Let Ginni be Ginni.
That was my first thought upon seeing the headline in The Times this past weekend: “Trump Meets With Hard-Right Group Led by Ginni Thomas.” Ginni Thomas — or Virginia Lamp, as I knew her years ago when she was a smart lawyer-lobbyist working for the United States Chamber of Commerce against passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act — is married to the Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.
These days, she is also an activist on the far-right fringe of the Republican Party. In recent months, she has denounced the student survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting who are campaigning for gun control as “dangerous to the survival of our nation” (in a later deleted Facebook post). In a speech bestowing an award on Sean Hannity, the Fox News personality, she warned fellow conservatives against being “complicit as the left moves its forces across the country.” According to the Times account of last week’s White House meeting, to which she brought fellow members of a group called Groundswell, the topics discussed included why women and transgender people should not be permitted to serve in the military and how same-sex marriage is damaging the country.
It hardly needs saying that modern families are complicated. A few administrations ago, it was tempting to conclude that presidential siblings had an unusual proclivity for getting into embarrassing scrapes. The day when wives of powerful men were expected to do little more than serve tea and look decorative has, thankfully, passed. “We have our separate professional lives,” Ms. Thomas said during the 2000 presidential election stalemate, when asked about her work for the Heritage Foundation compiling résumés for a potential Bush administration while the Supreme Court was deciding the outcome of the election. (She said her effort was bipartisan.)
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. It’s hard to think of a more delicate moment for the court, pressed at every turn by an administration that seems to regard it as a wholly owned subsidiary of the White House and that has driven the normally reticent chief justice to declare, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges.” Chief Justice John Roberts did not say “justices.” He didn’t have to. The question now is whether his colleagues on the bench — his own and all the others — will show him to be right, or sadly naïve.
As a Supreme Court spouse, Ginni Thomas has always been different. In November 1991, weeks after her husband’s apocalyptic confirmation hearing, she gave an interview to People magazine, appearing on the cover in her husband’s embrace with the headline, “How We Survived.”
The disappearing act of other Supreme Court spouses is not for Ms. Thomas. Justice Stephen Breyer’s wife, Joanna, a psychotherapist who works with children with cancer, stayed in Cambridge, Mass., to continue her career while her husband commuted from Washington on weekends. Martin Ginsburg gave up law practice when his wife first became a judge, embarking on a new career as a law professor.
(To digress, in the summer of 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly labeled Donald Trump — accurately, but as she promptly conceded, indiscreetly — a “faker.” How does this indiscretion rank with Ginni Thomas’s immersion in right-wing politics? For one thing, Donald Trump was a political candidate, not a sitting president. For another, Justice Ginsburg’s expression of distaste was generic, while Ms. Thomas evidently discussed with the president issues near the top of the Supreme Court’s agenda. A case on whether federal law protects transgender people from employment discrimination is pending; the justices talked about whether to accept it at their most recent closed-door conference.)
For all I know, Justice Thomas may find liberal discomfiture with his wife’s politics to be amusing rather than troubling. As a matter of judicial ethics, her behavior seemingly imposes no obligation on him. When it comes to family members, the judicial ethics rules, both those that are binding on the Supreme Court by statute and those the court has voluntarily assumed for itself, refer to relatives who are acting as lawyers and who in that role might place a justice in a conflict of interest. Beginning in the early 1990s, as Supreme Court offspring were getting law degrees in growing numbers and taking jobs in law firms with substantial Supreme Court practices, the justices wrestled with the circumstances under which recusal might be required.
In a 1993 policy statement, the court said it was particularly concerned about situations in which a spouse or child was a law firm partner who may not have worked on a case before the court but whose compensation could be affected by the outcome. The court concluded: “Since it is impractical to assure ourselves of the absence of such consequences in each individual case, we shall recuse ourselves from all cases in which appearances on behalf of parties are made by firms in which our relatives are partners, unless we have received from the firm written assurance that income from Supreme Court litigation is, on a permanent basis, excluded from our relatives’ partnership shares.”
That doesn’t cover every potential conflict situation, of course. In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked to recuse himself from a case in which his friend Vice President Dick Cheney, with whom he regularly went duck hunting, had been sued in his official capacity; the vice president had no personal liability in what was basically an administrative law dispute. Justice Scalia refused the request in a 21-page opinion that I found persuasive at the time and still do. “The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices,” Justice Scalia wrote, “and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, and in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot faults.”
In 2011, conservative organizations battling the advent of same-sex marriage sought the after-the-fact recusal of the federal district judge, Vaughn Walker, who had declared unconstitutional California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage in the state to different-sex couples. The recusal motion, which was rejected by a different judge and then by an appellate panel, argued that Judge Walker could not have been impartial because he is gay and might want to marry his partner. The motion was ridiculous on its face: a central argument of the Proposition 8 proponents was that legalizing same sex-marriage would destroy “traditional marriage.” Logically, then, a straight judge in a traditional marriage should be presumed to have as much at stake — as much partiality, in other words — as a gay judge.
Unsatisfied, the same-sex marriage opponents next sought to disqualify Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a famously liberal appeals court judge who was a member of the panel that upheld Judge Walker’s ruling as well as his fitness to serve. The basis for the recusal effort was nothing Judge Reinhardt had done. Rather, the assertion was that he could not be impartial because his wife, Ramona Ripston, a nonlawyer, had been executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Southern California, which had taken an active role in opposing Proposition 8 and defending same-sex marriage. Judge Reinhardt refused to recuse himself.
So where does all this leave the outspoken Ms. Thomas? 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 Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
护民历史图库211cc【叶】【若】【眸】【色】【沉】【沉】，【向】【那】【水】【安】【榕】【再】【靠】【近】【了】【几】【步】，【抬】【手】【抚】【在】【它】【粗】【糙】【的】【树】【皮】【上】。 【没】【想】【到】【那】【树】【竟】【然】【就】【这】【样】【裂】【开】【了】【一】【个】【可】【容】【一】【人】【入】【的】【小】【洞】【口】，【叶】【若】【心】【里】【略】【犹】【豫】【了】【一】【下】，【手】【指】【微】【动】，【最】【后】【还】【是】【抬】【脚】【踏】【了】【进】【去】。 【竟】【然】【有】【请】，【那】【她】【便】【不】【客】【气】【了】。 【下】【面】【是】【一】【条】【并】【不】【长】【的】【阶】【梯】，【越】【往】【下】，【便】【越】【开】【阔】，【点】【点】【绿】【莹】【飘】【荡】【在】【周】【围】，【周】【围】【十】【分】
【阵】【容】【确】【定】！ 【上】【路】【德】【玛】【西】【亚】【盖】【伦】 【中】【路】【莫】【甘】【娜】 【打】【野】【则】【是】【李】【政】【宗】【的】【挖】【掘】【机】 【下】【路】【的】【话】【则】【是】【炼】【金】【还】【有】ADCEZ 【炼】【金】【的】【话】【估】【计】【是】【不】【想】【玩】，【开】【局】【就】【会】【带】【着】【疾】【跑】【松】【塔】【的】【那】【种】！ 【李】【政】【宗】【无】【所】【谓】，【仅】【仅】【是】【个】【铂】【金】【局】，【他】【的】【挖】【掘】【机】【目】【前】【可】【是】【王】【者】【级】【别】【的】【熟】【练】【度】。 【对】【面】【阵】【容】【就】【比】【较】【有】【趣】【了】，【上】【路】【是】【沟】【头】【人】，【中】【路】【是】
【火】【焰】【瞬】【间】【弥】【漫】【场】【间】，【将】【唐】【尧】【的】【身】【形】【吞】【没】。 “【父】【皇】。”【离】【清】【尘】【紧】【张】【地】【看】【向】【神】【帝】。 【神】【帝】【淡】【然】【道】：“【这】【一】【招】【应】【该】【奈】【何】【不】【了】【唐】【医】【师】，【他】【拥】【有】【火】【字】【神】【文】，【对】【火】【焰】【神】【通】【有】【天】【然】【的】【克】【制】。【但】【他】【实】【在】【有】【些】【轻】【敌】，【不】【应】【该】【直】【接】【接】【下】【这】【一】【招】【的】。” 【两】【个】【器】【灵】【的】【脸】【上】【露】【出】【笑】【意】，【这】【就】【是】【他】【们】【想】【要】【的】【结】【果】。【他】【们】【看】【向】【朱】【雀】【神】【君】，【却】【发】【现】【朱】【雀】【神】
【一】【路】【上】【坐】【在】【车】【里】【看】【着】【外】【面】【闪】【烁】【的】【霓】【虹】。 【曹】【一】【方】【满】【脑】【子】【空】【白】。 【他】【像】【一】【个】【没】【有】【灵】【魂】【的】【木】【偶】【人】，【被】【谢】【妍】【婷】【牵】【引】【着】【来】【到】【肝】【外】【科】【医】【院】。 【肝】【硬】【化】【晚】【期】。 【这】【五】【个】【普】【普】【通】【通】【的】【字】，【以】【往】【也】【经】【常】【听】【见】，【却】【从】【来】【没】【有】【这】【么】【直】【观】【的】【恐】【惧】。 【生】【老】【病】【死】，【原】【来】【近】【在】【咫】【尺】。 【单】【人】【加】【护】【病】【房】，【曹】【一】【方】【和】【谢】【妍】【婷】【两】【人】【敲】【门】【而】【入】，【开】
“【爷】【爷】。【你】【说】【用】……【用】【完】【了】【是】【什】【么】【意】【思】。”【说】【着】【他】【就】【再】【次】【坐】【下】。【疑】【惑】【的】【询】【望】【着】【他】。 【同】【青】【真】【人】【轻】【笑】【一】【声】。【才】【开】【口】【解】【释】：“【这】【紫】【魂】【石】。【也】【就】【是】【你】【脑】【海】【中】【的】【古】【咒】。【其】【实】【都】【是】【崇】【岳】【稹】【的】【力】【量】【所】【化】。【你】【每】【吸】【收】【一】【点】。【崇】【岳】【稹】【的】【力】【量】【便】【会】【在】【你】【体】【内】【积】【蓄】【的】【多】【一】【些】。【而】【在】【一】【个】【月】【前】。【你】【与】【帝】【宫】【的】【判】【官】【和】【散】【仙】【打】【斗】【的】【时】【候】。【因】【为】【使】【出】【全】护民历史图库211cc【三】【清】、【准】【提】【接】【引】【五】【人】【在】【一】【日】【之】【间】【全】【部】【成】【圣】。 【至】【此】【当】【初】【道】【祖】【鸿】【钧】【收】【下】【的】【六】【个】【徒】【弟】【全】【部】【成】【为】【天】【道】【圣】【人】，【这】【让】【整】【个】【洪】【荒】【开】【始】【沸】【腾】【起】【来】。 【以】【往】【的】【洪】【荒】【世】【界】，【连】【一】【个】【圣】【人】【都】【很】【难】【见】【到】。 【可】【是】【现】【在】【骤】【然】【出】【现】【五】【个】，【而】【且】【圣】【人】【的】【实】【力】【强】【大】【无】【比】，【即】【使】【是】【准】【圣】【在】【其】【眼】【中】【亦】【是】【蝼】【蚁】【般】【的】【存】【在】，【如】【果】【说】【以】【前】【的】【洪】【荒】【是】【巫】【妖】【两】【族】【的】【时】
【玄】【云】【心】【头】【一】【颤】。 【其】【实】【她】【也】【早】【有】【心】【理】【准】【备】，【知】【道】【邵】【阳】【此】【番】【过】【来】，【所】【为】【的】【多】【半】【也】【是】【这】【件】【事】。 【但】【当】【年】，【她】【还】【敢】【配】【合】【着】【玄】【淑】【隐】【瞒】，【现】【在】……【邵】【阳】【只】【是】【淡】【淡】【开】【口】，【却】【已】【经】【给】【了】【玄】【云】【一】【种】【十】【分】【沉】【重】【的】【压】【力】。 【邵】【阳】【看】【她】【一】【眼】，【顿】【时】【清】【楚】【玄】【云】【必】【然】【知】【道】【些】【什】【么】。 【所】【以】，【邵】【阳】【淡】【淡】【道】：“【你】【们】【塔】【云】【山】【一】【脉】，【或】【者】【说】【陆】【心】【怡】，
【一】【品】【红】（【学】【名】：Euphorbia pulcherrimaWilld. et Kl.）：【灌】【木】。【根】【圆】【柱】【状】，【极】【多】【分】【枝】。【茎】【直】【立】，【高】1-3【米】，【直】【径】1-4 【厘】【米】，【无】【毛】。【叶】【互】【生】，【卵】【状】【椭】【圆】【形】、【长】【椭】【圆】【形】【或】【披】【针】【形】，【绿】【色】，【边】【缘】【全】【缘】【或】【浅】【裂】【或】【波】【状】【浅】【裂】，【叶】【面】【被】【短】【柔】【毛】【或】【无】【毛】，【叶】【背】【被】【柔】【毛】；【苞】【叶】5-7【枚】，【狭】【椭】【圆】【形】，【长】3-7【厘】【米】，【宽】1-2【厘】【米】，【通】【常】【全】【缘】，【极】【少】【边】【缘】【浅】【波】【状】【分】【裂】，【朱】【红】【色】。【花】【序】【数】【个】【聚】【伞】【排】【列】【于】【枝】【顶】；【总】【苞】【坛】【状】，【淡】【绿】【色】，【边】【缘】【齿】【状】5【裂】，【裂】【片】【三】【角】【形】，【无】【毛】。【蒴】【果】，【三】【棱】【状】【圆】【形】，【平】【滑】【无】【毛】。【种】【子】【卵】【状】，【灰】【色】【或】【淡】【灰】【色】，【近】【平】【滑】；【无】【种】【阜】。【花】【果】【期】10【月】【至】【次】【年】4
【皇】【甫】【超】【博】【的】【等】【待】【没】【有】【多】【长】【时】【间】，【也】【就】【是】【作】【出】【决】【定】【后】【的】【第】【二】【天】，【皇】【甫】【超】【博】【与】【郭】【嘉】【在】【吃】【午】【饭】【的】【时】【候】，【便】【看】【到】【史】【阿】【匆】【匆】【忙】【忙】【从】【外】【冲】【了】【进】【来】，【很】【快】【他】【便】【跑】【到】【皇】【甫】【超】【博】【面】【前】，【行】【了】【一】【礼】，【然】【后】【急】【切】【的】【说】【道】：“【大】【王】，【徐】【荣】【将】【军】【急】【报】！” 【皇】【甫】【超】【博】【猛】【的】【一】【惊】，【连】【忙】【问】【道】：“【讲】！” “【今】【日】【一】【早】，【徐】【荣】【将】【军】【领】【收】【到】【昌】【邑】【城】【派】【人】【送】