Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.
Linda Greenhouse is an editorial contributor at the New York Times who, by the looks of it, weighs in every two weeks or so with some musings regarding the Supreme Court. Her most recent offering, “Family Ties at the Supreme Court,” reveals the weird machinations of the mind of the Left. It can be summarized best in one word: hypocrisy. As a backdrop, the Times ran a story that a group of conservatives called Groundswell had met with President Trump. One of the leaders of that group is Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
It is no secret that Ginni Thomas is active in conservative causes having previously been employed by the Heritage Foundation and being a leader in the Virginia Tea Party movement. The Times describes Groundswell as a “Hard Right” group meaning that it should be labeled a hate group by the SPLC any day now because they oppose gun control efforts, gay marriage, abortion and a host of other things near and dear to the Left.
In her editorial, Greenhouse states:
But while my feminist sensibilities make me wary of suggesting that Ginni Thomas should not be completely free to embrace her causes and live her life, there’s something troublesome about the unbounded nature of her public advocacy, at least for those of us who still care about the Supreme Court.
The only time anyone cares about the Supreme Court is when their agenda is threatened. Regardless, even though Ginni Thomas is her own woman involved in her own causes with which Ms. Greenhouse disagrees, she should somehow become the tea-serving compliant wife because her husband is on the Supreme Court. One supposes Ms. Greenhouse believes Ginni Thomas refuses to make dinner for her husband unless he casts a vote she dictates to him. Apparently, Clarence Thomas cannot think for himself and Ginni Thomas is his ghost writer on his many opinions. Considering the Left believes that Clarence Thomas is just some dumb Uncle Tom Oreo, it is no leap in logic to assume Greenhouse actually believes his wife has inordinate sway over how he decides a case.
She then goes on to make a defense of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s disparaging comments about Donald Trump. The difference, she says, is that the comments were made while Trump was a candidate. Of course, RBG has been deified by the Left and one assumes she will rise from the dead three days after being laid to rest. Greenhouse does not explain that Ginsburg has voted against virtually every Trump administration case that has come before the Supreme Court.
Later, she talks about conservative opposition to Judge Vaughn Walker who struck down California’s Proposition 8 which disallowed gay marriage at the time because Walker was gay. She poo-poos away the concerns of conservatives then by stating that it was stupid of us conservatives to assume that a gay judge would strike down a ban on gay marriage. She further ridicules conservative efforts to have an even more liberal judge- Stephen Reinhardt- who was on the panel that supported Walker’s decision not to recuse himself from the Proposition 8 case, himself recused. The reason conservatives opposed Reinhardt was because he is married to Ramona Ripston who was director of the ACLU of Southern California which was one of the most active groups trying to get Proposition 8 overturned at the time.
Simply, we are to assume that Walker’s gay lifestyle in no way influenced his decision, nor are we to assume that Ripston’s political efforts had any effect on her husband’s rulings. However, we are to assume that Ginni Thomas holds this uncanny Svengali sway over Clarence Thomas.
Greenhouse’s assumptions in her article show the hypocrisy of the Left in grand fashion. A woman active in politics and who is outspoken in her beliefs is supposed to be silenced. That turns the phrase “feminist sensibilities” on its head. Likewise, Clarence Thomas is just some dumb old black dude who cannot think for himself because of his vocal wife. In this article, she manages to malign women, blacks, logical consistency, and commonsense. The only reason Greenhouse counts herself among “those of us who still care about the Supreme Court” is because of her disagreement with Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence.
And what better way to attack Clarence Thomas than through his wife with silly assumptions? She closes her article with this:
She’s broken no rules except the rules of good taste. What she’s violated are longstanding norms of behavior. And in an age when nearly every norm is being shredded, that makes her the perfect Supreme Court spouse for our time.
The “good taste” comment is her opposition to Ginni Thomas’ advocacy. And the only “longstanding norms of behavior” broken are her veiled insistence of the silent, subservient wife. One can make a good argument that Ginni Thomas is a better feminist than Greenhouse can ever hope or dream to be.