ace...your arguments just get weaker and and less defensible when you make statements like:
Quote:
|
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
|
This is nonsense. The issue is not that Justices may have political affiliations or were nominated by a president of one party or the other, but that while sitting on the Court, they should not be paid for a speaking engagement by a partisan political organization that may have interests coming before the Court.
Or this:
Quote:
|
I think even public officials should have some privacy rights.
|
No one has suggested that Thomas's wife cant work for a partisan political organization on a specific issue that will come before the Court, but that simply he should recuse himself when that occurs.
Keep digging a deeper hole in denying that an appearance of the potential of conflict of interest may taint the public perception of the Court's independence.