Brent Budowsky: Clarence Thomas Should Recuse Himself

[Caro]

From The Hill’s Pundits Blog:

Clarence Thomas Takes the Low Road, and Should Recuse Himself from Key Cases

Brent Budowsky

The new term has begun for a bitterly divided court in a dangerously divided nation, and the most visible event was a Supreme Court justice using the court’s return as a book promotion to remind the world of his enemies, demons, biases and vendettas.

This is extraordinary and unprecedented.

Justice Clarence Thomas should now recuse himself from any cases involving any litigants who opposed his confirmation, because his attacks on them destroy any pretense of judicial impartiality. This is a man with a chip on his shoulder, axes to grind and scores to settle.

There is no need to re-litigate the issues surrounding his confirmation, our opinions of his tenure on the court or his various commentaries on divisive political and social issues. Perhaps Justice Thomas would feel more comfortable leaving the Supreme Court and running for public office — or hosting a conservative radio talk show.

The bottom line is this: The essence of the highest court in the land is the appearance and reality of judicial impartiality, with justices who stand for judicial temperament, fairness and respect for the law without using the forum of the court to settle scores with enemies or demonize those with whom they disagree.

There will be litigants with cases before the court who opposed Thomas’s confirmation, and because Justice Thomas cannot control his urge to attack them while he sits in judgment of them, he should recuse himself from cases involving any of them.

Budowsky serves on the Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit and is a contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service. He handled intelligence issues for Sen. Lloyd Bentsen when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was originally passed, and was legislative director to Bill Alexander, then the chief deputy whip of the House. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog and reached at [e-mail].

Click the title, above, to post a comment that may be read by your congressman and senators!

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

The excerpt above is posted with the full knowledge and permission, even encouragement, of the author, who wants his essays to be read by as many people as possible.

[TahitiNut]

1. Judicial temperament? None. 'Conservative' compassion? Zero. Christian cheek-turning? Zip.

Hypocrisy? Overwhelming. Small-mindedness? Ubetcha. Antipathy? Huge.

Disgusting and despicable sleaze-bag.

[rodeodance]

2. thanks. He was full of anger-in his interview on 60 min.

[FogerRox]

3. CT should resign.

[baldguy]

4. An honorable man would.

Don't hold your breath.

[Richard Steele]

5. Thomas is clearly not fit for the job. But we all knew that. nm

[Jax]

6. I saw his wife whining that Anita Hill owed them a public apology

Fuck that.

They are self serving right wing thugs.

Alyce

[LiberalHeart]

7. He seems to hate white people -- except, maybe, his wife.

[Mojorabbit]

8. The comments

section at this blog could really use some action.

[gtar100]

9. When a republican sets aside personal interest to do the right thing...

Justice Clarence Thomas should now recuse himself from any cases involving any litigants who opposed his confirmation...

It's a good thing Brent is speaking out what needs to be said. But I don't believe that Clarence has the maturity to set aside his personal interests to do what's so obviously right and correct.

Why do these kind of people keep rising to positions of power? He is so wrong for the position he holds. With such brilliant litigators in our society (and I mean that sincerely), why do we end up with such bozos on the bench?

Can he be forced to recuse himself for conflict of interest?