> >

Media Coverage

Print Coverage:

Concurring Opinions, The Chief Strikes Out, Sherrilyn Ifill, 01/04/2012: In a guest post, Prof. Ifill analyzes Chief Justice Roberts’s annual report on the judiciary and its lengthy discussion of ethics and recusal. She explains why Chief Justice Roberts is mistaken in expecting litigants and the public to rely on his assurances alone, that fellow justices are behaving ethically.
Eugene Register-Guard, A question of recusal: Nation’s highest court needs a formal policy, Editorial, 01/04/2012: In light of Chief Justice Roberts’s yearly report on the judiciary, and its focus on ethics issues, this editorial urges the Supreme Court to adopt some sort of clear recusal policy.
USA Today, Chief Justice defends Supreme Court’s recusal policy, Joan Biskupic, 01/04/2012: Chief Justice Roberts, in the yearly report on the judiciary, defends the recusal policy of the Supreme Court and voices support for his colleagues’ ability to decide whether to sit for cases.
The Hill’s pundits blog, Judging judges’ ethics, Ronald Goldfarb, 01/03/2012: In this blog post, the author suggests that permitting a rotating panel of the Judicial Conference to decide recusal disputes would maintain the independence of the judiciary, yet still not permit any person to be the judge in his/her own case of recusal.
Los Angeles Times, Supreme Court: The Recusal Question, Editorial, 01/03/2012: This editorial, after summarizing Chief Justice Roberts’s statements on judicial ethics in his year-end report on the judiciary, stresses the importance of justices explaining why they recuse or fail to recuse when asked by parties.
Los Angeles Times, Chief Justice Roberts says high court not exempt from ethics rules, David Savage, 12/31/2011: Although Chief Justice Roberts, in the yearly report on the judiciary, states that justices of the Supreme Court are not “exempt” from the federal statute governing recusal, he does say that the justices themselves are the proper arbiters of their own recusal decisions.
New York Times, Chief Justice Defends Peers’ Hearing Case on Health Law, Adam Liptak, 12/31/2011: Chief Justice Roberts, without mentioning Justices Thomas and Kagan by name, expressed confidence in their ability to make recusal decisions, in Roberts’s year-end report on the judiciary.
Washington Post, Roberts defends Supreme Court colleagues on recusal issue, Robert Barnes, 12/31/2011: In response to growing calls for Justices Thomas and Kagan to recuse from consideration of the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, and to increasing rumblings from Capitol Hill on adopting stricter ethics guidelines for all justices, Chief Justice Roberts, in his yearly report on the judiciary, affirmed that the Supreme Court follows the ethics rules that apply to all judges, but said that recusal decisions should be left with the individual justices alone.
Newsday, Court Needs Rules on Conflicts, Editorial, 12/19/2011: This editorial argues that in order to “keep its credibility impeccable,” it is time for the Supreme Court to establish recusal guidelines and to require justices to issue a written public explanation when they decide not to recuse themselves from a case where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Huffington Post, Clarence Thomas Assailed For Alleged Ethical Lapses By More House Dems, by Mike Sacks, 11/19/2011: Citing new evidence, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), joined by 51 House Democrats, continues to press the Judicial Conference to call for investigations into Justice Thomas’s non-compliance with federal financial disclosure requirements.
Slate, Musing About Recusing: Why calls for Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamacare case are ridiculous, by Dahlia Lithwick, 11/16/11: Strongly advocating for the need of the public to have confidence in an unbiased Court, Lithwick draws a clear distinction between a lawyer doing her job before joining the bench and sitting justices carelessly acting in ways that compromise the perception of their impartiality.
Forbes, Scalia And Thomas Party With Obamacare Challengers On Day Court Takes Up Case, by Rick Ungar, 11/15/11: Forbes' Rick Ungar makes a strong case for the need for an appearance of impartiality by Supreme Court justices and talks about how the time has come for the Court to voluntarily adopt the Code of Conduct.
NPR, The Nation: Clarence Thomas Vs. Legal Ethics, by George Zornick, 11/15/11: As the Supreme Court announces which challenges to the health care law cases it will hear, questions about whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself due to his wife’s working for organizations seeking to overturn the law continue to arise.
L.A. Times, Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case, by James Oliphant, 11/14/11: After spending the day considering which of the health care law challenges to accept, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are honored at an evening event sponsored by law firms that opposed the law and will argue the case.
New York Times Blog, Op-Ed., Step Right Up. Buy Dinner With a Justice, by Andrew Rosenthal, 11/10/11: Giving rise to a perception of bias by using the names of federal judges to promote an apparent fundraising dinner for an organization, honoring them as part of that function, and having them speak is forbidden for all but nine federal judges—the justices of the Supreme Court, who are not required to abide by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
Yahoo! News, Democrats mobilize over Clarence Thomas ethics investigation, by Rachel Rose Hartman, 10/6/11: Forty-six Members of the House seek an investigation into Justice Clarence Thomas’s failure to disclose over a million dollars of income from conservative groups for 13 years.
The Huffington Post, Democrats Ramp Up Calls For Ethics Probe of Clarence Thomas, by Jennifer Bendery, 10/5/11: Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Louise Slaughter seek an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee of Justice Thomas’s errors in not disclosing 13 years worth of income to his wife Ginni Thomas, an error of roughly $1.6M.
Politico, Dems call for Clarence Thomas ethics probe, by Seung Min Kim, 10/5/11: Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Louise Slaughter and others ask the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s failure to disclose 13 years worth of his wife Ginni Thomas’s income, much from conservative political groups.
Daily Kos, House Democrats call for congressional hearings on Clarence Thomas, Joan McCarter, 10/5/11: House Democrats continue to push for questions to be answered about Justice Thomas’s multi-year failure to report his wife’s income on mandatory financial disclosure forms, asking the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on the matter.
Martin Bashir on MSNBC, Supreme Court judge accused of conflict of interest, 10/4/11: Bashir speaks with Representative Louise Slaughter about the implications of Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, and her political activities.
Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Rep. Louise Slaughter exploring ‘retroactive recusal’ of Justice Thomas in old cases with conflicts of interest, 10/4/11: Representative Louise Slaughter explores the concept of “retroactive recusal” of Justice Thomas from past cases in which he is alleged to have conflicts of interest.
The Hill, Dems want probe of Justice Thomas as health law ruling looms, by Julian Pecquet, Healthwatch Blog, 9/29/11: Representative Louise Slaughter spearheads an effort to write a letter to the U.S. Judicial Conference, asking them to look into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s failure to disclose payments received by his wife, Ginni Thomas, from conservative groups.
Huffington Post, Clarence Thomas Should Be Investigated For Nondisclosure, Democratic Lawmakers Say, Jennifer Bendery, 9/29/11: Coverage of Rep. Slaughter’s letter calling on the Judicial Conference to take action on Justice Thomas’ failure to disclose information on his annual forms.
Roll Call, Democrats Call for Inquiry of Clarence Thomas, by Jessica Brady, 9/29/11: Representative Louise Slaughter and other members of Congress write a letter to the U.S. Judicial Conference, requesting an investigation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s nondisclosure of his wife, Ginni Thomas’s, income, as required on disclosure forms.
PoliticsNation, Why Justice Clarence Thomas Must Recuse Himself from Case, Al Sharpton, 9/27/11: Sharpton speaks with Congressman Lloyd Doggett about whether Justice Thomas should recuse himself from participating in deciding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
Los Angeles Times: The law and Justice Clarence Thomas, 9/16/11: The Supreme Court justice's reporting of spousal income and his ties with a real estate developer who paid for some of Thomas' air travel raise disclosure questions.
New York Times, Democrats Seek to Impose Tougher Supreme Court Ethics, by Eric Lichtblau, The Caucus Blog, 9/8/11: A letter by Representative Chris Murphy and signed by 23 other members of the House is sent to Representatives Lamar Smith and John Conyers, the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House Judiciary Committee, seeking support of Representative Murphy’s bill that would increase transparency at the Supreme Court by requiring justices to abide by the code of judicial ethics.
WAMU, The Diane Rehm Show: Conflict of interest on the Supreme Court, 8/25/11: Featuring special guests Jeffrey Rosen, Jeffrey Toobin, and Sherrilyn Ifill.
American Judicature Society: Supreme Court Justices and the Code of Conduct, 8/22/2011: The American Judicature Society urges the Supreme Court to protect public confidence in the courts by formally adopting the Code of Conduct, which the Justices claim they already look to for guidance.
NPR Morning Edition, NPR All Things Considered, Bill Puts Ethics Spotlight On Supreme Court Justices, by Nina Totenberg, 8/17/11: In a set of two reports, Nina Totenberg explores the ethical rules that do and do not bind Supreme Court justices, the importance of actual and apparent impartiality, and how these may apply to activities of current justices.
Slate, Senility v. Impropriety, 7/20/11: Dahlia Lithwick contrasts the concern Supreme Court justices show about perceptions that they are too senile to hear cases with the indifference they show to conflict-of-interest perceptions.
New York Times, Ethics, Politics and the Law, 6/30/11: The New York Times editorial board describes why several of the Supreme Court’s 2010-11 decisions and their failure to adhere to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges threaten the Court’s reputation.
New York Times, Should Justices Keep Their Opinions to Themselves?, 6/28/11: Jeff Shesol writes that the political activity in which the Supreme Court’s conservatives engage is an unprecedented threat to the integrity of the Court.
Huffington Post, Clarence Thomas: Time to Discover if There's Fire With the Smoke, 6/27/11: AFJ’s Nan Aron calls on the Judicial Conference to investigate major ethical lapses by Justice Clarence Thomas.
New York Times, Cloud Over the Court, Editorial, 6/22/11:The New York Times editorializes that, given recent alleged ethical lapses by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court should voluntarily adopt and abide by the code of judicial ethics that applies to the rest of the federal judiciary.
The Atlantic Wire, A Brief History of Clarence Thomas’ Ethical Entanglements, by Ujala Sehgal, 6/19/11: A reporter for The Atlantic reviews four instances where Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has had his ethics called into question.
New York Times, Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics, 6/18/11: The New York Times reports on the relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow, a wealthy funder of conservative causes who has given Thomas expensive gifts and funded a museum where the justice’s mother once worked.
Los Angeles Times, Supreme Court Ethics, 5/25/11: The Los Angeles Times editorial board issues a strong endorsement of a bill sponsored by Rep. Chris Murphy to hold Supreme Court justices to the same ethical standards as lower court judges.
Huffington Post, Should Judge in Same-Sex Marriage Case Be Recused?, 5/16/11: UCLA law school professor Adam Winkler argues against forcing the judge in the California Proposition 8 gay marriage case to be retroactively recused from the case.
Politico, SCOTUS Needs an Ethics Code, 5/13/11: American University law professor Herman Schwartz describes why the Supreme Court needs a robust mechanism for recusal in cases in which a justice's impartiality can be reasonably questioned.
Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Boies & Olson Rally to Vaughn Walker’s Defense, 5/13/11: The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports that the attorneys for plaintiffs challenging California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in the state, filed a motion against forcing Judge Vaughn Walker to be retroactively recused from the case.
Politico, 2012 Battlefield: The Supreme Court, 5/10/11: Politico reports that Supreme Court recusal could be a potent political issue in the 2012 election.
Slate, Ethics Are for Other People, by Dahlia Lithwick, 4/15/11: Lithwick contrasts Justice Anthony Kennedy's 2009 ruling to require objective rules for the recusal decisions of lower court judges with his recently stated opposition to objective rules for Supreme Court justices.
Legal As She Is Spoke, A Solution to the Problem of Supreme Court Recusals, 3/29/11: The writers at New York Law School's Project on Law and Journalism endorse stronger ethics and recusal requirements for the Supreme Court.
The New York Times, The Court's Recusal Problem, 3/16/11: The New York Times examines the issue of recusal — and the fact that Supreme Court justices are not required to provide explanations for refusals to recuse from cases where their objectivity has been questioned.
The Hill's Pundit's Blog, Supreme Court Ethics, by Ronald Goldfarb, 3/15/11 : Goldfarb cites Nan Aron's Washington Post op-ed and argues in favor of holding Supreme Court justices to the same ethical standards to which the justices hold lower court judges.
The Washington Post, An ethics code for the high court, by Nan Aron, 3/14/11: "Some have asserted that Scalia and Thomas are being unfairly singled out by political opponents and that other justices’ appearance at conferences and seminars are being ignored. This charge relies on a false equivalency and a misunderstanding of suggested reforms. Participation by justices in events such as educational seminars, American Bar Association conferences or even meetings sponsored by organizations with strong points of view — such as the Heritage Foundation or the ACLU — is not only permissible but actually encouraged by the code, which allows a judge to speak, write and lecture on the law, especially to law-related groups."
Daily Kos, The SCOTUS, the Chamber of Commerce, and a Code of Conduct, by Joan McCarter, 3/14/11: The Daily Kos quotes extensively from Nan Aron's Washington Post op-ed on judicial ethics and discusses the topic in the context of the Court's strong pro-corporate bias.
The National Law Journal, Ethical oversight for the justices, by Deborah L. Rhode, 3/14/11: Professor Rhode, a leading scholar of legal ethics, argues that Congress must create a review process for Supreme Court justices who refuse to recuse themselves from cases despite a potential conflict of interest.
Toledo Blade: Roberts' rules, 3/6/11: The Toledo Blade editorial board notes the appearance of conflicts of interest on the high court, and the fact that lower courts are held to a mandatory ethical code that does not apply to the Supreme Court.
Los Angeles Times, Clarence Thomas' dangerous conceit, by Jonathan Turley, 3/6/11:Turley rebuts Justice Clarence Thomas's argument that highlighting Thomas's unlawful failure to disclose his wife's income undermines the Supreme Court's credibility. Turley writes that the court is credible "because it is not the extension of the jurists themselves but the law that they are required to follow."
The Daily Beast, Throw Thomas Off the Bench, by Paul Campos, 3/4/11: Professor Campos discusses the likelihood that Justice Clarence Thomas will escape punishment after illegally failing to disclose $700,000 that his wife earned while working for the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Salon, Clarence Thomas and the politicization of the Supreme Court, by Robert Reich, 3/4/11: Reich discusses the irony of Justice Clarence Thomas’s assertion that those who criticize him are undermining the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. He argues that Thomas “has done more to politicize the Court than anyone in recent years, with the possible exception of his brother on the bench Antonin Scalia.”
Politico, Clarence Thomas Speech Draws New Criticism, by Kenneth P. Vogel, 2/28/11 : Members of Congress and advocacy groups reacted negatively to Justice Clarence Thomas’s speech at a Federalist Society symposium. Thomas stated that he and his wife, a conservative political activist, “believe in the same things” and that those who are concerned with his partisan political activity “seem bent on undermining” the High Court as an institution.
The Hill, A pressing need for judicial ethics, by Nan Aron, 2/28/11: AFJ’s Nan Aron discusses the need to require Supreme Court justices to abide by the same ethical standards that all other federal judges must follow.
Washington Post, Professors ask Congress for an ethics code for Supreme Court, 2/24/11: Over 100 prominent law professors have signed a letter calling on Congress to apply the same code of conduct to the Supreme Court as already applies to all other federal judges.
National Journal, Injudicious Politics? 2/22/11: The National Journal examines the rules and issues surrounding recusal of Supreme Court Justices in the wake of questions surrounding Justice Thomas' wife lobbying against the health-care law which will likely come before the Supreme Court.
New York Times, The Thomas Issue, 2/18/11: The New York Times editorial board notes the ways in which Justice Thomas’ authority as a justice has been called into question, and how his five year silence on the bench during oral arguments contributes to this problem by creating the appearance that he is not willing to consider both sides’ arguments.
Washington Post, Are conservatives endangering the high court?, by Katrina vanden Heuvel, 2/15/11: Vanden Heuvel argues that partisan political activity and ethical lapses by the court’s conservatives threaten the public’s confidence in the court’s integrity.
Huffington Post, Justice Thomas: Silent and Conflicted, 2/15/11: Retired Judge H. Lee Sarokin argues that Justice Thomas’s political activity raises questions about the Court's impartiality and might impugn its decisions.
Politico, Dems: Thomas Should Recuse Himself, by Jennifer Haberkorn, 2/9/11: Politico reports on a letter from 74 House Democrats to Justice Clarence Thomas asking him to recuse himself from cases concerning President Obama’s health care reform to “maintain the integrity of this court” because Thomas’s wife financially benefitted from the organized opposition to the bill.
Washington Post 44 Blog, House Democrats say Justice Thomas Should Recuse Himself in Health-Care Case, by Felicia Sonmez, 2/9/11: The Washington Post’s “44” blog on politics and policy discusses the letter that 74 House Democrats wrote to Justice Thomas stating that he should recuse himself from any case concerning the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care reform bill. The letter cites his wife’s work as a lobbyist for a tea party organization seeking to defeat the bill.
New York Times, Politics and the Court, 2/5/11: The New York Times Editorial Board discusses the unparalleled levels of partisan political activity by Justices Scalia and Thomas. The Times advocates for the creation of a process to review the decisions of Supreme Court justices who refuse to recuse themselves despite potential conflicts of interest.
Politico, Justice Thomas’s Wife Virginia Thomas now a Lobbyist, by Kenneth P. Vogel, Marin Cogan and John Breshahan, 2/4/11: According to Politico, Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife Virginia Thomas has started a lobbying business in which she has branded herself “an ambassador to the tea party movement.
DailyKos, Clarence Thomas offers “implausible” excuse for false disclosure reports spanning 13 years, by Jed Lewison, 1/25/11: DailyKos discusses Common Cause’s skepticism that Justice Clarence Thomas misunderstood the public disclosure filing instructions when he checked a box that stated “none” for his wife’s income during her years of work with the conservative Heritage Foundation. Virginia Thomas earned almost $690,000 from the organization during that period.
Washington Post, Supreme Court won't be fully represented at State of the Union, by Robert Barnes, 1/25/11: The Washington Post discusses which members of the Supreme Court will attend the State of the Union in the context of growing concern that justices are increasingly participating in excessively partisan activities.
New York Times, Thomas Cites Failure to Disclose Wife’s Job, by Eric Lichtblau, 1/24/11: The New York Times discusses Justice Clarence Thomas’s acknowledgement that he failed to disclose the $686,589 in total salary that the conservative Heritage Foundation paid to his wife between 2003 and 2007.
National Journal, Watchdog Says Clarence Thomas Failed to Report Wife’s Heritage Foundation Income, by Rebecca Kaplan, 1/24/11: According to National Journal, records show that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to include in a required disclosure form $686,589 in income that his wife earned from the conservative Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007.
Washington Post, Justice Scalia is a political star - and that's bad for the Supreme Court, by Jonathan Turley, 1/21/11: In an op-ed, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley describes how Supreme Court justices are overtly aligning themselves with political movements in a way that threatens public confidence in the court.
Slate, Running With Gavels, by Dahlia Lithwick, 11/18/10: Lithwick persuasively argues that Congress should establish clearer rules about partisan activity for Supreme Court justices.
ThinkProgress, Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito Dismisses His Profligate Right-Wing Fundraising As ‘Not Important’, by Lee Fang, 11/10/10: ThinkProgress reports on Justice Samuel Alito’s attendance at fundraisers for ideological right-wing causes such as the American Spectator magazine and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Huffington Post, Justices Scalia and Thomas’s Attendance at Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate, by Sam Stein, 10/20/10: Sam Stein discusses the ethical problems created when Supreme Court justices attend a meeting of a secretive network of Republican donors.
The Nation, Clarence Thomas’ Ethics Problems, Then and Now, by Bruce Shapiro, 10/20/10: The Nation reports on Justice Clarence Thomas’s long history of ethical problems. Justice Thomas’s participation in a Koch Industries Republican donor meeting and the flood of money his wife’s tea party organization collected following the Citizens United decision are only the most recent examples of his ethical difficulties.
New York Times, Activism of Thomas’s Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues, by Jackie Calmes, 10/8/10: The New York Times discusses the potential conflicts of interest that could arise for Justice Clarence Thomas as a result of his wife’s work with a tea party organization that accepts large and undisclosed campaign contributions.

Multimedia Coverage

The American Law Journal, U.S. Supreme Court – A Question of Integrity?, 10/31/11: AFJ’s own Danielle Franco-Malone joins the Honorable Edward Cahn, the Honorable Gene Cohen, Professor Chapin Cimino, and host Christopher Naughton to discuss ethics and the Supreme Court.
MSNBC PoliticsNation, Thomas Too Tainted To Rule On Health Reform, Al Sharpton: Questions arising from Justice Thomas’ failure to disclose his wife’s income from organizations seeking to defeat or overturn health care reform suggest Thomas may need to recuse himself from hearing any cases on the matter to come before the Supreme Court.
MSNBC NewsNation,Lawmakers Demand Probe Into Thomas’ Income, Tamron Hall: Justice Thomas’ failure to make complete financial disclosures as required by law prompts 19 Democratic lawmakers to join Rep. Slaughter’s letter calling on the Judicial Conference to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation.
WAMU, The Diane Rehm Show: Conflict of interest on the Supreme Court, 8/25/11: Featuring special guests Jeffrey Rosen, Jeffrey Toobin, and Sherrilyn Ifill.
MSNBC PoliticsNation, Thomas Too Tainted To Rule On Health Reform, Al Sharpton, 9/30/11: Questions arising from Justice Thomas’ failure to disclose his wife’s income from organizations seeking to defeat or overturn health care reform suggest Thomas may need to recuse himself from hearing any cases on the matter to come before the Supreme Court.
MSNBC NewsNation, Lawmakers Demand Probe Into Thomas’ Income, Tamron Hall, 9/30/11: Justice Thomas’ failure to make complete financial disclosures as required by law prompts 19 Democratic lawmakers to join Rep. Slaughter’s letter calling on the Judicial Conference to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation.
Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley on Justice Clarence Thomas Possible Ethics Violations, 6/24/11: Olbermann and law professor Jonathan Turley about the history of ethical lapses at the Supreme Court.
The Rachel Maddow Show, Disturbing pattern raises concern about Justice Thomas, 6/24/11: Maddow discusses a pattern of gifts given to Justice Thomas by Harlan Crow, a businessman affiliated with organizations that filed briefs in cases before the Supreme Court.
Countdown with Keith Olbermann, John Dean on Clarence Thomas, 6/20/11: Olbermann and former White House Counsel John Dean discuss Justice Thomas’s credibility in the context of the Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision and of the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas.
The Ed Show on MSNBC, Supreme Court Justice Thomas faces ethical issues, 6/20/11: Ed Schultz speaks with author and professor Marjorie Cohn about Justice Thomas and judicial ethics.
Forum with Michael Krasny: Jucidial Conflict of Interest, 6/10/11 (Deborah Rhode and John Eastman guests)
Bloomberg Law, Rutgers's Leubsdorf Discusses Supreme Court Ethics Code, 3/14/11: Rutgers School of Law Professor John Leubsdorf speaks with Bloomberg’s Spencer Mazyck about asking Congress to pass a law that would apply the Code of Conduct to members of the Supreme Court
The Colbert Report, Clarence Thomas's Financial Disclosure Controversy, 2/7/11: Satirist Stephen Colbert talks about Justice Thomas’s potential conflicts of interest in the context of Thomas’s silence during oral argument at the Supreme Court.
FireDogLake, Glenn Greenwald Discusses Justice Scalia’s Closed Meeting with Tea Party Caucus on Lawrence O’Donnell, 1/25/11: FireDogLake links to a discussion between Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Justice Antonin Scalia’s tea party lecture. Justice Scalia was invited by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on behalf of tea party members of Congress to give a “conservative constitutional seminar.”
Democracy Now, On Anniversary of Citizens United Ruling, Common Cause Calls on Justice Dept. to Investigate Scalia and Thomas over Conflicts of Interest, 1/21/11: On the one-year anniversary of the Citizens United v. FEC decision by the Supreme Court, Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, discusses whether Justices Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves from deciding that case.

Miscellaneous

Issues

Media Coverage