: You were not going to accede to his wishes about saying nothing, if Biden had called you, you would have appeared?

MCEWEN: Of course, if I had been subpoenaed, I would have appeared. And if the Senator had asked me questions, I certainly would have answered them. But that didn't occur either.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (327)

PLAYS: (1563)

Embed

Break out the smelling salts, because I think Orrin Hatch has got a bad case of the vapors. Better let go of those pearls, Orrin, or you're going to choke yourself. This guy is a real piece of work. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife Ginni makes a fool out of herself and Hatch goes on the air and attacks Anita Hill.

KING: Senator Hatch, I want to go to you first. I know you're a Thomas supporter. Many of the people are asking why. They understand this is tough personally for Ginni Thomas and for Clarence Thomas, but why now bring this up? And I want to read you the voice mail that Ginni Thomas left on Anita Hill's voicemail at Brandeis University at 7:31 a.m. on October 9th, a couple of weeks ago. "Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day."

Why now Senator Hatch? What do you think the motive of that is?

HATCH: Well I think Ginni Thomas and Clarence Thomas they're two of the most honest people I've ever met. They're both really, really good people. Very Christian people. They're people who do what they do and say what they say and do it in honor. And I think probably this has grated on Ginni all these years and I think she was hoping Anita Hill would finally admit what she said was wrong. I can tell you a lot about that and why I'm so strongly in favor of Clarence Thomas.

KING: You believe, Senator, to this day, you believe Anita Hill was lying, exaggerating? What do you believe?

HATCH: The toughest witness to cross examine is somebody who is absolutely wrong but believes they're right. I think Anita Hill made an excellent witness but I also know Clarence Thomas and I know Ginni Thomas. By the way, when I heard the -- this whole thing was outed by a staffer of one of the Democrat senators. It was a violation of law to do this. Because Anita Hill did not want to testify and that's why she was not called.

KING: I don't want to go back to that. I do want to focus on the question at hand.

HATCH: Let me get to it because this is all important. What happened was, is that I called Clarence and I said, Clarence, any truth to this? Now, I know Clarence very well. I know if there had been he would have said, yeah, I did that, but he didn't, he said no, I can't understand why she would do this. I was her mentor. I helped her. He said, I did promote somebody over her. He said, that's the only explanation I can give. Just think about it. If you put the worst twist, the worst spin, on what she accused Clarence Thomas of, you'd have to say he used inappropriate language. Now, he didn't that but she believed it -- [...]

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (247)

PLAYS: (457)

Embed

Rachel Maddow showed us the extremism and political activism of wife of Supreme Court Justice and self-proclaimed Tea Party member Ginni Thomas without comment other than to note that she's married to someone that has a lifelong appointment to that court and this is something we've never seen before. I'll not refrain and just say that it's pathetic that I think it's pretty obvious how badly our Supreme Court has been politicized by the right when one of the Justices couldn't bother to ask his wife to refrain from doing this and that it's also really pathetic that our mainstream media for the most part has paid no attention to this story other than to hype her as a "Power Player" over at Fox.

If one of the more liberal members of the court had a spouse out there at either union rallies or something sponsored by MoveOn.org, our media would be covering it like a bunch of rabid dogs and insisting that the Justice renounce the activities of their spouse. But if your wife is out there with the astroturf teabaggers drumming up the hate, you get a collective yawn from them. Pitiful. Good for Rachel for shedding some light on what she's doing in the manner it deserves, with or without comment. The video speaks for itself.

MADDOW: We don't think there is any precedent for a spouse of a sitting Supreme Court Justice being engaged in political activism to the extent that the wife of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is doing right now and of which we have tape. In general the family member of a Supreme Court justice would not be somebody who's activities would be considered inherently newsworthy. Same goes at least as far as I'm concerned for politician's families, unless they get themselves involved in politics.

But I don't know of anybody else who has ever held the job title "Supreme Court Justice" while their spouse has been a very public national activist like this. So noted without further comment, just so you know it's true... Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas.

(Cut to video)

They're scared to death of you... cheers. There's a war going on against tyranny. We're at risk of losing the country. Ginni Thomas is married to Clarence Thomas who has a lifetime appointment as a justice of the United States Supreme Court and other than that, we are noting that without comment.