paulhunterjones

It appears that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas might have crossed the line between acceptable out of court activity and activity that raises serious legal questions. Judicial historians and experts have always considered Justice Thomas as an enigma on the Supreme Court. There are now those who seek to hold Justice Thomas accountable for his out of court activities. Some experts on the Supreme Court believe that Justice Thomas thinks that he is above the law. Some members of the House of Representatives are calling for an investigation into Judge Thomas’ off the bench activities and how he reports these activities on required disclosure forms.

President George W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court to fill the seat of Thurgood Marshall who had retired from the bench. Thurgood Marshal had been the high court’s only African-American member. He often sided with the court’s liberal wing. President Bush was under tremendous political pressure to nominate another African-American to sit on the Supreme Court. I believe that President Bush thought that the nomination of Clarence Thomas would appease Black Americans while at the same time please the conservatives who demanded that the appointment move the Supreme Court more towards the right. Eventually the selection of Clarence Thomas cost President Bush much of his political capital.

Justice Thomas has always been involved in Republican politics. In Missouri he developed and cultivated important political contacts. He was a successful attorney, which success helped propel him into higher political circles. Judge Thomas served in the presidential administrations of Ronald Regan and George Bush, who appointment him to serve on the Court of Appeals.

The nomination of Clarence Thomas proved extremely controversial and embarrassing to President Bush. Senate approval of the nomination appeared to be a lock until Anita Hill testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. She accused the Judge Thomas of having sexually harassed her during their time together at EEOC. Who did not watch the nationally televised hearings? I do not believe that Anita Hill or Judge Thomas acquitted themselves well during the hearings. Their performance and testimony was disgraceful and troublesome at the same time. It was obvious that Judge Thomas had used poor judgment in his dealings with Ms. Hill. In my opinion he did not respect the laws that he was supposedly sworn to uphold. The Senate eventually approved by a close vote of 52-48 Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court. I believe that President Bush should have withdrawn the nomination in light of Judge Thomas’ apparent unfitness for the post. History is now proving that it was an error to elevate Judge Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Led by House Rules Committee ranking member, Rep. Louise Slaughter (C-N.Y.), a number of Democratic lawmakers are calling for an investigation of Justice Thomas. In a letter sent to the Judicial Conference (JC) of the United States, the lawmakers requested that it investigate and learn if Justice Thomas failed to comply with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. If the JC finds that the Justice Thomas failed to comply with the law, it must refer the matter to the Department of Justice for further investigation or action. The lawmakers’ letter stated that the signatories believed that Judge Clarence Thomas’ failure to show income and gifts was suspicious. It is not clear why the Congresswoman choose this moment to demand an investigation. The request is not related to an official pending Congressional investigation of Justice Thomas. I believe this is an attempt to smear Judge Thomas and, in the process, distract public attention from the nation’s problem. Still; I do not think that this group of legislators believes that their actions will force a change in the Court’s composition. It is interesting to note that the Democratic House leadership did not sign the letter nor have they indicated their support for this initiative.

The legislators in their letter to the JC referred to a June 2011 article that appeared in the New York Times .The article focused generally on Justice Thomas’ ethics and in particular his relationship with Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate mogul. Mr. Crow invested millions to buy and restore a cannery in Judge Thomas’ hometown. These transactions were made with the approval and consent of Judge Thomas, who had sentimental feelings towards the cannery. It is a fact that Mr. Crow has showered luxurious gifts on both of Thomas and invested money into projects that they support. The Times article specifically questioned Mr. Thomas’ hand in hand relationship with Mr. Crow in the building of “Judge Thomas’ museum.” Though Justice Thomas’ relationship and activities with Crow are questionable, I do not believe that the he has violated any relevant ethical standard that governs Supreme Court Justices.

Pages: 1 2

On September 20, 2011 the mayor of the City of New York (NYC), the Hon. Michael Bloomberg (the Mayor) addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Mayor spoke about the urgent need to solve the world crisis in non-communicable diseases. In his 12 minute address to General Assembly the Mayor argued that governments are in a unique position to stem this public health crisis. By enacting laws and implementing appropriate policies, governments could make the social default good health and not neglected health. Governments should pursue policies and laws that eliminate the unhealthy eating practices of its citizens. Though Mayor Bloomberg is a zealot for the improvement of public health he is right about the role governments should play in this effort.

In support of his arguments the Mayor cited NYC’s pro-active stance towards public health. He talked about NYC’s enactment of laws that banned cigarette smoking in restaurants, bars and on City owned property. Mayor Bloomberg also mentioned that the excise tax that the City of New York imposes on a pack of cigarettes raises the price of a pack to the highest in the United States.

Mayor Bloomberg also talked about the fact that NYC was the first municipality to ban the use of Trans Fats in restaurant cooking. Simplistically stated; Trans Fats are chemically modified food ingredients that raise the level of a particularly unhealthy form of cholesterol. Over the years we have become accustomed to the use of these fats in the preparation of fast foods. Who has not eaten McDonalds French fries or Kentucky Fried Chicken?

I do not always agree with the Mayor’s view on politics or economics. On the issue of governments’ participation in the improvement of public health I agree with the Mayor’s position.

There are no good health benefits that can be derived from smoking. Every year hundreds of thousands of people around the world die from diseases caused by smoking. Tobacco smoking increases the risk of stroke and heart disease. Smokers are more likely to suffer from pulmonary and blood vessel diseases. The ill effects of smoking are well documented. Mayor Bloomberg correctly insists that governments should lead the charge to end smoking.

NYC took bold and decisive action on December 30, 2002 when it banned smoking in
restaurants, bars and most work spaces. At the time the ban became law, owners of the targeted establishments argued that the new law would dramatically increase the costs of doing business. These doom slayers were ultimately proven wrong once the data could be collected and analyzed. The smoking ban has not had a negative impact on business operations. New York State enacted a comprehensive legislation which banned smoking. The newly enacted state law left intact NYC’s law but modified and eliminated some of the exceptions. Many national and foreign jurisdictions have enacted laws modeled on NYC’s smoking ban law.

After a contentious debate about civil liberties versus the police power of the state, the New York City Council on February 2, 2011 passed a second law prohibiting smoking on the City’s beaches and in its parks. Council members voted overwhelmingly in favor of this ban. Speaker of the Council, Christine Quinn Cristina Quinn, believed that the new law was a victory for non-smokers rights. Supposedly this further ban was passed to protect New Yorkers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Beaches and parks attract visitors who want to feel a cool breeze on their faces and to breathe some “fresh air.” Consequently secondary smoke, if any, should dissipate in open space before it bothers anyone. Exposure to secondary smoke in enclosed spaces can create health problems but not at beaches or parks.

There have been no successful legal challenges to the City’s power to enact laws that ban smoking or eliminate the use of Trans Fats in foods.

Statistics indicated that during the last 10 years almost 500,000 New Yorkers quit
smoking . Officials assert that this drastic reduction in smoking is due to the City’s graphic anti-smoking ads and the ban on public smoking. This is the official line but it cannot be the reason for the drop in smoking. The majority of the people who have quit the habit have done so due to the high cost of cigarettes. Regardless of the reason people are smoking less the total cost of treating smoke related illnesses has fallen every year. In my opinion Mayor Bloomberg was correct in his address to the General Assembly when he stressed that the economics favored governments using their power to cut the number of smokers.

Pages: 1 2