- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,552
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yes, I'm so sorry. When someone commented that I'd misunderstood, I scrolled up, re-read and went "Ooops!" Unfortunately, I made the comment last night and just logged in a few minutes ago.
My sarcasm detector is in the shop for repairs. I'm seriously helpless without it. :mrgreen:
By any means necessary...... other than by the rule of law I guess.
Why should the politicial ideology of a judges wife concern the court? A judges duty and only authority is to arbitrate "written" law, not inject personal opinion but compare the actual words of the written law with the actual words of the Standard of calibration, in this instance the United States Constitution. Personal opinion has no place at the Supreme Court Level, as these people are supposedly appointed because of their personal knowledge of the land and unbaised professionalism. If he does resuce himself this instance.....that would then force the hand of the court to recuse another Judge, Sotomayor....whose has already ruled in favor of the Law at a lower level and would have a predetermined mindset. Thus, you would still have 4/3 court and not the tie that you are looking for.
KGS
I've talked to conservative lawyers who say Thomas is an imbecile who shouldn't be deciding any cases.
Why should the politicial ideology of a judges wife concern the court? A judges duty and only authority is to arbitrate "written" law, not inject personal opinion but compare the actual words of the written law with the actual words of the Standard of calibration, in this instance the United States Constitution. Personal opinion has no place at the Supreme Court Level, as these people are supposedly appointed because of their personal knowledge of the land and unbaised professionalism. If he does resuce himself this instance.....that would then force the hand of the court to recuse another Judge, Sotomayor....whose has already ruled in favor of the Law at a lower level and would have a predetermined mindset. Thus, you would still have 4/3 court and not the tie that you are looking for.
KGS
I don't think such a recusal is either necessary or desirable in this case.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canon 3(C)1(c) requires a federal judges to disqualify themselves when their spouse has a financial interest in the outcome of the case. Seems pretty cut an dry that Thomas is required to recuse himself in the case in question; it is disingenuous or ignorant of the judicial canons to suggest otherwise.
Please clarify the details of how Virginia Thomas will benefit financially based on the outcome of the case.
To some it's not as "cut and dry" as you imply.....
.
And its not about benefitting from the outcome. Thomas' wife was financially tied to the outcome of this case, so the quoted Code of Conduct is valid in that respect. However, to consider a SC Justice at the same level as a federal judge is a mistake. If Thomas and Kagan find themselves in a position that they cannot be impartial, they should recuse themselves. Kagan did not, but Thomas did, end of story.
Uhhh, still only platitudes. Throw me a bone here.
Explicitly how will the outcome of the case directly benefit her financially....???
.
Should Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan Sit Out Health Care Case?
This thread clearly shows that some Conservatives do not understand what "conflict of interest" is.
Yes they both should be sitting this one out. Justice Kagan more than likely will recuse herself, as she has done in the past. Justice Thomas is a different story.
Twenty-one years of violating government ethics laws? NO PROBLIM for Justice Clarence Thomas, calling his falsification of his wife’s employment status on the conflict-of-interest forms a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions". FOR TWENTY ONE YEARS?:roll: Thats a bit of a stretch even for a Scalia clone.
I don't need to explicitly explain how, because the correlation between the decision in this case and her finances is established because she formed a firm which lobbies against this bill.
Possibly the dumbest guy (or prehaps just a guy with very, very low integrity) ever to take a seat on the court.....
That comment is racist. Perhaps you feel the same way as the mob demonstrating at the Koch event a few weeks ago and believe Thomas should be sent back to the fields. Is that right ?
sure you have. My former roommate from college has argued several cases before the USSC and he says otherwise. He also was the acting US AG. I suspect you are lying.
Yes, he is basically sleeping with a lobbyist.... or, look at it another way, given that the lion's share of his household income comes from a company that has a horse in the game, he is a de facto lobbyist.
(racist....???)
.
(racist....???)
.
That comment is racist. Perhaps you feel the same way as the mob demonstrating at the Koch event a few weeks ago and believe Thomas should be sent back to the fields. Is that right ?
Guess what? There are intellectual lightweights in all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds and nationalities. Sorry, but a Supreme Court justice that never asks a question of the litigants, never says anything in court, never authors an opinion is a light-weight.
never? Really, and I am sure that a some search will prove you right?
A week from Tuesday, when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.
[...]
In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html?_r=2&hp
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?