June 19, 2011

The NYT goes after Clarence Thomas over "an unusual, and ethically sensitive, friendship."

It's a long article, and you have to comb through it to try to grasp what we're supposed to think Justice Thomas did wrong. I'd just like to highlight the historical preservation that is at the center of the insinuations. You have to get to the 3rd screen of this 4-screen-long article to read:
At first glance the Pin Point Heritage Museum, scheduled to open this fall, would seem an unlikely catalyst for an ethical quandary. That Pin Point’s history is worthy of preservation is not in dispute.

Part of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor designated by Congress, it is representative of tight-knit Southern coastal settlements that trace their roots to freed slaves and were often based around fishing. In Pin Point, the Varn crab and oyster cannery, founded in the 1920s, was a primary source of jobs until it closed in 1985....

Justice Thomas, 62, was born and raised near the cannery overlooking the Moon River, where it was not uncommon for babies to rock in bassinets made of crab baskets while their mothers shucked oysters.
Imagine a liberal justice raised under such circumstances. Imagine this historical preservation project without any connection to conservative politics. What article would appear in the New York Times?

But Clarence Thomas is the man that liberals would love to discredit. Here, the idea is that although the judicial code of conduct does not apply to Supreme Court justices, the justices do purport to follow it, and:
The code says judges “should not personally participate” in raising money for charitable endeavors, out of concern that donors might feel pressured to give or entitled to favorable treatment from the judge.
Here's the actual text of the code:
A judge should not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for that purpose, but the judge may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee of such an organization. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.
Note how the "personally participate" language relates to "membership solicitation" and there's nothing in the article about that. At most, the article has Thomas saying "I’ve got a friend I’m going to put you in touch with" to the owner of the cannery. So "a judge should not solicit funds..." — let's use the actual text. How is that soliciting funds? You can see the interest in sliding over to the "personally participate" language that relates to "membership solicitation." Pretty sleazy.

And all in the context of preserving a site in the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor designated by Congress!

The Times notes: "The justices are not bound by the federal judiciary’s conduct code, because it is enforced by a committee of judges who rank below the justices." Right. Of course, that's the way it has to be. Imagine a committee of judges unleashed to have at Clarence Thomas!

The constitutional check on a Supreme Court Justice is impeachment. Picture Congress going after Thomas for playing some background role in preserving a valuable black history site.

ADDED: Instapundit says:
But of course, the New York Times piece isn’t really about ethics. It’s battlespace preparation for the Supreme Court’s healthcare vote. The problem for the Times is that Thomas doesn’t care what the New York Times thinks. Which means this is more about preparing a narrative of failure for ObamaCare — It was struck down by evil corrupt conservative judges. I think they’re going to be kept quite busy constructing failure narratives over the next couple of years.


Fred4Pres said...

I am so sick of this shit. Fuck you NYTs, you are doing this because you are racists.

Phil 3:14 said...

Didn't read the article but get the gist. How ironic.
I thought liberals loved the Gullah, going so far as to make sure our kids knew about them

Ambrose said...

A coordinated attack on Justice Thomas in advance of the Supreme Court's review of the Healthcare Act is next up on the left's agenda. This is the first salvo. Go back and look at what Anthony Weiner said in his "I've got to get back to the people's work" press conference. What was the pressing matter that was going to force him to stop taking questions? - an attack on Justice Thomes and the "conflict" that should disqualify him ffom participating in the healthcare case.

Watch the coming weeks. All the usual media outlets will start reporting on "questions being raised."

G Joubert said...

But Clarence Thomas is the man that liberals would love to discredit.

And race is and always has been in the middle of it. A black conservative cannot be countenanced, and especially not sitting in the Thurgood Marshall seat. Add to that, this is part of the steady drumbeat for Obama to recuse himself from ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obamacare, when it finally reaches the Court.

G Joubert said...

Ambrose, we crossed in the night.

rhhardin said...

I'm ethically insensitive myself.

G Joubert said...

Not Obama, Thomas. Where'd that come from?

Roger J. said...

ethics? ethics? I dont need no stinking ethics (directed at the NYT rather than Mr Justice Thomas)

Too bad they didnt go after Rep Frank with the same elan and analysis. (oops, a tu quoque argument, my bad)

Mark O said...

Liberals really don't like black people. They use them.

rcocean said...

Abramson, the now managing editor, wrote a hit piece (book) on Thomas called "Strange Justice".

She obviously has a "thing" for Thomas. Look for more of these kind of articles.

Hagar said...

And on the other side of this friendship - I had an opportunity some years ago to watch a couple of young Trammel Crow guys dealing with a local real estate developer, and I was truly impressed by what straight arrows these guys were.

Donald Douglas said...

I think the left is evil that way. Clarence Thomas has done nothing wrong or unethical. I read the headline yesterday at NYT and concluded that right then. Again, pure evil.

A. Shmendrik said...

I lived in Savannah for a couple of years, about 10 years ago. I traveled through Pinpoint many times. It's basically an intersection surrounded by ramshackle buildings and very weathered bungalows. It's one of those don't blink or you might miss it kind of places.

I read the NYT piece this morning early, while still groggy, and went back for a second, slow pass to see what I was missing. Which was nothing. The Times can be slow to act on egregious matters (maybe John Edwards is a good example) that are right beneath their noses, but they will strive mightily to produce a hint of a whiff of an infraction, especially if it regards someone they simply despise.

So I say to the Times: Die you egg sucking pigs!

edutcher said...

Once again, it is the Gray Lady with a case of the crabs.

As Ann notes, any Leftist Justice would be serenaded with hosannas for being involved with such a thing or having such a background.

PS In light of this article and the hope one day that, even in the eyes of Leftists, a man will be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin, Happy Juneteenth

Lincolntf said...

Contemptible worms.

David said...

I live in Gullah-Geechee land. The Gullah culture has become a mushy romantic notion with tourist appeal. Among other things it's a basis for foundation support and government grants. But at its root it's a culture in which slaves and former slaves exhibited incredible tenacity and resilience living out unimaginably difficult lives. Among the values of this culture were independence, self reliance, perseverance, faith, family, dignity and very hard work. Clarence Thomas is a fine example of the worth of these values.

mesquito said...

I'm surprised the NYT went ahead with the assault after their main asset in Congress had to resign for being a total pervert.

Fred4Pres said...

But the NYT is like a religion to its editor, what does that say about this faith?

That it is a sick cult.

NYTNewYorker said...

As a matter of fact one of the first things out of Weiners mouth when his perversions erupted, were mumbled diversions about how everyone should be focused on something or other that Justice Thomas was involved with.

This story is not the opening salvo, the left has been picking around at Justice Thomas for a little while now.
I'd expect a rising crescendo as time goes by.

Carol_Herman said...

The media is RIGGED!

Weiner was taking shots at Clarence Thomas, when his underpants fell out from under him. And, caused great embarrassment to Hillary & Company.

So, now they're b-a-c-k.

I don't give a crap.

I know their arguments are SHALLOW. And, are losing steam with the public.

That there's a NYTimes attack against Clarence Thomas? They've had their kneecaps shut off.

It's actually like watching someone drowning in the SHALLOW end of the pool. Ya know? You can't dive in to save them!

And, you can't throw them life preservers, either. How so? Well, what's the good of something floating in the shallow end of the pool? First, by the way, to come to the rescue are those fast feet that can jump over the floatees.

Makes me laugh.

Kagan and Sotomayor, and Anthony Kennedy, however, make me sick.

If Ruth Bader Ginsberg "drops" off her seat, what would Obama do? What will the stinker, Orin Hatch, do?

And, what are the chances that Koh or Lui get named ... because the Supreme'Os are missing a Chinese wack job sitting up on the courts?

I have no idea.

Unknown-unknowns. To be sure.

Those Monday Morning "conferences" must be doozies. (If I was there I'd stick spoonfuls of sugar into Sotomayor's coffee!) But I'm not there.

When Obama is finished, what will the harvahd credential be worth?

nevadabob said...

"Liberals really don't like black people."

Gee, I wonder why.

virgil xenophon said...

Coulter unerringly has it right about "professional" leftists: "Demonic"

SunnyJ said...

On the left, think NYT, we have some very slow learners. Andrew Breitbart, major thorn in their side over the past few years and gaining ground is devoted to taking down the institutionalized left. (Think: academia, media/press, governance of administative rulers).

Point here, is that Andrew Breitbart was brought from the left to the right, by watching the media lynching of Clarence Thomas during confirmation hearings. It was Ted Kennedy and the institutional left's attack that inspired Breitbart to see the intellectual dishonesty that sells itself as liberal thinking. Their continued attempts to target Thomas are more fuel for the conservative flames.

Kev said...

(the other kev)

When the NYT's death became a matter of when, not if, I thought I would see that day with a sense of melancholy over a once-great paper's passing.

No more. Now I just want to piss on its fucking ashes.

Carol_Herman said...

The most interesting thing about Clarence Thomas is that he's a much better justice than Thurgood Marshall.

His judicial writings are pure. And, will stand the test of time.

Not so "forks and plastic reindeer" type justices.

You know, when souter left the court, no good word about his works remains to be seen.

If you want history to acknowledge your presence, there are a lot of justices that just fade into the woodwork, after they are gone.

Clarence Thomas has been outstanding. And, that's the best way to gain a solid reputation.

He's not going to be impeached!

While the bugger that loses an election, ahead, I'm hoping it is Orin Hatch!

Obama? He's turning into the same gift Hoover once was to FDR.

McCain? That jerk would have done you no favors!

Can Hillary Clinton & Company survive? Or could you name her horse Henry Clay?

Carol said...

Talk about taking something out of context! If a lawyer did that in a brief, opposing counsel would be all over it point out the misrepresentation to the court. Or should be.

Isn't there an equivalent check on the NYT?

Big Mike said...

Liberals like black people just fine. As long as they know their place and don't get uppity ideas about leaving the plantation. If you want to understand the reaction of the Times to Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and the Steele twins, you need to read about the antebellum South and the reaction of slaveholders when a slave jumped the plantation and headed north.

The Drill SGT said...

Normally one would expect the justice to be helping a poor friend put the squeeze on a rich stranger.

In this case, Thomas stands accused of helping a poor stranger, put the squeeze on a rich friend?

I fail to see the leverage that Thomas applied when he sent the poor stranger off to make his case...

Matthew said...

The New York Times? Isn't that the newspaper that front-paged the Vicki Iseman non-story? It's almost like vague innuendo against Republicans and conservatives is journalistically acceptable.

Chuck66 said...

If you can't win at the ballot box, you win via activist judges. If you can't win via activist judges, then you try to destroy the impartial judges to get your guy in there.

Kirby Olson said...

You go, CT.

Chuck66 said...

Remember the racism on the part of the liberals about 5 years ago? The Democrats admitted that they will oppose a nomination to a fed'l position (by Pres Bush) strictly due to the fact that said nomonie is a black (Janice Rogers Brown) or an hispanic (I forgot his name). They don't want a black or hispanic judge to be on track to the supereme court if nominated by a Republican.

Roy Lofquist said...

The NYT is a propaganda rag hiding behind some journeyman writers. It has been since the days of Walter Duranty.

Chuck66 said...

Sykes links to a facebook page/comment section where the nice union folks there call for violence against Republican-American legislators. I won't post the link. If any one is curious, go to his site. The comments towards the bottom are the worst.

damianlewis719 said...

The Time's is a partisan media outlet, and should be treated the same as Fox News.

Doug Wright said...

To very loosely paraphrase Goldhat, the NYT is saying: "Ethics? We ain't got no ethics. We don't need no ethics. We don't use any stinking ethics. We're the f&%#ing NYT!"

chr1 said...

I think Thomas Sowell saw a lot of this coming...

With Barry, you get a sense of what the world would be like with modern American liberals running it: just as much or more poverty, but more righteous people running institutions that claim to be solving it...backing into wars and being genuinely surprised (see Vancouver Hockey riot...how could this be?)...an enormous State run global warming economic structure and ponzi scheme with its high priests and increasingly thuggish rulers...the power of families to make their own decision for themselves eroded by institutions and bureaucracies...and plantations

...all while the ideals of equality and justice are piped through the loudspeakers and genuflected before by politicans doing what they always do

What's depressing is just how deep this thinking is in the American public.

It's contemptible the Times has resorted to such attcks, but at this point, not a surprise.

But that's what people do when their ideas fail against the rocks of reality, the freedom of others, its own conception of nature etc.

William said...

If investigative reporters went after Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel with the same zeal as they do for Clarence Thomas and, of course, Sarah Palin, I wonder what offenses they would uncover.

Carol_Herman said...

Ha! The New Yoke Times. There's a corporate life story in there. Given that weiner was tasked with shooting at Clarence Thomas. But he tripped over his own underpants. With photos he took of himself.

So, the New Yoke gets yanked. And, nobody notices that Jill Ambramson, sucker punched Judith Miller. And, sent her off the "rainbow." Out of the building. Through a window.

Keller's a good looking man! He's not going to lose invitations to "important" parties. Jill Ambramson's just plain ugly.

And, it seems a story short. So she goes and picks up where weiner's underpants left off.

Sometimes, what Nixon said gets proven true: "Doesn't matter what you say about me, as long as you spell my name right."

So, it didn't work for Nixon.

Worked just fine for Reagan.

And, Justice Thomas? He gets to write opinions. Probably the loosest screws on board the Monday Morning Conferences over at the Supreme-O's, was Sandra Day O'Conner. And, souter. (You know. The folk that Antonin Scalia has slapped silly.)

And, ya know what else? The New Yoke Times, and all their followers at the shallow end of the pool, are in fear of drowning!

Beats me that they're just too stupid to stand up.

Heck, I wouldn't have even known the New Yoke Times went on the attack, if you didn't go an report this, here.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

The left hates Justice Thomas for the same reason that it hates Sarah Palin: Cognitive Dissonance. The idea that they are the champions (and caretakers) of the victimized women and minorities doesn't work with the idea that there are some who reject leftism. Therefore, they will believe anything, no matter how far-fetched, to discredit them.

It sickens me.

- Lyssa

Carol_Herman said...

The New Yoke Times just wants ya to know that Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman.


Weiner's underpants are now used for printing material.

The story ain't got legs.

But that's just the point.

The SHALLOW end of the pool can drown people who ain't got no legs to stand on.


You think the Supreme Court is gonna save the asses of scoundrel politicians?

HELLO. Even though Russ Feingold says he's still fighting to win. What he says was pretty much said by Monty Python in the Holy Grail.

Bite me. Might as well just let them have their getting bitten moments. Too stupid to get to know their losses. Or they're color blind. So red ink doesn't register.

RIGGED. The only thing the lamestream does is RIG STUFF.

Heck, besides weiner's career getting turned into chopped liver; how's things going for Katie Couric?

Carol_Herman said...

How many American lawyers wouldn't LOVE to write the opinion on Obamacare?

If Roberts can get 5 votes (not including Kennedy's), he'd be a smart man to grant himself the privilege of writing that one!

If Kennedy won't move unless he's given the job of writing the opinion? It would mean Sandra Day O'Connor's antics still carry weight during Monday Morning conferences.

And, yes. Even Anthony Kennedy lusts to write the Obamacare decision. Can't fool me!

The New York Times? Well, then. They can take up arms against the Supreme-O's. But they don't have a following that would give rise to a rebellion.

While, yes, too. The heads of elites EXPLODE. If we're lucky? the exploding heads will involve Kagan and Sotomayor. Who have not yet been stung by Scalia's pen.

But it certainly would be worth the price of admission ... just to see that one!

Can we at home take stabs at writing this thing? Do words just practically dance on the page?

Does the US Constitution loom up like the rising sun?

Will the light be blinding?

AJ Lynch said...

Whose side would Reverend Sharpton and Jesse Jackson take?

Carol_Herman said...

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? No matter what position they take, they're not gonna get lots of blacks enthused over Obamacare.

More than likely the enthusiasm of 2008 has died out.

Back in 2008 there were people who believed they'd get their homes "mortgage free." And, there wasn't any bad-loop feedback.

2012 won't be the same. Even though the stupid party learned nothing by running McCain.

madAsHell said...

Wow! Carol_Herman!

Quite the rant!

Maybe you should start your own blog.

Certainly, you would never be at a loss for words, and I wouldn't have to scroll past your posts at Althouse.

vech said...

The routine comment for any NYT article should be:


They are not worth the effort to do more than that.

Kirk Parker said...

madAsHell ^10 !!!

As it is, I'm going to send Carol.Herman the bill for my carpal tunnel surgery.

pauldar said...

A couple of words comes to mind about Clarence Thomas (besides libs fav pretend word "racism")being a member of the Supreme Court


AJ Lynch said...

I LMAO whenever I imagine librul pussy journolisters wringing their hands in PC agony over this cruel, cruel world.

Phil 3:14 said...

Still not going to read the article but after seeing parts of the Stewart interview on Fox news I have to say that I agree with Stewart in his belief that the NYT is not biased in the same way that Fox (after 5 pm) is. But....

Its those ingrained sensibilities of its staff that sees a black conservative jurist and says:

something's wrong here

and then searches for evidence that fits that reflexive conviction (as I assume this article does). Its the same as seeing a hardworking, up-from-working-class roots, attractive BUT CONSERVATIVE politician as "not right" and then finding "evidence" to confirm the conviction (i.e. doesn't she talk funny)(Even to the point of asking its likewise biased readers to find out"the truth".)

That bias IMHO is much more pernicious than Fox's. Its the bias exemplified by the apocryphal Kael comment "Well nobody I know voted for him". It is both true and biased.

Pogo said...

The NYT is flailing, desperately trying to find a mote in Thomas' eye.

They are steps away from calling him a house n*gger.

Ern said...

Is it possible to find any NYT editorials from 1969 on Abe Fortas's ethical issues? My guess is that they thought that Fortas's behavior (continuing to receive $20K annually, which was probably about what a partner in a major law firm made then, as a retainer from Louis Wolfson's family foundation) was just fine.

nevadabob said...

"The New York Times? Isn't that the newspaper that front-paged the Vicki Iseman non-story?"

No, they are not a newspaper.

Liberal pamphleteer and Democrat Party house organ.

I'm surprised they don't print it on yellow construction paper.

Nate Whilk said...

The NYT is just the mainstream prong of an attack by ThinkProgress. Via another prong, Metafilter, the ThinkProgress article: Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done

Coordinated attack, anyone?

wv: kindgi

G Joubert said...

I have to say that I agree with Stewart in his belief that the NYT is not biased in the same way that Fox (after 5 pm) is.

Well, FOX News may be biased after 5:00 pm, but they make no bones, illusions, or pretenses about it. O'Reilly, Hannity, and Greta are billed as opinion shows, and everybody is on fair notice of it going in, unlike the NYT where their undeclared bias is built into everything they print, straight news or otherwise.

MayBee said...

The NYT actually sent out an email news alert to highlight this story.

Ann Althouse said...

"Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done."

That doesn't even make sense. How is a Justice "forced to resign"? A Justice resigns on his own. No one can force him. Want to force him out? Impeach him! Go ahead! Try to impeach him. It would be such ridiculous bullshit Congress would look like hell. But impeachments occur in the House, and the House is no longer in the Democrats control, so there is zero chance of what would be a ridiculous spectacle happening anyway.

Ann Althouse said...

Should the House find somebody who deserves impeachment and have a go at him? Wonder who looks impeachable?

Ann Althouse said...


Carol_Herman said...

Ann, Kagan does.

But, again, the New Yoke Times, and the whole mishigas ... are all RIGGED.

I think Breitbart nailed it.

First, the appeal to a young mind is that it's shallow. And, then, that there's nothing about the media he attacks that's anything more than a RIGGED story.

For Breitbart, he said he had his awakening back in 1992. When Clarence Thomas had to be confirmed in the Senate. (The Advice & Consent rule.) And, he got attacked by Anita Hill.

Wouldn't you know it, said Breitbart, when Bill Clinton was caught sticking cigars into an intern ... and relating how it wasn't "sex." Nobody said what Anita Hill tried to do to Clarence Thomas' reputation was a disgusting LIE.

So, the news is RIGGED.

Now, you know the GAME IS FIXED.

And, yes. 2010 showed you something about Americans. Republican governors won state houses. And, the House had democrapic seats empty. And, Pelosi had to leave the Speaker's office.

Even more oddly, Nancy Pelosi wasn't forced to resign. I guess when women lose, the political rules change?

Or, hey. The FIX is in.

But Breitbart also points out that the elites only live on the coasts. They've ignored "fly-over country" for such a long time ... they had no idea of the size of the states, and all those people, put together. You wouldn't want to have to swim it.

pbAndj said...

Clarence seems like a mooch.

I don't like it when not rich folks are getting their rich friends to give them dough. A half a mil here, for your wife's TP thing. Three, or so, mil there for some museum related to your birthplace. More dough for your library.

On and on and on and on.....

A noble not-rich wouldn't be such a leach, even though the rich friend doesn't mind. It's about integrity.

Deadbeat Justice.

Martin said...

If Ann is serious in her question, Obama should be impeached over Libya, if impeachment requires an out-and-out violation of law.

As a remedy for political misfeasance, impeaching Obama would be appropriate for oh, maybe 20 things that he and his subordinates have done, including violation of campaign finance laws to get elected, and abuses of power all over the place.

Never happen, of course, but Ann did pose the question.

pumping-irony said...

The NYT should talk about unusual friendships. Murderous totalitarian bastards like Stalin, Hilter, Castro, et al, never HAD better friends than the diverse group of jackasses at the "newspaper of record." I'd say "May the NYT burn in hell" but feces usually doesn't burn.

pbAndj said...

"would be appropriate for oh, maybe 20 things":

Mick would make that '21'.

Nutty is as nutty does.

Carol_Herman said...

Clinton was impeached in the house, because Newt Gingrich is a fool!

Not happy enough that he put his tuchis in the Speaker's Office, Newt had to bring calamity down on the democraps.

Maybe, it's the water in the water cooler? Nancy Pelosi also went berserk. And, was totally misguided.

It's probably why politics in our country never runs dry of providing comedians jokes?

But to go after Obama? the republicans in the house would have to be insane!

Besides, after the House, the Impeachment "bill" goes to the Senate. The republicans are five seats short in the senate, right now! I doubt they'd jump at an impeachment with any more enthusiasm than was shown to Bill Clinton's lying under oath.

Nixon, on the other hand, understood he faced disaster.

Obama? He's like HOOVER. He's giving the GOP a real shot at winning the pennant.

Of course, our press is RIGGED. If it wasn't RIGGED you'd get the stories from behind the scenes.

Sometimes, you just watch people overlook their own prizes. Nobody seems to be aware that they're losing the pulitzer. That their hollywood roles are worthless.

And, since Obama has no coattails, he's at least making runs for republican seats in state and federal competitions really, really worth it.

Oh, if the GOP fails? I'm banking on Sarah Palin. ONE NATION. Works for me. As does Trump. If she chooses him as her veep.

Stand back as you watch heads exploding.

Roy Lofquist said...

It's Gun Runner where the real danger to Obama lies.

I'm starting to reassess Jon Stewart.


Mark said...

I don't like it when not rich folks are getting their rich friends to give them dough.

So, you're against Welfare, right?


Not granting your "mooch" aspersion at all, but you're on really thin ice when you start worrying about the have-nots pestering the haves for money.

pbAndj said...


That's a good point.

I shouldn't have written 'Deadbeat Justice'.

At this level of moochness we're talking about a Wellfare King.

crosspatch said...

As Prof. Reynolds says, Justice Thomas probably doesn't care what the NYT thinks. The interesting thing to me, though, is that the same notion applies to an increasing portion of the American public.

I believe the influence of the NYT is fading at an increasing rate as time passes.

Nobody really cares anymore what the NYT has to say on issues because we already know in advance what they are going to say. There is nothing new, fresh, bold, or interesting in the NYT content.

Mark said...

Dude, you're reaching even for you. Show us the riches Evil Justice Thomas reaps from this insidious relationship.

Admit it, you just don't like it that Thomas insists on believing himself to be black, let alone taking pride i that background.

Carol_Herman said...

Um, the New Yoke Times fired Keller. So that Jill Abramson got his seat.

And, this schtick is the best she can do? This is vaudeville.

AJ Lynch said...

Pb and J:
You also oppose ex-presidents begging for donations to their own prez libraries?

Carol_Herman said...

"Gun Runner" does not out-do WACO.

pbAndj said...


I can honestly say that Thomas's actions remind me of the worst supposed characteristics of libs.

Folks contact him looking of dough related to his birthplace, so he connects them w/ his pal: Threeish, possibly plenty more, million bucks.

His wife needs dough, so it's time to call the dough boy: at least a half a million.

Need a library: where's sugar dad's number?

I realize that pols beg for money both while in office and afterwards. Presumably this dough is paying to support/reward preferred political outcomes. I don't think that's your best defense for Thomas.

Thomas is hitting up a friend who (supposedly) doesn't equate these situations w/ partisanship.


kcom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kcom said...

"The New York Times? Isn't that the newspaper that front-paged the Vicki Iseman non-story?"

I'm sure if they dig deep enough the New York Times will find that Clarence Thomas is the one who introduced Vicki Iseman to John McCain. The man is a source of endless sin. He is also known to kill a puppy every time he's in the minority on a court ruling. Bad, bad, Clarence.

What would we do without the New York Times? Well we wouldn't miss out on story after story they have no interest in - even the true ones.

Mike said...

I''ve been reading the comments on Think Progress. Those boys (and girls) are stuffed full of more nonsense than the Christmas Goose.

Mark said...

pbAndj, projection isn't just something that happens in movie theaters.

Seriously, show me how the Thomas' are financially benefiting from this. The New York Times couldn't, and I'd bet a lot of quatloos that they tried really hard to do so.

It's a smear job.

Blue@9 said...


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You do realize that that's how every non-profit gets funding? "Oh, you need to raise money to save the dolphins? Let me get you in touch with Joe Moneybags--his wife loves dolphins!"

You're just twisting about trying to find ridiculous shit to criticize. I hate that non-rich people have rich friends. Don't they know about the class war??!

pbAndj said...

He's not raising money for whales.

He's hitting up his pal for his pet project, his library, and household's bank account (via payments to his wife).

In return for funding Clarencepalooza Crow gets nothing. Unlike his political donations, his Thomas investment is unrelated to partisanship. It'd (almost) be better if Thomas was influenced to promote the interests of the rich and powerful, as some sort of payback for Crow's bottomless checkbook.

Thomas doesn't make big dough, he uses his pal's money.


Gary Rosen said...

" we're talking about a Wellfare King"

Of course pbAndj isn't racist. You can't be if you're a lib, right?

Mark said...

Sure pb. It all makes sense now.

cokaygne said...

Doesn't look good to me, but I'm not an expert. Whatever, it does not require that he recuse himself on Obamacare.

That's what stinks about it. One could probably find stuff like this about everyone in our ruling class. It is obvious that they single out Thomas because he is a conservative African American, which, like Palin, drives them crazy. Now the stakes are higher because they need to fix the court for Obamacare.

Once upon a time I subscribed to the NYT. Used to love getting out early on Sunday morn to pick up that big fat pile of newsprint to enjoy with my coffee and breakfast. Then I used to read it free every day on the web. Then they put up the wall and I tried to ration my allotment and find ways around it. Now, I just don't give a shit.

The NYT is finished. What you see is the corpse bouncing on the rubble during an aftershock.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"The NYT goes after Clarence Thomas over "an unusual, and ethically sensitive, friendship."

Substitute 'Clarence Thomas' with 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg' and then, THEN you'd really have a story worth reading.

NYT going after a conservative?

Yawn. Boilerplate.

JohnBoy said...

God - I love the conservative blogosphere. Before, say, 2000, there was no effective way for the conservative MAJORITY to push back on hackery like this.

Way to go, Ann.

Question - what do you think of Kagan's role as Solicitor General? Why doesn't that DQ her?

dave in boca said...

The NYT talks loftily about ethics while Jeffrey Toobin writes an article in The New Yorker about SCOTUS judge Stephen Breyer who informs Toobin that he works to promote Obama's agenda?


This is indeed preparing for the downfall of ObamaCare on a 5/4 split, and I'm happy Clarence Thomas doesn't give a rat's a$$ about what the NYT says or thinks. Or the New Yorker. They both represent a RAPIDLY SHRINKING MINORITY of Americans even though their Hollyweird and Academicide annexes are still yammering full throttle.

roesch-voltaire said...

Yes ethical concerns over raising money, un-reported flights, support for spouses from conservative think tanks are nothing to be concerned about in the New Oder as our moral compass blows in the ideological wind.

Lance said...

This is exactly like the Senate Ethics Committee going after Sen. Coburn a few years ago because he was donating his time to a free hospital clinic. According to the Democrat-run ethics committee, this was a "conflict of interest."

Lance said...

support for spouses from conservative think tanks

Really? Your ethics meter goes berserk because Virginia Thomas hangs out with the gang at AEI and Heritage? You might wanna get that thing calibrated.

Steve Stein said...

Ern said...
Is it possible to find any NYT editorials from 1969 on Abe Fortas's ethical issues? My guess is that they thought that Fortas's behavior was just fine.


The New York Times; May 16, 1969; Editorial:
"The decision of Justice Fortas to resign from the Supreme Court was in the best interests of the Court, the country and Mr. Fortas himself. By departing voluntarily, he has bowed to the iron rule that a judge must be beyond suspicion and he has thus helped preserve the reputation for integrity of the nation's highest court, which his own actions had so severely shaken."

Orinoco said...

So if you were wondering who picked up the ball that Congressman Weiner dropped when he became more occupied with other things, look no further. Its the NYT.

chanel said...

I’m pleased for this beneficial excellent page; this is a form of subject that sustains me although out the day.We’ve normally heard been lately wanting near to in your web-site right immediately afterMicrosoft Visio Standard 2010

zenwick said...

This article and most of the comments must be from brown-eyed people, because you're full of crap up to your eyeballs. Explain why else Harlan Crow would want to fund a museum in Pi Point GA, other than as part of a corrupt quid-pro-quo relationship with a Supreme Court justice.

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com

Stiv said...

I was interested know about it lesbian bondag

Stiv said...

I was interested know about it.
I think the left is evil that way. Clarence Thomas has done nothing wrong or unethical.
water bondage

Jane said...

I really liked your article. Keep up the good work.I love bondage sex

Stiv said...

lesbian wrestling video

sologake said...

Thank you for sharing this help full information with us ...
Vertical Jump Bible

kuntsh said...

The Great Opportunity to Earn $3000 per Month, Everything GDI Right Here! Global Domains International Tips to build a successful GDI ws MLM business for long term residual income Wealthy Forever

Khuram said...

Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is great blog. An excellent read. I’ll certainly be back.

spinre writer