And Also: Talking about the Supreme Court, see here about a case where technicalities can lead someone to miss the forest for a single tree, a concern that listening to the oral argument only reaffirmed. [Update: See this blog post as well.]
The NYT and Dahlia Lithwick (who quotes the former) had articles on Ginni Thomas' Tea Party activism. Yes, Mrs. Justice Thomas. Lithwick notes that Ms. Thomas is very youthful and energetic. She looks a bit less "youthful" in one of the articles linked, but if 90 year-olds can play tennis, the fact she is full of energy in her 50s is not too surprising. Many readers know of the energy level of parents, some are even around that age themselves, and they are full of life. Having a cause you believe in and fighting for it helps in this respect.
I don't begrudge her the right to be an activist and the fact a few of many justices' wives had a hard time doesn't mean they all do. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's husband apparently did rather well for himself and the wives of most justices appear, with the usual troubles of being a spouse of a public figure, did okay. Others play a public role while their spouses have judicial roles. As a NYT article linked in the piece notes:
In past interviews, Mrs. Thomas has suggested she is being singled out unfairly; other spouses of judges are politically active, she has argued, usually mentioning Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who is married to a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Rendell has to disclose direct contributions to his campaigns. And parties can appeal to the Supreme Court should his wife not recuse herself when her impartiality is questioned.Of course, a justice is more important than a lower court judge and there is some dispute over disclosure in Mrs. Thomas' case, but we should be well aware that the justices' family aren't all living in a monastery or something (though at least two of their children, that I know of, are members of the clergy). Judge Reinhardt's (the famous/infamous liberal judge from the Ninth Circuit) wife plays a role in the ACLU. Ginsburg's husband was a tax lawyer/professor, who surely had public opinions about tax laws the Court ruled upon. As Tocqueville noted, the Supreme Court eventually rules on most everything, down to issues involving education (guns in schools, funding issues, drug testing, etc.). Some people are more directly involved than she is, given her role in more political, than legal interest group related.
As to her railing against the PTB and being the wife of a justice (reference in the Slate piece), well, there does tend to be a certain myopic view there. Hubby is different. My congressperson (or gay friend or whatever) is different. And, he's surely one of the select -- he is fighting the good fight. We can trust him. And, the Tea Party has a tendency to be selective in their focus. This is not unique to them; note how coverage is selective too -- large numbers of peace activists did not get as much attention as some noisy anti-health care reform activists.
I can understand how this all has a distasteful feel for some people, but again, they might not have been Tea Party sorts, but other wives and family members played political roles or had a voice in political causes. And, the fact it wasn't done quite like this in the past was at least partly a matter of wives not having such equal roles in political movements. It is not like she is on FOX or has her own radio show. The average person, even many who pay some attention to right wing causes, probably isn't aware of what she is doing. Targeting her (or her husband as a lousy justice, as if the fact he asks questions, often largely to clown around, makes Scalia somehow better*) has a feel of sour grapes, a dislike of her politics or her husband's views.
If looked at calmly and evenhandedly, the purity sought might not work as well as some think.
----
* A court watcher recently noted:
Finally, part of the in-the-flesh experience of Supreme Court arguments is not only watching the justices speak, but also watching them listen. Several panelists at today’s symposium expressed their deep appreciation of Stevens’s ability to listen patiently and politely to the arguments as the other justices’ seemed preoccupied with internally formulating their next questions. These scenes cannot be conveyed over audio. From Justice Thomas’s brief-thumbing to Justice Ginsburg’s trained stare at the advocates, the justices’ listening styles may speak as loudly as their amplified voices about their commitment to the case before them.Mike Sacks is getting to be a must-read for court fans!