Thomas Urged to Cancel Speech to Conservatives

Three days before the Senate is set to vote on President Clinton’s impeachment, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas plans to deliver a dinner speech to a conservative Southern California think tank that has encouraged Clinton’s removal from office.

An advocacy group that defends the strict separation of church and state Monday urged Thomas to cancel the speech. Its executive director said Thomas would violate his duty to maintain the appearance of impartiality if he went ahead with his plans.

“I can’t think of a worse time for this, in this climate of intense partisanship,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Justices ought to err on the side of caution, always. To speak to a highly partisan, shrill group like this would give the appearance he doesn’t care about impartiality.”

The Claremont Institute, an independent group of scholarly conservatives, is holding its Lincoln Day dinner at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel on Feb. 9.

Its Web site is promoting Thomas as its keynote speaker, noting that “past speakers included [conservative radio talk show host] Rush Limbaugh and [former House Speaker] Newt Gingrich.”

The promotion is followed by a note that says: “To call for the president’s resignation: Sign up HERE.” It adds that 3,800 readers of the Web site have signed up, and it referred to the Senate’s “grave task of holding an errant president accountable.”

The criticism is nothing new for Thomas, the court’s youngest and most conservative member. He has been lambasted for other speaking engagements, even when they involved no more than addressing a class of suburban high school students.

But alone among the justices, he also has spoken regularly before groups that espouse strongly conservative views.

A court spokeswoman on Monday said Thomas would have no comment on the latest controversy.

Institute president Larry P. Arnn said he and his colleagues have strong legal views but are not linked to the Republican Party. “We are not a partisan group in any sense,” he said.

He also blamed the controversy on a continuing dispute between liberals and conservatives about the meaning of the 1st Amendment and its ban on “laws respecting an establishment of religion.” Arnn has called “imaginary” the notion that the Constitution itself demands a strict separation of church and state.

“This is a tired old story. It is an attempt by [Lynn’s group] to get publicity at our expense,” Arnn said.

Lynn noted the Supreme Court already has decided several issues related to the impeachment battle, and it may be called upon to decide whether a president can be indicted while in office.

In 1997, the court ruled unanimously that Paula Corbin Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton could proceed. The justices also cleared the way for independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr to question Secret Service agents and White House lawyers.

The Judicial Code of Conduct says judges should avoid extracurricular activities that might “cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.” Most federal judges are bound by this code, but high court justices are not.