But, the LA Times'
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.
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."