Family Ties at the Supreme Court by Linda Greenhouse
Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2019, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Do the political activities of Justice Clarence Thomass wife cross a line?
'Let Ginni be Ginni.
That was my first thought upon seeing the headline in The Times this past weekend: Trump Meets With Hard-Right Group Led by Ginni Thomas. Ginni Thomas or Virginia Lamp, as I knew her years ago when she was a smart lawyer-lobbyist working for the United States Chamber of Commerce against passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act is married to the Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.
These days, she is also an activist on the far-right fringe of the Republican Party. In recent months, she has denounced the student survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting who are campaigning for gun control as dangerous to the survival of our nation (in a later deleted Facebook post). In a speech bestowing an award on Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality, she warned fellow conservatives against being complicit as the left moves its forces across the country. According to the Times account of last weeks White House meeting, to which she brought fellow members of a group called Groundswell, the topics discussed included why women and transgender people should not be permitted to serve in the military and how same-sex marriage is damaging the country.
It hardly needs saying that modern families are complicated. A few administrations ago, it was tempting to conclude that presidential siblings had an unusual proclivity for getting into embarrassing scrapes. The day when wives of powerful men were expected to do little more than serve tea and look decorative has, thankfully, passed. We have our separate professional lives, Ms. Thomas said during the 2000 presidential election stalemate, when asked about her work for the Heritage Foundation compiling résumés for a potential Bush administration while the Supreme Court was deciding the outcome of the election. (She said her effort was bipartisan.)
But while my feminist sensibilities make me wary of suggesting that Ginni Thomas should not be completely free to embrace her causes and live her life, theres something troublesome about the unbounded nature of her public advocacy, at least for those of us who still care about the Supreme Court. Its hard to think of a more delicate moment for the court, pressed at every turn by an administration that seems to regard it as a wholly owned subsidiary of the White House and that has driven the normally reticent chief justice to declare, We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges. Chief Justice John Roberts did not say justices. He didnt have to. The question now is whether his colleagues on the bench his own and all the others will show him to be right, or sadly naïve.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/opinion/supreme-court-ginni-thomas.html?
gibraltar72
(7,506 posts)The college who knows what to do with an inconvenient woman.