TP v. Clarence Thomas, Pt 3

Think Progress continues its assault against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  Ian Millhiser provides his latest installment of distortions and lies suggesting that Justice Thomas should be removed from the Court. This time he conducts an interview with Rep. Chris Murphy D, CT.  It's clear that Murphy has been briefed on Think Progress' views and the articles that Millhiser has written, so we get to see Think Progress' echo chamber in action.  Recall from earlier posts that this began with a lame and in-substantive article in the NYT.  Now TP has gotten one of the most liberal Congressmen to propose a bill that (according to Murphy's website):

Murphy's bill will:

• apply the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct, which applies to all other federal judges, to Supreme Court justices.  This would allow the public to access more timely and detailed information when an outside group wants to have a justice participate in a conference, such as the funders of the conference;

• require the justices to simply publicly disclose their reasoning behind a recusal when they withdraw from a case;

• require the Court to develop a process for parties to a case before the Court to request a decision from the Court, or a panel of the Court, regarding the potential conflict of interest of a particular Justice.

  This bill is fraught with problems, beginning with the separation of powers.  One might think that there would need to be a Constitutional amendment to bind the Supreme Court this way, especially if one were a lawyer...like Rep. Murphy.  But liberals hate constitutional amendments because they are too hard to accomplish, and they allow the states to make decisions.  Liberals prefer to ram things through the legislative process.

Murphy is simply dancing to Soros' tune here, and promoting the issue near and dear to the liberal cause: undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court as the Obamacare cases get closer.  Notice that the timeline that Millhiser and his drones look to dates back over a decade, and yet just now is this issue being brought up.  It's pathetic.

As I have stated in the previous posts on this topic, until someone can establish that Justice Thomas has issued decisions that are clear departures from his usual viewpoint with connection to these cases, no one can reasonably believe that Justice Thomas is unethical.  This is nothing short of a witch-hunt.

I should also note that Rep. Murphy is also working to raise his profile among democrats; he has announced that he will seek Sen. Lieberman's (who is retiring) seat in 2012.  People in CT should be aware that Murphy worked for Chris Dodd and holds Dodd in high esteem.  I pray that my friends in the Constitution State do not repeat their previous mistakes and send this guy to the Senate.