Oh, So That's Why DOJ Isn't Going After Pro-Terrorism Agitators
The UN Endorses a Second Terrorist State for Iran
Biden Administration Hurls Israel Under the Bus Again
Israeli Ambassador Shreds the U.N. Charter in Powerful Speech Before Vote to Grant...
New Report Details How Dems Are Planning to Minimize Risk of Pro-Hamas Disruptions...
The Long Haul of Love
Here's Where Speaker Mike Johnson Stands on Abortion
Trump Addresses the Very Real Chance of Him Going to Jail
Yes, Jen Psaki Really Said This About Biden Cutting Off Weapons Supply to...
3,000 Fulton County Ballots Were Scanned Twice During the 2020 Election Recount
Joe Biden's Weapons 'Pause' Will Get More Israeli Soldiers, Civilians Killed
Left-Wing Mayor Hires Drag Queen to Spearhead 'Transgender Initiatives'
NewsNation Border Patrol Ride Along Sees Arrest of Illegal Immigrants in Illustration of...
One State Just Cut Off Funding for Planned Parenthood
Vulnerable Democratic Senators Refuse to Support Commonsense Pro-Life Bill
Tipsheet

SCOTUS Spouse Under Fire From the Left for Having Brain, Using It

"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," Vriginia Thomas, a tea party organizer, recently noted during a panel discussion in Washington. Thomas describes her role in the tea party movement as just one of many energized into action by President Obama's "hard-left agenda."
Advertisement


But, the LA Times' Thomas is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Hennessey points out, as if Ms. Thomas' marital status should inhibit her ability to think freely for herself.  Instead, Hennessey claims that Ginni Thomas' involvement in the tea party movement "could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court."

Why?  How is Ms. Thomas' involvement in the tea party movement even newsworthy, let alone warranting a media hitjob?  Ms. Thomas has her own career seperate of her husband, working with the non-profit group Liberty Central Inc., a group she founded herself.

In addition, HuffPo picked up the Times' story and ran with it, explaining the "interesting conflict of interest facing Justice Clarence Thomas."

I'm not sure what's worse: suggesting limiting a person's individual rights to do/say whatever they want simply because of who they're married to, or implying that a Supreme Court Justice doesn't have the will to think for himself. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement