Clarence Thomas’s Wife Supported Armed Insurrection, Benefited from Citizens United

In a recent post, “Kids May Not Know Democracy, But They Know a Bum Deal When They See It,” I made the argument that our political system functions quite differently from the idealized system we are taught in school. I specifically argued that it was created and continues to operate to protect the property rights of a tiny minority of society. A recent example of this is the Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of political broadcasts could not be limited, since corporations are entitled to the same 1^st Amendment protections as individuals. The case was close (5-4). Those who voted with the corporations in Citizens United were beneficiaries of corporate gifts, former board members and/or former CEOs of corporations, drawing into question their independence and objectivity in the case.

Clarence Thomas voted with the majority. His wife, Ginni Thomas, is founder and president of the Tea Party-associated lobbying group Liberty Central. Thomas incorporated her organization as a tax-exempt 501(c)4 just two months before the Supreme Court made its final ruling in the Citizens United case, according to a recent report on Alternet.org. Because Ginni Thomas received a salary and/or expenses from Liberty Centyral and because the ruling had a direct influence on the organization’s success in fundraising and lobbying, there was a very clear conflict of interest for Clarence Thomas, who did not recuse himself from the case, as he should have.

The AlterNet piece also said that Liberty Central was linked to the Missouri Sovereignty Project and Gun Owners of America, whose leaders called for war against the U.S. government, as well as another group, Tradition Family and Property, whose leader called the Spanish Inquisition “a beautiful thing.” These groups were listed as “Friends of Liberty Central” on its Web site. It is highly dubious that a man could serve objectively and independently on the nation’s highest court and fulfill his mandate to uphold and defend the constitution when his own wife is supporting armed overthrow of that same nation.

Liberty Central actively opposed Obama Care, another potential conflict of interest since Clarence Thomas solicited donations for Liberty Central, and since the Supreme Court would likely have to rule on the constitutionality of the law. Clarence Thomas also received money for speaking at a Koch Brothers fundraiser in Palm Springs, California. Antonin Scalia also appeared at the gathering (and voted in the majority in the Citizens United case). The Koch Brothers were large beneficiaries of the Citizens United ruling and would appear to have bought the votes of several members of the Court.

Cruel and Unusual: California’s Educational/Justice System

Overcrowded California Prison

California already has an adult illiteracy rate of 23%, a figure that is likely to grow as adult-education classes are slashed in the desperate scramble to close California’s remaining $15.4 billion budget gap. This will exacerbate a trend that began in 2009, when the state relaxed restrictions on how school boards spend state money. According to the Bay Citizen, 75% of California’s school districts have already made cuts to adult education since the spending restrictions were lifted.

California’s high illiteracy rate reflects, in part, its high incarceration rate. It is estimated that more than 60% of adult prisoners, and over 80% of juvenile convicts, are functionally illiterate. Considering that those who receive reading support classes have a 16% recidivism rate, compared with 70% for those who do not receive any reading support (see the Educational Cyber Playground website), it would make fiscal sense to redirect funding from incarceration to education, particularly adult education. Boosting funding for k-12 literacy programs might also help reduce the number of first-time offenders.

Theoretically, this could happen as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling requiring the state to reduce its prison population by 33,000 inmates. At a cost of nearly $20,000 per prisoner per year (see Legislative Analyst’s Office report), simply releasing or paroling 33,000 prisoners could save the state as much as $660 million per year, plenty to bolster the adult education program and maybe even provide a little extra for K-12 education.

Of course this is pie in the sky. While the right wing has fanned the flames of hysteria with paranoid fantasies of murderers and rapists being dumped into family-friendly communities, all early-release prisoners must be signed-off by the governor, who is not dumb enough to release any convicted rapists, molesters or murderers, as it would likely come back and bite him in the ass. Indeed, few prisoners are likely to be released at all. The state has at least two years to reduce its current population of 143,435 inmates down to 109,805 (still far above its 80,000 inmate capacity), and the possibility of petitioning for further extensions. Most of the reductions will occur through transfers to county jails, thus deferring costs to the counties, or to out of state for-profit facilities. More reductions will likely occur by transferring juveniles in adult lockup to the California Youth Authority, or to county youth facilities, pushing many nonviolent youth offenders back into the public school system and increasing its financial needs.

In spite of logic or common sense, Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, said the decision was “gambling with the safety of Californians,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported, while Republican assembly leader Connie Conway (Tulare), said Californians “could be at serious risk of violent crime.” Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, said “terrible things are sure to happen” (San Francisco Bay Citizen).

The only terrible thing that is going to happen is that California is going to continue to lock up its residents at one of the highest rates in the U.S. (458 per 100,000), which has the highest incarceration rate in the world (502 per 100,000), at an enormous financial and human cost to taxpayers, families and communities. Considering that most inmates are in for nonviolent offenses, particularly drug offenses that can more cheaply and humanely be addressed through drug rehab programs and education, and considering the desperate fiscal state of the state, there is really no justification continuing to lock up so many people.

One also might consider who is the bigger threat to Californians: 33,000 nonviolent offenders allowed back on the streets or 600,000 millionaires and numerous corporations that refuse to pay their share of the taxes? Alito and Scalia could be lumped into the latter group, not only for their wealth, but for their utter disregard for the safety of the prisoners themselves. Indeed, the main reason for the Supreme Court ruling was that conditions for inmates are so horrific that incarceration in California is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Suicidal prisoners are held in phone booth-size holding pens without toilets, while mentally ill prisoners sometimes must wait up to a year for treatment. A single prison doctor may have a caseload of 700 inmates. Medical care is so deplorable that it, alone, is responsible for a death per week (Los Angeles Times).