you can't really trust senators to ask all the questions they should.
i recall wondering at the time why they never asked clarence thomas why he didn't recuse himself from the alpo-purina case.
it had been reported by one of the major news weeklies that one company sued the other over something to do with puppy chow. i recall nothing of the case except that alpo won at the federal district level and purina got it overturned 2-1 by a circuit court of appeals panel.
thomas cast the deciding vote.
why do i think he should've recused himself? purina was owned by the family of then-senator john danforth of missouri, who gave thomas his first job out of law school and appears to have been his friend and mentor thereafter.
granted, thomas had no financial conflict, and i have no idea if danforth himself owned any of the company, but doesn't it seem the least bit unfair to be judged by a close friend of a relative of one side?
i mean if i were in clarence's shoes, i doubt i'd want to risk losing a friend by voting for alpo.
i need all the friends i've got.
No comments:
Post a Comment