Justice Thomas and conflict of interest

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I find it interesting that the supreme Justices are exempt from the code of conduct that applies to other justices across the nation.

how did this come about?

Good Question..

[budman33]

when you bring home that much money its hard to keep track.

[CuteOldGuy]

Are you kidding? They went to an event that apparently they have been attending for years? And that disqualifies them? Do you really think that this dinner will influence how they rule? Get real. Very few things are certain, like death, taxes, and there is no way in hell Scalia or Thomas will favor Obamacare regardless of who buys them dinner.

Then you must be outraged that Justice Kagan has not recused herself.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...simply-amazing

You people are grasping at straws. If the Federalist Society was trying to influence the decision, they should have invited Justice Kennedy.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Are you kidding? They went to an event that apparently they have been attending for years? And that disqualifies them? Do you really think that this dinner will influence how they rule?

No. I think that their votes were bought and paid for long before this dinner. What IS disappointing, however, is that any justice of the USSupreme Court would be so tone deaf to legal ethos and the appearance of impropriety as to attend the event, much less attend on the day certain was granted.

Also, I am ashamed that Democrats don't filabuster the nomination of every single member of the Federalist society. They are, by definition, way outside the judicial mainstream and are unfit for judicial service.

Finally, as for Kagan, her position was not a personal position, but one she took as an advocate. I've taken any number of positions as an advocate that I would reject as a judge. I've briefed dozens, if not hundreds of Federal motions to transfer venue, both for and against transfer. Does that mean as a judge, I couldn't rule on one because I've taken positions on them as an advocate? Such a rule would be ridiculous.

[CuteOldGuy]

I figured as much. Kagan is ok, but Thomas and Scalia are out. You are too easy to predict. There is a much greater conflict of interest with Kagan, than with Thomas or Scalia, but you refuse to see it because she will vote the "right way."

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Thomas and Scalia were conservative BEFORE the Federalist Society was introduced to them? Or are only conservatives corrupt?

And you are so far to the left that you can't see that the Federalist Society is pretty damn close to the middle of the mainstream. Not always my cup of tea, but much closer to reality than you are.

But I understand, I was disappointed the Republicans didn't filibuster Kagan, who is supremely unqualified for her position. The only reason she was appointed was because Obama knew that she would be a knee jerk vote in support of Obamacare. If he was looking for a jurist, there are plenty of qualified liberal candidates. Instead, he appointed a flunky. Again, just proving that he is a typical politician, and that his promise of "Change" was just a load of bullshit.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I
The only reason she was appointed was because Obama knew that she would be a knee jerk vote in support of Obamacare.

NOW NOW NOW.....BE FAIR......HE ALSO APPOINTED HER BECAUSE SHE IS A LESBIAN......THAT MAY NOT PUT HER IN TOUCH WITH THE LIVES OF MAINSTREAM AMERICANS, BUT IT PUTS HER IN TOUCH WITH THE LIVES OF MAINSTREAM LIBERAL ANTI-AMERICANS.........

[CuteOldGuy]

Thank you, Marshall. Yes, that is true as well.

[Whirlaway]

Kagan on hearing that Obamacare will be signed into law: "Oh Goody" (or some similar emotional outburst).


And the Obamazombies want us to believe Kagan's personal opinions won't influence her deicsions on Obamacare !