Clarence Thomas’s house appears to be out of order

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Copy Link

  Link Copied

I don’t know what’s happened between Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas. But he must have really pissed her off. That’s the only explanation for bringing so much unwanted and unnecessary attention to the Supreme Court Justice.

Either that or she’s nuttier than the craziest members in her Tea Party organization. Liberty Central purports to “restore the greatness of America” and oppose the “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress.

When she founded Liberty Central and became its chief executive, Virginia Thomas dropped a mess of ethical issues on her husband’s lap. But by calling Anita Hill and dredging up a sexual harassment case that transfixed the nation nearly 20 years ago, Virginia Thomas shoved a pile of old mess back in her husband’s face.

Altogether now: “What was she thinking?!”

How in the world did she conclude that dialing Hill’s number and leaving that voicemail would be a good thing for the Thomas household? It’s bad enough that her political activism — though legal — has linked her husband to the Tea Party. Now she’s brought to remembrance the one name that Justice Thomas wishes we’d all forget.

In fact, we pretty much had forgotten about Anita Hill. But it’s coming back to us: the Coca-Cola and the pubic hair “high-tech lynching” assertion…everything. And it does Justice Thomas no favors, because many folks always believed that Hill was telling the truth during the Senate confirmation hearing in October 1991. If she was, that means there’s at least one bald-faced liar on the Supreme Court.

I guess Virginia Thomas believes her husband’s side of the story. But she should’ve known her phone call would only bring his credibility back into question when he can least afford it. Liberty Central pays her — thereby contributing to Justice Thomas’ financial well-being — and it has received contributions of $500,000 and $50,000 from undisclosed donors. Even if the organization didn’t pay her, Justice Thomas would still be in troubled ethical waters. Without knowing the donors’ identities, he runs the risk of judging cases in which they’re a party or have interest in a party.

It’s no secret that Justice Thomas is a conservative who gives that bloc on the Supreme Court a 5-4 majority. But based on his wife’s activities, a reasonable person can question his impartiality on certain matters, say, the Citizens United case that gave corporations an unlimited right to spend money in politics. Or the health care law winding its way to the Supreme Court.

Justice Thomas can claim “ignorance” all he wants, reasoning that he can’t possibly be biased if he doesn’t know who’s donating. But that defense doesn’t pass the Supreme Court’s impartiality standard, which says the perception of bias is as bad as actual bias. Former Justice John Paul Stevens once wrote for the court, “The very purpose” of the impartiality standard “is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.” Federal law states that judges may disqualify themselves from cases in which their impartiality “might be reasonably questioned.”

Would it be reasonable to question Justice Thomas’ neutrality on “Obama-care,” when Liberty Central and other Tea Party groups consider the new health care law as “tyranny?” Is it reasonable to wonder about Justice Thomas’ even-handedness on cases involving unlimited, anonymous donors to political groups such as Liberty Central?

But that might not be the worst of it.

Yes, by calling Hill, Virginia Thomas brought her husband’s credibility back into play, which subsequently re-ignited suspicions about his impartiality. But she also unwittingly brought his judgment into question:

“How can we trust a man who chose her for his wife?

In the voicemail to Hill, Virginia Thomas said “I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.” She explained the call in a statement, saying she was “extending an olive branch after all these years in hopes that we could ultimately get passed (sic) what happened so long ago.”

So her idea of making peace was to call Hill a liar. That’s essentially what she did by asking for an apology. We can only pray that Justice Thomas never takes advice from his spouse.

She’s caused him enough damage already.