THINQon : Should the spouses of Supreme Court justices get involved in politics?

The Chamber of Politics U.S. Politics Should the spouses of Supreme Court justices get involved in politics?

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

Solveig Wright, Where to begin?

Should the spouses of Supreme Court justices get involved in politics?

Latest Post: May 11, 2011 at 3:26 AM

33 followers

I've just heard that Clarence Thomas's wife Virginia Thomas is becoming a lobbyist/consultant. I have my issues with Thomas, so let's consider the question more generally. What happens when the spouse of a Supreme Court justice takes a very active political role?

Actually, on her consulting website http://libertyinc.co/site/services she explains clearly that

"Liberty Consulting, Inc. uses experience and connections to help conservatives inside and outside of government have greater impact."

Let's take this seriously for a moment, with all its implications.
Is she allowed to try to lobby her husband? Is it his imperative as a justice to not be unduly influenced by her, or hers as a family member to not try and unduly influence?

I would guess the first alternative makes more sense. But don't we then go down the slippery slope of investigating the family of all potential appointees?

There are plenty of cases where nepotism laws do harm. Still, sometimes I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep certain dividing lines in place between professions -- for instance, requiring the spouses of all Supreme Court justices to refrain from becoming (newly) actively employed in politics during their spouse's tenure on the bench.

Thoughts?

Reply to:

Lee Kazanas

February 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM

3 followers

Solveig,
This is so easy. No, of course justices (or their spouses) should not be so overtly involved in politics. We all have political opinions, and being a member of the Brady Gun Control Center, or the NRA is just fine. Being the head of an organization that may bring an action in court, or lobby the Government is a very dicey proposition.

There is conflict of interest, and there is the appearance of conflict of interest.
The highest court in the land should hold themselves to the highest standard
No appearance of impropriety should be clouding its authority!
Imagine for a minute if every supreme court spouse was also the head of a lobbying group.
How would you feel about that?

Reply to: or

Solveig Wright, Where to begin?

In response to Lee Kazanas

February 6, 2011 at 1:54 AM

33 followers

Lee, you've convinced me!
I wonder why there isn't more general outrage. Is everyone hoping to placate the Tea Partiers she panders to? Do people simply not notice? Is it felt that we shouldn't tell spouses what to do?

It does seem like this would be an interesting court case. We (American society) are in the midst of really rearranging our definition of what marriage is and what kind of social contract it involves. We've secularized the institution, removed much of the stigma of divorce, and made some headway in the fight for marriage equality. Excellent. But now what? What does marriage mean to a person of the twenty-first century? What constraints come with this institution? What is the purpose/utility/downside of having a public category of "acknowledged relationship"? What is one allowed to require and not to require of spouses in terms of career, interest, ambition and so forth? A case like the Thomas's appears pretty clear cut, but it might be more subtle to decide what kind of precedent this would set.

Reply to: or

Emily Andrews

March 3, 2011 at 4:34 AM

31 followers

Hey Solveig,
your question strikes again: there was quite an amazing article in the NYT today about the Louisiana governor's wife's charity.
(see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/politics/03jindal.html) Basically, the cap on political giving does not apply to private charities, so anyone who needs to bribe him can do so by giving $100k gifts to the charity run by his wife. Some investigative reporting turned up expected correlations between gifts and political favors.

By "amazing" I mean: how is this not covered by any of the political giving clauses?