When the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the constitutionality of the federal health care law’s individual mandate, as well as several other jurisdictional and substantive issues, there was a notable omission: no mention was made about recusal of any justice from the decision.

Despite calls from advocates on both sides of the political spectrum for Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan to remove themselves from any consideration of the health care case, all indications suggest both will be present during the 5 ½ hours of oral arguments slated for the spring. Normally a justice who recuses from a particular case will indicate it in the cert order. But no such indication was made yesterday by Thomas or Kagan.

Critics of Thomas cite the work of the justice’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, founded a Tea Party-affiliated group that has called the health care law unconstitutional and worked for the Heritage Foundation, which also opposes the health care law.

Meanwhile some Republican lawmakers have called for an investigation into the role Kagan played in preparing the legal defense to challenges to the health care law during her tenure as solicitor general.

Justices decide for themselves whether to sit out any given cases due to some potential conflict.

“Presumably, they made whatever judgments they were going to make,” said Greg Katsas, a Jones Day partner representing one of the petitioners in the case, told The Hill.

The Supreme Court is too powerful, and could benefit from justices from places other than the East and West Coasts, Justice Clarence Thomas said last week.

Some of the issues that the nine Justices settle would be better hashed out by lawmakers and other elected officials, Thomas told students and faculty members at the University of Nebraska College of Law Thursday.

“The really hard calls ought to be made by citizens and their political leaders,” Thomas said, according to the Lincoln Journal Star. “Other branches ought to make (those) decisions. That’s more democratic.”

“Our role is too great,” Thomas said of the Court. “I don’t know any more about these big moral questions” than other people do.

As for the justices, Thomas, who is from Georgia,  said he wishes there were more justices from different parts of the country.

“There’s nobody from the Heartland,” Thomas said, adding that the Court would benefit from geographic diversity that “reflects the fact this is a big country, not just the Northeast.”

Six of the nine justices were born in either New York or New Jersey: Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.  Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer hail from California.

The only heartland connection on the Court comes from Roberts, who moved to Indiana with his family while still in grade school.

Justice Clarence Thomas is approaching his 20-year anniversary as a Supreme Court justice. And if you were racking your brain to figure out how to commemorate the milestone, the folks at The Green Bag have a solution for you: The Clarence Thomas bobblehead.

Thomas is the latest justice to be featured as a bobblehead by the quarterly legal publication. And the figure features much more than the justice’s likeness and a wiggly noggin. As with other Green Bag justice bobbleheads, there is plenty of symbolism in the figure.

For example, Thomas is standing on pizza boxes, a reference to his opinion in the 2005 case National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, in which Thomas noted: “One can pick up a pizza rather than having it delivered, and one can own a dog without buying a leash. By contrast, the Commission reasonably concluded, a consumer cannot purchase Internet service without also purchasing a connection to the Internet and the transmission always occurs in connection with information processing.”

Thomas’ foot also sits atop a figure of a tractor trailer. That is a reference to one of Thomas’ many objections to the concept of implied preemption. In the case Freightliner Corp. V. Myrick, Thomas wrote that “a finding of liability against petitioners would undermine no federal objectives or purposes with respect to such devices, since none exist.”

And like Thomas on the bench during oral arguments, the bobblehead is silent.

If you are dying to get your hands on one, you may have some trouble – the figurines are not sold. They are given away by the publication to certain recipients, such as some subscribers and even the justices themselves. So we have no doubt the justice will have it on his desk before the next term begins.

While Justice Clarence Thomas has come under fire for his wife’s Tea Party activities, his colleague came to his defense this week

During an appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Breyer was asked a hypothetical about a judge whose wife is involved in issues that may go before the judge’s court. Breyer, according to the Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove, gave an emphatic defense of Thomas’ situation.

“This is a false issue,” Breyer said. “As far as what your wife does or your husband does, I myself try to stick to a certain principle, and feel very strongly about it, that a wife or a husband is an independent person and they make up their own minds what their career is going to be.”

Some lawmakers and activists have called on Thomas to recuse himself from hearing the constitutional challenge to the health care law, which will land before the Court as soon as next Term. His wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, has been involved with Tea Party-related groups that have openly called the law unconstitutional.

Breyer said spouses don’t influence justices on the bench. “My wife happens to be a clinical psychologist at Dana Farber [Medical Center in Boston], and when I get cases involving psychology, I sit in those cases, OK?” Breyer said.

Breyer also hinted that he believes proposed legislation that would bind Supreme Court justices to the same ethical code as other federal judges is a bad idea.

“The Supreme Court is different in one respect. In every other court,” Breyer said. “If [I’m a circuit judge and]I decided in a close matter to recuse myself, that’s the easy decision. That’s one fewer case I have to decide, and besides, they’ll bring in somebody else to decide it. If I recuse myself on the Supreme Court, there is no one else and that could switch the result.”

The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliver opinions this morning. But perhaps the justices will gather first for a little birthday cake with their coffee.

Today Justice Clarence Thomas turns 63.

The exit from Congress of one of Justice Clarence Thomas’s most vocal critics has not stopped ethical questions from being raised about the Supreme Court justice’s associations.

In January, liberal lobbying group Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia for possible conflicts of interest based on the justices’ association with conservative financiers Charles and David Koch.

Now, a New York Times piece examines the relationship between Thomas and hefty conservative donor and Dallas real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

Crow, among other things: has donated money – at Thomas’ behest – for a land preservation project and museum in the justice’s home town of Pin Point, Ga.; financed a Savannah library project in the justice’s honor; gave Thomas a bible once belonging to Frederick Douglass; and even gave Thomas’ wife, Virginia, the seed money to start her Tea Party-affiliated group Liberty Central.

Under the ethical code which binds federal judges except for those on the Supreme Court bench, judges “should not personally participate” in raising money for charitable activities, nor should they know the donors to projects honoring them. The rule is meant to prevent the appearance that the donations are designed to sway the judge’s vote in any matter pertaining to the donor.

Ethicists are split on whether Thomas’ association with Crow raises serious ethical problems, with some saying his participation in the fundraising activities should have been prohibited. Others say Thomas did not violate any ethical rules, but one added: “It’s just a very peculiar situation.”

Would you like to spend some time in Geneva this summer? What about Lake Tahoe? Or is Rome more your flavor? Well, if you were Justice Antonin Scalia, you wouldn’t have to choose – you’d be heading to all three locales.

After the Supreme Court’s term wraps at the end of the month, Scalia his fellow jurists will be taking to the friendly skies to head to numerous cities within and outside of the United States, the AP reports. Justices are allowed to accept up to about $25,000 in additional income for teaching and speaking engagements, beyond their regular annual salaries of $213,900 (Chief Justice John G. Roberts earns $223,000).

Justice Stephen Breyer will have a particularly busy travel itinerary: a stint in Colorado to participate with Justice Elena Kagan (and possibly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) at the Aspen Institute; an visit to the American Bar Association convention in Toronto;  an appearance at the Calvin Coolidge Center in Vermont; a high school dedication in Fargo, N.D.; and a private appearance to officiate the weeding of former Rep. Patrick Kennedy on Cape Cod.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s travel plans are unknown, as are those of Justice Clarence Thomas – though he and his wife Ginni usually take to the open road in their RV, so keep an eye out and you may see them in the parking lot of your local Wal-Mart.

Calling them either illiterate or lazy, Justice Clarence Thomas lashed out against critics of the Supreme Court during a speech Tuesday in his home state of Georgia.

Speaking at an Augusta Bar Association event, Thomas compared those who vocally criticize the Court to overzealous sports fans.

“You don’t just keep nagging and nagging and nagging,” Thomas said, according to the Associated Press. “At some point it’s got to stop. Sometimes, too much is too much. I think we are reaching the point where we are beginning to undermine the integrity of the law we’re going to need.”

Thomas said the most vocal critics are those who base their opinions on their personal stakes in the cases, not their legal reasoning.

“There are times when the people who talk theoretically about the issues that we decide, you often wonder, ‘Have they read the opinions, have they read the cases?’” he said. “I think there’s a disease of illiteracy, or laziness, because just the commentary will tell you they haven’t read it.”

Justice Samuel Alito is not happy with all the ado over the silence of his colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, during oral arguments.

As readers of this blog know, Thomas has declined to offer a question or comment during oral arguments since Feb. 22, 2006. On the otherwise hot bench, Thomas’ silence is a standout.

But the focus on Thomas’ taciturnity irks Alito, who told an audience at the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis that he was “struck and somewhat displeased” that no one mentions that other famous Supreme Court justices chose not to speak during oral arguments, the St. Louis Beacon reports.

“Justice Thomas’ practice is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same as John Marshall, regarded by many as the greatest justice ever,” Alito said, according to the Associated Press. During Marshall’s tenure from 1801 to 1835, Alito noted, few justices asked questions despite the fact that cases were decided based almost entirely from the oral argument.

DC Dicta does not wish to displease Alito, so next term in the Funniest Justice tally – in which we always note Thomas’ silence – we will try to remember to mention that Marshall was also quiet during arguments.

[Hat tip to our sister publication, Missouri Lawyers Weekly]

Justice Clarence Thomas may have reached a silent milestone on Supreme Court the bench law week, but the justice was quite vocal during a speaking engagement Saturday, lashing out at critics who question his impartiality and warning that the Constitution – and the country – are being threatened.

Politico obtained a recording of Thomas speaking at the Federalist Society’s annual symposium, where he also defended his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, for her political activities, adding that he and his wife “believe in the same things” and are “focused on defending liberty.”

Thomas has come under fire in recent months for attending private events hosted by energy magnates and hefty GOP contributors Charles and David Koch. His wife has also been criticized for organizations she founded backing Tea Party causes.

At one point during his remarks at the Charlottesville, Va. event, Thomas recognized his wife in the audience, saying she is an example of how “there is a price to pay today for standing in defense of your Constitution.”

“[Ginni] started her organization to give 24/7 every day in defense of liberty,” Thomas said. “We are equally yoked, and we love being with each other because we love the same things. We believe in the same things. So, with my wife, and with the people around me, what I see, I’m reinforced that we are focused on defending liberty. So, I admire her and I love her for that because it keeps me going.”

Thomas also warned that if the Court does not follow an originalist interpretation of the Constitution – particularly in Commerce Clause cases – dire consequences will ensue. Legal challenges to the health care law enacted last year have been based on that provision of the Constitution.

“I do think that these are fundamental changes that are going on now, and I think they’re big changes,” said Thomas, adding that he was unsure if the changes are “reversible in any way. … But they’re so big, that I think they’re worth trying. And I think the [Constitution] is so important, it’s worth defending.”

“It’s not a game with me,” Thomas said. “It doesn’t deal with any ego stuff with me. This is about our country. And one of the things I want to do is I want to go to my grave knowing that I gave everything I had to trying to get it right.”

Video of Thomas’ remarks can be viewed on Politico.