Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...your arguments just get weaker and and less defensible when you make statements like:
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.
|
Let me cut to the chase for you regarding Conflict of Interest. It is not possible for a Supreme court Justice to not regularly have "conflicts of interests" in the cases they hear. The whole point of being a judge on the Supreme Court is to put the Constitution in front of all other issues, including potential conflict of interest.
If you put any case ever heard by the Court on the table, conflicts of interest can be found. If you don't think some Justices had conflicts of interest in the Gore V Bush case, you need to take some time and re-visit the case and some of the history. You consequently make claims about my supposed indefensible positions and eventually you hide from the truth.
When I press for clarity you fail to provide it. There are clear differences between general conflicts of interest, and perpetuating a fraud leading to the direct enrichment personally and/or of family members. When I asked for proof of how Thomas' spouses actions was a violation of the code, the point was dismissed.
Again, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know.
---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
You keep going back to the spouses activities. I don't care what the spouse does or did. It is of no importance to me. I would not care if the spouse actually made an argument in front of the Court, I think it would be her privilege to do so and if she exercised that privilege I would still expect a Supreme court Justice to do his job and provide sound Constitutional justification for his/her ruling.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Then be clear and say it in plain language. Judges and politicians, in your view should be held accountable for the behaviors of others. I disagree.
Quote:
|
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.
|
In a case the "people" versus a client of your spouses law firm, technically it means you are involved - what they mean is that you can not be a direct party named in the litigation or be privy to inside information that can impact the case. But, a judge does not represent clients they represent the Constitution and the laws of the land.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Then how do you define "lobbying"? Where do you draw the line? Giving Money? Giving a speech? Stuffing envelops? Writing a letter?
Regarding getting paid, if a justice was married to a teacher or professor would the justice then not be allowed to hear a case involving education? Again, where do you draw the line, give me some specifics, some examples of what you want.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Again why not clearly state your point of view. Are you saying that the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice no longer has the same Constitutional rights that you have? Ever American has the right to lobby or to influence legislation. If your view is as I suspect, I disagree.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If Thomas broke the rules, then those who think he did have a responsibility to act. Wake me up when you see someone doing something rather than the non-stop complaining.
Quote:
|
Is that how you operate? Is that how some conservatives operate? Is it only the left, only those you disagree with?
|
No it is how the left is currently operating. The only conflicts they are interested in are the ones that may help their cause.
Quote:
|
It's called the law! What do you expect when we dont enforce it?
|
The law doesn't stop people from doing wrong.