SCOTUS and conflicts of interest

With the definite shift to the right of the Roberts Supreme Court (of the U.S. = SCOTUS), there is revived interest in questions of conflict of interest, heightened by the fact that newly appointed Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from nearly half of the new cases to be heard this term because of her connection to them as Solicitor General.

But it revives interest in the noted case of Antonin Scalia, who several years ago refused to recuse himself from a case involving Dick Cheney and his non-disclosure of those attending his meetings on energy policy (everyone knew it was predominantly oil company executives). Why did some think he should recuse? He had gone duck hunting with Cheney just weeks before the case was heard and had accepted a free ride with Cheney on his VP plane. Cheney was clearly the object of the suit and the defendant in the case.

This case publicized the fact that there is no appeal and no process to challenge a justice's decision not to recuse himself. It is simply left up to the individual justice, not even subject to formal review or consultation with other justices. Scalia, of course, famously delights in defying conventional wisdom and claiming that, of course, he exercises objective applications of the law without any influence.

Now comes another troubling case, this one involving Clarence Thomas because of his wife's political activism. She heads a non-profit 501(c)(4) group called Liberty Central which she characterizes as dedicated to opposing the leftist "tyranny" of President Obama and the Democratic Congress and to protecting the "core founding principles" of our nation. She claims that Liberty Central is going to become bigger than the Tea Party. Read between the lines, and it sounds like she has ideas of a third party, or perhaps replacing the Republican party.

Her husband's recent vote -- creating the 5-4 majority -- in the SCOTUS decision, that allows practically unlimited campaign contributions from groups such as Liberty Central without disclosing the donor-sources, certainly raises serious questions about conflict of interest, given that his wife is the founder and is paid for her work as the head of Liberty Central. And under the new rules its donors do not have to be disclosed. Not only did he help create this situation that benefits his wife's organization, but there is no way for the public to know if some of the major donors to her organization -- and therefore to her salary -- may be principles in suits that come before the court.

It would be naive to suggest that Clarence Thomas voted for Citizens United only to benefit his wife's political activism. But the standard for recusal is not how the person would have voted otherwise but whether there is the possibility and the appearance of conflict of interests.

Clearly there is the possibility -- and Clarence Thomas is not someone who is likely to have the view of himself as being inevitably unconsciously influenced; he would say that of course he divorces his judicial thinking from subjective influences, as does Scalia. That doesn't make it so, for those of us who believe in unconscious motivation.

Such certainty of one's own objectivity should always be suspect, in my opinion. In fact, I would go further and say that it is the unacknowledged subjectivity that is more likely to be influential than the acknowledged subjectivity, because if you are unaware of your own subjectivity you will be influenced without thinking that you are; whereas, if you acknowledge it, you can more easily control its influence by rational and conscious intention.

It stinks to high heaven, it does. Just as Thomas' vote in the 5-4 decision gave the presidency to George W. Bush, while his wife was already working behind the scenes to help select Bush White House appointees while Gore v Bush was being heard by her husband.

Liberal Kagan bends over backwards to avoid conflict of interest; arch-conservatives Scalia and Thomas flout and flaunt their freedom to refuse to recuse, even when it seems obvious and necessary to other observers.

Ralph

Family values, indeed

Admittedly, the poll was conducted by the liberal-leaning pollster, Public Policy Polling, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. The questions and the answers for all voters:

1. Do you support building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero?

Favor: 32% Opposed: 55%

2. Do you support building a strip club two blocks from Ground Zero?
Favor: 28% Opposed: 54%

But the breakdown in voter identification is interesting:

Republicans: 4% favor the mosque; 21% favor a strip club

Democrats: 49% favor the mosque; 33% favor a strip club

Independents: 34% favor the mosque; 28% favor a strip club

Republicans - the party that trumpets "family values" would rather have a strip club than a mosque. True, they would rather have neither, along with everyone else.

But the most striking difference is in the 4% of Republicans vs 49% of Democrats who favor building a mosque.

Ralph

Moving on

I am now officially old.

As of this morning, I am the possessor of a permanent handicap parking pass. After months of back pain, physical therapy, epidural and facet joint cortisone injections, and still finding it painful to stand or walk any distance, I asked my doctor for an authorization for handicap parking. I had in mind the 6 month temporary permit that I had following my back surgery four years ago. I plan to get better, see. But he said, "Sure, and I'll make it permanent."

Even at 77, and on the eve of my 60th high school class reunion this weekend, I haven't quite accepted the obvious "old man" image until now. I've come close lately, especially when I walk past a storefront and catch a sideways glimpse of myself in the reflective glass and see this creature with a cane and hunched shoulders and bent-forward posture. People have begun to open doors for me; order-takers at fast food restaurants ask if I need help with my tray.

Anyway, it's not so easy to get this prized blue tag that hangs from your rear view mirror. This particular doctor has an office in Johns Creek (about 20 miles). He filled out the form and said, "you'll have to get this notarized." OK, I get my signature notarized at my local bank branch all the time. Only after I left did I realize: it's his signature that has to be notarized, not mine. How do you do that at the bank?

Well, my administrative assistant at Emory is a notary, and as I left yesterday and told her I was going to ask my doctor for a handicap parking permit, she -- having had experience with such -- said, "I'll be happy to notarize it for you." So I drove from Johns Creek to Emory (another 25 miles), got the form notarized, then drove back past my home in Sandy Springs and half-way to Roswell to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Parked as close to the building as I could find a place (they also give drivers' licenses there, so it was crowded). Gazed enviously at the handicap parking spaces that I would soon be eligible for. Turns out they had moved the office to the other side of the building -- which I had just walked past, begrudging every step. So now I had to retrace those painful steps almost back to where my car was parked.

Finally, in the correct office, I was able to sit down while waiting -- and within a relatively short time, for a government service office, I walked out clutching my cane in one hand and my cherished blue hang-tag in the other.

Now, I am officially old.

Ralph

Bishop Eddie Long #3

"S. C. church plans protest against Long." Subtitle: "Pastor calls accused New Birth Missionary bishop a 'bad influence.'

Thus read a headline in today's AJC -- a hopeful sign, I thought, of some break in the apparent whitewash Bishop Long and his megachurch are constructing. I though, maybe, that the conversation among black churches was shifting from homosexuality to the whole concept of the "prosperity ministry." And the bling-bling bishop was going to get his come-uppance from the true followers of Jesus.

Wrong. Bishop Prophet H. Walker of True Light Pentacost Church in Spartanburg, S.C. has decided "to speak out" because his church is opposed to homosexuality. He says "A pastor should be above reproach."

Solidarity, yes, but it is the solid opposition of the black middle class churches against homosexuality. Otherwise liberal on social issues, and definitely opposed to discrimination on the basis of race, they are nevertheless rather reliably anti-gay. And Eddie Long is among the most virulently anti-gay.

So, Long's reputation is ruined for them, not because his religion seems based on greed and empowerment, rather than love and humility, but because he is (presumably) gay, or at least engaged in sex with young men.

It's been a bad week, what with the teen suicides of gay youth. Sometimes it's hard to remember that the changing attitudes in the country are steadily marching toward more and more acceptance.

Sometimes, it just feels so hard to wait.

Ralph

Respect for Hillary

I admit that, much as I like Bill Clinton and think he's the most talented politician in generations (even though flawed in his zipper control), I never really much warmed up to Hillary. She was an OK first lady, and she advanced the idea that a smart, tough woman could make it in the man's world of top level politics.

However, I liked her less and less during the campaign against Obama, and I liked even less her choices in those who ran her campaign and influenced her decisions. And I thought it's not a good sign when a candidate makes bad choices like that.

But, since she accepted Obama's invitiation (and his apparent strong encouragement) to be his Secretary of State, I have gained tremendous respect for her. That was only enhanced by two news blurbs today: one was her response to the rumors started by Bob Woodward that she and Biden will swap places for the 2012 election, with her as VP and him as SoS; the other was her answering a question about agreeing to join Obama's cabinet. From HuffingtonPost:

She also told the story how President Obama called her to Chicago to ask her to be his Secretary of State, calling it "one of the hardest professional decisions I've ever made."

"It worked out well," Clinton told her audience. "We have a wonderful working relationship" she said, acknowledging that there was a lot of chatter about whether the two would would be able to work together.

Clinton says it's proven to be a valuable lesson that she hopes to impart to other world leaders.

"I say look I spent a year and a half trying to win and to beat President Obama. I was not successful. It was a really hard-fought campaign, our supporters said a lot of nasty things about each of us... But at the end of the day when the president asked me to serve with him and for our country I agreed to do that because we both love our country. And it's fascinating how so many political leaders and media leaders in these various countries look so surprised. And I really force them to think about what it takes to overcome the back and forth..."

Personally, I would now be happy with her as VP -- and perhaps as President in 2016. But the current arrangement is also just fine -- probably the least of the things Obama needs to worry about right now. Bob Woodward is trying to whomp up some news to help sell his new book.

Ralph