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.

Tomorrow will be an anniversary of sorts for the U.S. Supreme Court. The last time Justice Clarence Thomas made a comment or asked a question during oral arguments at the Court was Feb. 22, 2006 – five years ago tomorrow.

Thomas’ silence has long been a subject of chat among legal watchers. During oral arguments, if the justice leans forward in his seat reporters in the press galley perk up, wondering if that will be the day that the justice decides to chime in. Veteran New York Times scribe Linda Greenhouse once called Thomas’ determined refusal to take part in oral arguments “a weirdly compelling example of performance art.”

Thomas himself has spoken on the subject of his silence. In his opinion, oral arguments work as more of a vehicle for justices to advocate their own position – or give attorneys a hard time – than for lawyers to sway the justices.

“So why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don’t know, because I don’t beat up on ‘em,” Thomas said in an Associated Press report in 2009. “I refuse to participate. I don’t like it, so I don’t do it. …All nine of us are in the same building. If we want to sway each other we know where we are. We don’t need oral arguments to do that. It doesn’t make any sense to me.”

That’s not to say Thomas is completely silent during oral arguments. He’s often seen whispering and even laughing with the justices seated to either side of him on the bench – Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer.   But for the most part, Court spectators can witness the justice thumbing through briefs, or leaning far back in his leather chair with his eyes closed in apparent refection. The only time his voice has been heard during the last five years of the Court’s sessions is when he has announced the opinions he authored before oral arguments began.

Still, his decision not to participate in oral arguments has spurred debate in the legal community. Some simply say it’s a matter of the justice’s personal style.

Others are pleased with Thomas’ approach. “It reflects humility on his part,” Steffen Johnson of Winston & Strawn in Washington told the National Law Journal‘s Tony Mauro.

Vikram Amar, a professor at UC David School of law, agrees with Thomas. “I don’t know why the justices need argument to talk to each other,” Amar wrote in the New York Times. “They can write each other memos before argument is heard. And they can speak directly to each other in chambers, or in the conference after each argument sitting, at which time tentative votes in the argued cases are taken.”

But others are critical of the justice. “By removing himself from oral argument, Justice Thomas’ opinions do not benefit from the full adjudicative process designed to test theories in open court,” wrote David Karp argues in a Florida Law Review article, according to Mauro. “Many of his opinions, therefore, read less like the product of actual litigation, and more like constitutional commentary.”

Columbia Law School professor Jamal Greene said Thomas’ lack of participation evidences a rigidity of opinion, and a lack of desire for his views to be changed. “It is difficult for a silent justice to win over colleagues, but he may not care to,” Greene wrote in the Times.

Justice Clarence Thomas was sent a letter, signed by 74 House Democrats, asking him to recuse himself from considering the health case law challenge when it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the letter, the lawmakers cited the activities of his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, who launched a Tea Party-affiliated organization last year that called the law unconstitutional. She later stepped down as head of the group, and then launched a lobbying outfit.

They also cited Thomas’ omission of his wife’s income from conservative organizations on the justice’s financial disclosure forms. Thomas later amended the filings.

“The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. 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 members wrote, according to Politico.

Some GOP lawmakers said they believe Justice Elena Kagan should sit out, since she was solicitor general in the Obama administration when the law was being debated.

After coming under fire for failing to include his wife’s income from conservative organizations on federal financial disclosure forms, Justice Clarence Thomas yesterday filed amended reports, calling the omission an oversight.

Thomas attributed the error to a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Friday The Los Angeles Times reported that in the original filings, Thomas checked a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed despite the fact that Virginia Thomas earned in excess of $686,000 from the Heritage Foundation according to income returns filed with the IRS.

The explanation did not satisfy Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, the liberal watchdog group that has also asked the Justice Department to investigate Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia after they spoke at a conservative retreat in 2007.

“Justice Thomas sits on the highest court of the land, is called upon daily to understand and interpret the most complicated legal issues of our day and makes decisions that affect millions,” said Edgar in a statement. “It is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form. We find his excuse is implausible.”

Legal analyst Andrew Cohen points out this caveat on the forms Thomas signed: “Any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or fails to file this report may be subject to civil and criminal sanctions.”

According to the Ethics in Government Act, the maximum penalty for failure to properly fill out the disclosure forms is $10,000. “The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report,” the Act states.

A liberal lobbying organization has asked the Department of Justice to investigate Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas for possible conflicts of interest based on the justices’ association with a top conservative financier.

The group, Common Cause, filed a petition with the Justice Department after Charles Koch sent out an invitation to a political retreat for conservatives, and noted that past attendees included the justices. The petition asserts that the justices’ participation in the event should have disqualified them from hearing the controversial campaign finance case Citizens United v. FEC, which lifted some campaign finance restrictions on corporations. The group notes that Koch Industries is the nation’s second largest privately held company.

“Citizens United provided a political advantage to Koch Industries and its corporate allies, many of whom helped pump nearly $300 million into the 2010 elections,” the group says in a statement on its website. “Common Cause believes that if sufficient grounds for disqualification of either Justice exist, the Solicitor General should seek to vacate the Citizens United judgment”

Common Cause’s petition also raised questions about the political activities of Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas.

But according to The New York Times, group’s officials know that the challenge and effort to get the decision vacated will be a tough sell.

“We’re treading in new territory here for us,” Arn H. Pearson, Common Cause’s vice president for programs told the Times. “But a situation like this raises fundamental questions about public confidence in the Supreme Court.”

If you thought you’d heard the last salacious story related to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, you were wrong.

Thomas’s ex-girlfriend is set to publish what her publisher calls a “sexually driven” memoir next month, reports the Associated Press.

Lillian McEwen spoke about her relationship with Thomas publicly for the first time last year – after news outlets reported that Thomas’ wife, Ginni, called Anita Hill seeking an apology for testifying about alleged sexual harassment during Thomas’ 1991 confirmation hearings. McEwen said that during her relationship with Thomas, whom she dated in the 1980s, he often made inappropriate comments and was “obsessed with porn.”

Her book, “D.C. Unmasked and Undressed,” is scheduled to be released in February.

After stepping down as leader of the conservative group she founded, Liberty Central, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, said that telephoning Anita Hill seeking an apology was “probably a mistake on my part.”

Speaking to The Daily Caller, Thomas denied that she was leaving the Tea Party-affiliated group altogether. Thomas’ decision to relinquish her CEO position with the group was first reported by The Washington Post last month.

Thomas said she will now lead a joint venture between the group and the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty.

As for her reason for stepping down from the helm of Liberty Central, Thomas told the Daily Caller: “It’s better for the organization not to be centered around a personality.”

“If you look at any of the established conservative groups, it’s hard for them to pull away from some of their leaders,” Thomas said.

She called the notion that her decision was related to the recent media maelstrom around her call to Anita Hill asking for an apology “laughable.” She called the voicemail she left Hill in October asking her to apologize for testifying about alleged sexual harassment during Justice Thomas’ 1991 confirmation hearings “a private matter.”