Second Harlan Crow Connected Group Has A Perfect Litigation Record Before Justice Thomas

By Ian Millhiser?think progress

Real estate magnate Harlan Crow has been very good to Justice Clarence Thomas, lavishing gifts and other favors on Thomas and his family. Crow provided $500,000 to allow Thomas’ wife to start a Tea Party group, and he once gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. He also served on the board of a corporate-aligned think tank called the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which once gave Thomas a $15,000 gift.

As ThinkProgress reported earlier this week, AEI filed at least three briefs in the Supreme Court after giving Thomas this very expensive gift, and Thomas eithersided with AEI or took a position that was much more extreme that AEI’s in all three of these cases. ThinkProgress has now learned that a second Harlan Crow-affiliated group, the Center for the Community Interest, has a perfect record in front of Justice Thomas.

Crow served on CCI’s board alongside failed Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada. Westlaw’s database of Supreme Court briefs reveals eight briefs filed by CCI in eight different Supreme Court cases, and Justice Thomas voted for CCI’s preferred outcome in every single one of these cases:

• City of Chicago v. Morales: The lower court struck down a law “making it illegal for members of criminal gangs to loiter and fail to obey an order to disperse.” CCI asked the Court to reverse that decision, and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent saying that he would reverse.

• Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott: The lower court struck down a parole board’s warrantless search of a parolee’s residence. CCI asked the Court to reverse that decision, and Justice Thomas wrote the 5-4 decision reversing.

• Dickerson v. U.S.: The lower court upheld a statute cutting at the core of accused defendant’s Miranda rights. CCI asked the Court to affirm this decision. Justice Thomasjoined a dissent which would have affirmed.

• U.S. v. Knights: The lower court struck down the warrantless search of a probationer’s residence. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing.

• U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker: The lower court ruled in favor of public housing tenants who were evicted because their resident family members or caregivers violated drug laws. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined adecision reversing.

• Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe: The lower court struck down a law requiring public disclosure of registered sex offenders. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing.

• U.S. v. American Library Ass’n, Inc.: The lower court struck down a federal law requiring many public libraries to use filtering software that prevents web browsers from showing some pornographic material. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined aplurality opinion reversing.

• Devenpeck v. Alford: The lower court held an arrest unconstitutional. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined an opinion reversing.

To be clear, there is no direct evidence that Crow lavished gifts on Thomas in order to switch his vote in any of these cases. But Thomas’ refusal to turn away Crow’s gifts remains a severe blow to the integrity of the judiciary. The losing parties in each of these cases has a right to be confident that their cases were decided solely on the merits, and Thomas’ relationship with Crow strikes directly at that confidence.

Christie Worked For Firm That Represented For-Profit Schools, Now Pushing For School Privatization

By Zaid Jilani

One of the major initiatives of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has been pushing for is the expansion of for-profit and privately managed schools in K-12 education. As part of this push, Christie has been championing a school voucher expansion that would cost the state $825 million to funnel tax dollars to private schools, while at the same time slashing spending for public education, cutting $820 million last year alone.

Last week, Christie announced a new “public-private school pilot program” which would allow “local school boards [to] hand control of some so-called ‘transformation schools’ to education management organizations, possibly including for-profit firms.” Christie designed the new program with Acting Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf, the “former president of the world’s largest for-profit operator of public schools, Edison Schools Inc.”

The New Jersey Star-Ledger notes that Christie actually has a very strong financial tie to Cerf’s for-profit company. The private law firm at which Christie worked as a lobbyist between 1999 and 2001 actually lobbied New Jersey’s government on behalf of Edison Schools:

From 1999 to 2001, Christie was a registered lobbyist at a law firm that lobbied New Jersey government on behalf of Edison Schools, according to filings with the state Election Law Enforcement Commission. While the firm was representing the multinational education company, Chris Cerf was its general counsel.

The firm, Dughi, Hewit and Palatucci, also represented Mosaica Education, a for-profit charter school operator, and the University of Phoenix, a for-profit online university. At the time, the firm listed two lobbyists, Christie and William Palatucci, a longtime political ally of the governor who is a named partner in the firm.

“Many people support their public schools and they are reacting with anger to the idea they should be privatized,” said state Sen. Dick Codey (D), in response to Christie’s proposed education policies

The Palin Bus Tour And Fox News' Ethical Morass

 by Simon Maloy

When it comes to Sarah Palin's White House intentions, do Fox News executives know something that we don't?

In the past week alone, they've issued two separate statements confirming that the former half-term governor's contract with the news network remains unchanged. That would seem to indicate a certain level of confidence from the network brass that Palin is not going to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency. Either that, or Palin is coyly stringing them along with the pack of the journalists chasing her along I-95.

Given the network's treatment of former contributors -- now candidates -- Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, the former scenario seems the more likely. Both had their contracts with Fox Newssuspended once they crossed an as-yet undefined threshold of "seriousness" about running, but long before they actually became candidates. Assuming they're applying the same standard, it's reasonable to think that Palin has at least given them some reassurance that her highly publicized bus tour/family vacation to the early primary states has nothing to do with a potential run for the presidency.

But that raises a number of ethical issues:

Palin keeps hinting that she's running. Palin has been determinedly evasive when answering questions about whether or not she'll run, but she's also offered plenty of hints that a candidacy is in the works. She told reporters on May 30 that "there is still a lot of time for folks to make up their minds and jump in and get their campaigns together. The field isn't set yet. Not by a long shot." She spent today in New Hampshire attacking Mitt Romney, who was in New Hampshire today to formally announce his 2012 candidacy (Palin insisted the timing was "coincidental").

So Palin, in her capacity as a Fox News employee, is signaling that she will seek political office. Her bosses, however, are signaling that she won't. What's more, Fox News is paying Sarah Palin as she drives across the country dropping hints about running for higher office.

Fox News personalities are promoting Palin's brand and potential candidacy. Ever since Palin announced her PAC-funded bus tour, she's received plaudits from her Fox News colleagues who aretalking up the Palin "brand" and openly speculating about her 2012 chances. That's problematic in and of itself, but the repeated public statements from Fox executives -- the ones that make the editorial and programming decisions -- that Sarah Palin is not, in their eyes, a potential candidate makes clear that they have no problem treating her both as a candidate and an employee.

Is Fox News applying the Santorum/Gingrich standard to Palin? On May 31, ThinkProgress' Alex Seitz-Wald reported that "there is some evidence to suggest Palin and Fox have a mutually beneficial relationship that the skirts the ethical guidelines it has imposed on other 2012 candidates." In the first few days of the bus tour, Palin has given exclusive access to the bus and herself to Fox News colleague Greta Van Susteren. Politico reported that Palin "will also do an interview with Sean Hannity on his Fox News show, to air Friday."

Fox News, of course, has been tight-lipped regarding the threshold an employee must cross to be considered a candidate. And that is the problem. There is no way to determine if they are holding Palin to the same standard that they held Santorum and Gingrich. What is clear is that Palin benefits from her contract with the network, and Fox News stands to benefit from Palin's candidate kabuki. The longer she remains in that candidate gray area, the more money she makes, and the more "exclusive" interviews Fox News gets.

The fact that Fox News has served as a stable for so many 2012 GOP contenders is bad enough, but Palin's newly launched bus tour has made startlingly clear the ethical mess in which Fox News is currently mired.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife received $150,000 from anti-health care reform group

By Eric W. Dolan

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released his new financial disclosure form on Friday under pressure from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and others.

Mother Jones reported that his financial disclosure form indicates his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, received a $150,000 salary from the group Liberty Central in 2010 and less than $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying firm she founded.

Liberty Central, which she helped found, supports the repeal of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Weiner had taunted Thomas via Twitter on Friday, but his criticisms where quickly overshadowed by the so-called"Weinergate" fiasco that broke out Sunday. The congressman had previously called on Thomas to recuse himself from casesinvolving health care reform because of his wife's financial connections to groups dedicated to its repeal.

"The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law," a letter written by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and signed by 74 Members of Congress stated. "From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred."

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires Supreme Court justices to disclose their spouse's income, but Thomas had not disclosed Virginia's income on his financial disclosure forms for 20 years.

"We knew that Justice Thomas' family had a financial stake in opposing health care reform," Weiner said Friday in a statement. "Now we know even more. It's pretty clear the justice has one option here: recusal