Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Why would you think I would go to an editorial or synopsis when the actual decision is readily available?
"Litigant" being 'Industry' in general, specifically Wallace Carline's company. They have a gain involved in keeping the extent of industrys involvement in public policy a secret.
|
I think that because EVERY SINGLE assertion you have presented so far has been FALSE....and in direct contradiction to the FACTS as laid out in both the petion for recusal and the decision denying the petition.
The 'industry' as a litigant? Do you really believe that? Could you then also conclude that because the Sierra Club is a litigant that any Justice so environmentally inclined should also recuse h**self? Even former ACLU (since the ACLU filed an amicus brief) attorneys who now sit on the bench should recuse themselves...how about just plain old Democrat...since obviously a democrat will surely vote against the Republican Administrations office of the veep?
None-the-less, I remain committed to respecting your opinion, regardless of how you reached it...with facts, falsehoods, or prejudice.
I still reserve the right to point out the folly of your opinion forming process. Hopefully keeping true to the respect for others policy that guides our interactions.
-bear