Common Cause Asks Court About Thomas Speech

[groovedaddy]

WASHINGTON — Discrepancies in reports about an appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas at a political retreat for wealthy conservatives three years ago have prompted new questions to the Supreme Court from a group that advocates changing campaign finance laws.

In his financial disclosure report for that year, however, Justice Thomas reported that the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative legal group, had reimbursed him an undisclosed amount for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat. The event is organized by Charles and David Koch, brothers who have used millions of dollars from the energy conglomerate they run in Wichita, Kan., to finance conservative causes.

Arn Pearson, a vice president at the advocacy group Common Cause, said the two statements appeared at odds. His group sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday asking for “further clarification” as to whether the justice spent four days at the retreat for the entire event or was there only briefly.

“I don’t think the explanation they’ve given is credible,” Mr. Pearson said in an interview. He said that if Justice Thomas’s visit was a “four-day, all-expenses paid trip in sunny Palm Springs,” it should have been reported as a gift under federal law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23

[grasswire]

1. can a court decision be invalidated if there was found to be bias?

Hmmm.

[FBaggins]

2. Who would "find" that bias?

IOW, "not really".

In practice, recussal of a USSC justice is voluntary (though it can now be reviewed by the rest of the court). For instance, in Marbury vs. Madison, two justices recused themselves, but not the chief justice... even though he had a direct conflict of interest.

These claims serve more political value (in tainting Thomas' reputation) than they serve any real legal value.