The Ny (Traitor/Slime) Times:

“RICHMOND, Va. — As one of the keynote speakers here Friday at a state convention billed as the largest Tea Party event ever, Virginia Thomas gave the throng of more than 2,000 activists a full-throated call to arms for conservative principles.

For three decades, Mrs. Thomas has been a familiar figure among conservative activists in Washington — since before she met her husband of 23 years, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court. But this year she has emerged in her most politically prominent role yet: Mrs. Thomas is the founder and head of a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central, dedicated to opposing what she characterizes as the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and to “protecting the core founding principles” of the nation.

It is the most partisan role ever for a spouse of a justice on the nation’s highest court, and Mrs. Thomas is just getting started. “Liberty Central will be bigger than the Tea Party movement,” she told Fox News in April, at a Tea Party rally in Atlanta.

But to some people who study judicial ethics, Mrs. Thomas’s activism is raising knotty questions, in particular about her acceptance of large, unidentified contributions for Liberty Central. She began the group in late 2009 with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000, and because it is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, named for the applicable section of the federal tax code, she does not have to publicly disclose any contributors. Such tax-exempt groups are supposed to make sure that less than half of their activities are political.

Mrs. Thomas, known as Ginni, declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed without an agreement not to discuss her husband. In written responses to questions, Sarah Field, Liberty Central’s chief operating officer and general counsel, said that Mrs. Thomas is paid by Liberty Central, with the compensation set by the group’s board, and that the group has “internal reviews and protections to ensure that no donor causes a conflict of interest for either Ginni or her husband.”

Of course there is no ethical delima at all here. Justice Thomas’s wife lives in a free country and as such is free to voice her views and to join any group she wishes. Of course none of this shows direct involvement of Justice Thomas.

However the Times fails to mention the direct activism of Justices Ginsberg. Via Discover the Networks:

“After Democrats had won control of Congress in the November 2006 mid-term elections, Ginsburg opined that the relationship between lawmakers and judges was generally better when Congress was in Democratic hands. At a 2007 judges’ conference on judicial independence, she said, “Particularly since the 2006 election, I am pleased to relate, rapport between Congress and the federal courts has markedly improved.”

In 2007 Ginsburg dissented in the Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Writing about the case, Ginsburg stated: “Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation.’ Their ability to realize this full potential, the Court recognized, is ultimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’”

In 1977 Ginsburg and feminist Brenda Feigen-Fasteau co-authored a report titled Sex Bias in the U.S. Code for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Identifying an array of federal laws that allegedly discriminated on account of sex, the report advocated the ratification of the then-pending Equal Rights Amendment. In this publication, Ginsburg:

called for the sex-integration of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, due to her belief that these organizations “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles”

called for sex-integration in “college fraternity and sorority chapters,” and for replacing them with “college social societies”

called for sex-integration in prisons, because “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.”

reasoned that laws against prostitution were unconstitutional because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions”

urged readers to reject the notion that men should be regarded as “breadwinners,” and women as “homemakers”

called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old”

stressed a need for “a comprehensive program of government-supported child care”

called for the abolition of words with sexist connotations, including: “man,” “woman,” “manmade,” “mankind,” “husband,” “wife,” “mother,” and “father”

claimed that laws against bigamy were unconstitutional.”

Ginsberg indeed speaks frequently to left wing organizations and groups. She is worth an estimated $50 million dollars as well and gives notably to left leaning causes.

Justice Clarence Thomas
Supreme Court