urville

Does the question your asking differ from Mrs.Obama and her interests in fighting obesity. On party lines they would seem similar, in rhetoric certainly. but one is wholly different from another. We are talking about influencing and lobbying legislation here and in one case its a position expected to be partisan, the other is supposed to be blind to all of that. How can it claim to be when it isnt, when it hides that it isnt. this isnt the executive branch, this is the judicial branch. As i said before, when it come to this branch of govt I'll take it as far as it has to go to guarantee it is blind as it is supposed to be.

This has nothing to do with what year it is. As a citizen if you want man to man encounters on the side of your wife that's your business, as a public employee such as a representative, judge, etc. You set an example as does your parenting, choice in spouse, finances, etc. Your character up to and during is of the utmost importance. No one is being forced. If you don't like it, don't take the appointment. The appointment is the privilege earned not guaranteed, taken by choice not force.

In this case i think its clear cut. An adult can certainly make the decision whether they are putting themselves in a position of creating a conflict of interest. My wife works for a major national law firm, i cant be involved in any litigation against any of their clients. The job, like the appointment, is a privilege not a right and thus is subject to certain rules. It's not about me or you or gender roles, its about ethics. As Mrs. Thomas, my husband being a justice, I'd be a fool not to expect that, I expect it now. Of course she can sell her car, this is indeed hyperbolic. Lobbying however is another thing, anything involving money in politics... not so much. If you cant tell why one is different from another, God help you.

Yeah, your a justice but you cant make sure your maid is a legal citizen? That your wife is not lobbying? etc... In my opinion you do not deserve the privilege. This isnt like being the CEO of Kmart. This is the law of the United States as it may sometimes or not pertain to every aspect of every citizens life including legislation and legislators, etc. In this case the legality of that legislation in question.

It's not punishment for her doing, its considering whether as a result of not knowing or bothering to know or purposely hiding it that your character is deserving of the privilege. Conflict of interest. By taking that appointment your making a promise, its a lot of responsibility and maybe it isnt for everyone. Dont take the appointment if it isnt for you.

A public officials rights are one thing. His employment is not complete freedom like his citizenship. They come with rules, a job is a privilege. Follow the rules or get a different job. The private sector does this everyday the public sector has no reason to be different. If you see your job requires transparency and you think thats not right, dont take the job. Your not being forced to do anything, you choose. Thats the difference.

There are many criminals who do not for that very reason. There is nothing wrong with this rule as a requirement of employment or in this case appointment or conduct. he had every opportunity to consider not accepting it.

Is that how you operate? Is that how some conservatives operate? Is it only the left, only those you disagree with? i told you, if the same was true and it had been pro the legislation, I'd still think it was BS and want him held accountable. This isnt a game of ideologies... I actually believe it should be determined by a vote, this probably means congress unfortunately which wont get us a nonpartisan vote. Maybe a popular vote, I dont expect to get that though. I think we should have all kinds of voting on everything because reps cant be trusted anymore, or... (gasp) finance reform! So we actually get our voice back. Voices are not dollars, dollars are not free speech, we all get a vote a voice by the nature of our being. What need do we have for more?

It's called the law! What do you expect when we dont enforce it? of course they wont fear and respect it. Enron is not the courts, and we shouldnt let it be the courts. Why do think we're arguing this? Oh right partisan politics. Well your wrong. its because we find this to be outside whats right, it should be outside the law, the standards of the seat, and he should suffer those consequences.