Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace, once again, you missed the point. You consistently ignore the facts placed in front of you.
|
I will try one more time.
I acknowledged the facts and have gone on to a bigger issue. Thomas clearly stated that his wife's actions are of no consequence. Translated - It is true, F-you, what you gonna do about it?
Quote:
|
The issue is not my concern about "appearance," it is the Code of Conduct that refers to "appearing to advance the private interests of others."
|
It appears that either you don't understand the Code or I don't. I ask questions seeking clarification. The segment of the Code in question is vague, the only way to understand it is to understand how it would apply to different circumstances. For me to understand your point of view I need to offer you hypotheticals. You won't respond to them, so I will never really understand your point of view it it is anything other than politically motivated. I have come to my conclusion.
Quote:
|
And, it is not a question of proof, but adherence to the Code of Conduct, even if only on a voluntarily basis.
|
He voluntarily told the world that his wife's actions are of no consequence. He put the ball in "your" court. If her actions are of consequence, don't you have to provide proof?
Quote:
|
Given that the Court is exempt from the Code, there is no procedure to act on it, even if Congress had such an inclination.
|
Your statement here clearly shows a lack of imagination. If this was truly a serious issue, I think Congress could find some way to act and influence the situation. this is simply another one of those issues where people in your party can go around and fake your outrage knowing full well there is no real intent to do anything. How many times in the past 10 years have conservatives given liberals the figurative finger ( yea, I did it, what are you gonna do about it) and liberals have just rolled over? You folks have no credibility.
Quote:
I agree, your adherence to your ideology to the point that you are unwilling or unable to understand the value of such a Code is political.
---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------
The credibility of the Supreme Court is dependent not only on the legal merits of its judgements, but also, unlike the legislative or executive branches, on assurances of its independence from political influence.
When a justice is payed by a political interest to participate in a meeting or when a justice's spouse is paid to lobby against legislation that may come before the Court, appearance of independence from political influence matters.
Do you see no value in a code of conduct for federal judges, or just no value in the code including standards that judges "should not lend prestige of the office ...that appear to advance the private interests of others?"
|
I am curious in light of your presentation on this issue of Ethics and the appearance of a conflict of interest. In the case Gore V Bush, where we had Supreme Court Justices who clearly had past party affiliations, spouses and children with party affiliations, Justices who had been nominated by past Presidents of specified parties, where Gore had a track record of supporting and opposing various Justices in their nominating process, etc, etc, etc - yet no one recused themselves from the case because of the "appearance"? Were you vocal about the Code in that case? Why not if no?
Codes don't make me feel warm and fuzzy - I look at specific behaviors and actions, or what is real.
---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
Once you take ona position like Supreme Court Justice, that excuse goes out the door. Thats your responsibility in public service. so even if that is the case he fails on being competent, however, it is the case as has been pointed out.
|
It is not an excuse. It is a vague and useless question. It fails to address other types of relationships. The question put one person at risk for the behavior of another.
Are you really comfortable with the idea of being held accountable for the actions of another? How far do you go with this? Your wife gave $100 to a church, therefore you can not rule on any issue involving religion????Your son worked delivering for the NY Times, therefore you can not rule on issues involving the press??? Or, your wife tells you she made $50,000, but she really made $60,000 (she put $10,000 in her secrete divorce account because you take her for granted and don't buy her flowers any longer similar to Baraka-G outlook involving politicians), and you get impeached???