Rachel Maddow did a segment on Ginni Thomas this week. The theme of the segment was basically that there could be (well, is) a conflict of interest with Ginni Thomas being a conservative activist while her husband is a sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
While I understand (and agree with) the principle, my issue is that Clarence Thomas is already comically conservative. I do not have concerns with him being swayed to move to the right because he might feel an inkling to look kindly on the concerns of donors to his wife's organization.
So I titled this post Clarence Thomas is Not for Sale after almost titling it Clarence Thomas is Bought and Paid For. However, I felt that was too perjorative because it obviously would (if only cheekily) imply that Clarence Thomas was corrupt and I truly do not believe that is the case. He seems completely genuine in his very narrow and strict interpretation of the Constitution. So, while he may be nuts*, I have no reason to believe he is not an honest kook.
* Jeffrey Toobin quoting Antonin Scalia on the difference between himself and Clarence Thomas:
I'm a conservative, I'm a textualist, I'm an originalist, but I'm not a nut.
No comments:
Post a Comment