Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here is the latest hatchet job on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose mere existence drives progressives insane. Justice Thomas remains silent during oral argument. The editorial board of the New York Times finds this unacceptable. But why? There is no earthly reason for Justice Thomas to ask questions at oral argument. If he wants to, fine; if he doesn't, fine. The issues are fully briefed, so it's not as though he's missing something by not asking questions. Note, too, the scurrilous charge that Justice Thomas has a conflict of interest that requires recusal in any case involving the constitutionality of Obamacare. His wife, a lobbyist, is said to be an "ambassador" for the Tea Party, one aim of which is to repeal Obamacare. Note the two degrees of separation: (1) it's Justice Thomas's wife, not him; and (2) his wife is only loosely connected with the Tea Party, which has many aims besides repealing Obamacare. Perhaps we can start looking at the spouses of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or the friends and relatives of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan (neither of whom is married). Then again, perhaps we should stop hunting for witches.