Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace, its hard to get serious when you post such nonsense.
|
Hey DC,
Have you had a chance to actually think about Gore V Bush in context of an "appearance" of a conflict of interest and do you still stand by your statement that my bringing it up is nonsense?
On one hand you have the actions of a spouse involved as a private citizen in a cause that has not appeared in front of the court.
On the other we have...
Oh, let's see...perhaps a conversation that I am sure never happened but could have:
Thomas - Thank you President Bush for giving me the opportunity to realize my highest life long dream, if not for you I would have never gotten this opportunity, did I say of a life time? And did I say it is the one thing I have wanted the most in my life above everything else. I repeat something I value more than anything. You have helped me cement my legacy, I will go down in history - I am in your debt. Hell, I am not even qualified. Even in light of me sexually harassing Anita Hill, you stood with me. I love you more than life itself.
G.H.W. Bush - Some day and that day may never come (you may remember that from the God Father , an excellent movie i might add), I may ask you for a favor...
Fast forward to 2000 Gore V Bush comes along....and the rest is history!
First, I believe Thomas did what he thought was right, my point is regarding the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. You clearly don't get it. I do. I also understand the liberal agenda concerning Thomas and his spouse and it has nothing to do with the issues you pretend to be concerned about.
Quote:
|
You clearly dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the difference between justices having known ideologies as opposes to justices with those known ideologies being paid by parties with similar ideologies.
|
You can not tell me where you would draw the line, your position lacks clarity. Regarding Supreme Court Justices, I don't care how their spouses get paid or who pays them. Nor do I care how the Justices got paid in the past. Nor do I care if they get paid to give a speech. What I do care about is sound reasoning and Constitutionally based rulings. The "appearance" of conflicts of interest can not be avoided.
---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
Your hardly one to talk.
|
I think I understand your point of view, and we simply disagree.
I use humor, but within that humor are some very serious points. When people try to defend the indefensible or make charges without thinking the issue through, I enjoy having fun with it - sort of like when a cat toys with its prey. I do need to grow up. Perhaps I will start tomorrow.