Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The question serves the most valid of purposes: determining the truth. I find it unlikely that one of the keenest legal minds of our time failed, 6 years in a row, where TaxAct succeeds. Because of this, I believe he did this intentionally, and you don't do something like this intentionally without reason. Why would a Supreme Court Justice who's wife works for active political organizations in line with his political views choose not to include his wife's income? The answer to that question is the reason for my (I believe valid) concern.
|
There are many who feel as you do, so the next steps should be clear. At the very least it is a civil violation and it could lead to his impeachment and disbarment. When those steps are not taken come back and then tell me the purpose of the question. It is clear the question is out-dated and/or of no real importance. I simply believe the more compelling discussion is regarding the broader issue.
Quote:
|
This isn't a free speech issue at all. This is fundamental judicial responsibility, impartiality. The fact that Thomas' speaking engagement was funded by people who stood to gain a great deal with Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest. The fact that his wife's employer pushed for Citizens United suggests a possible conflict of interest.
|
I believe Thomas' response was that his wife's activities are of no consequence. He presented the challenge to those who hold your point of view. If his wife's activities are of consequence, prove it. Do something about it. The suggestion that person A has to be accountable for person B's political activity seems odd to me. Perhaps, I don't understand your point of view.
Would you suggest that Michele Obama be restricted from being actively involved in her political party activity or that Obama be held directly responsible for her activity.
Quote:
My standard is being paid by people who gain directly from your decisions.
Tu quoque, ace.
|
Perhaps Thomas and his wife simply spend time together focusing on their relationship and don't talk money and politics! There are a few guys in the world who after a 10 or 12 hour day at work, don't want to come home and talk about work! And going back to one of my points, a guy's hunting buddy may influence his politics and create a bigger conflict of interest than the activities of his wife - but you have no interest in that regard - hence I question the whole purpose of this. "Truth", I doubt it. I think you just want Thomas to go away and will pursue any means to get it done.
---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Another failed analogy, ace.
|
I believe it was the Great Bambino who said:
"Every strike brings me closer to the next home run."
I have no fear of failure.
