Reply to No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Asking, perhaps naively - but the MAGA folks on this thread who are like IT's NO BIG DEAL EVERYONE DOES THIS. Do you really believe that?

You really believe that Elena Kagan is taking all expenses paid million dollar vacations with a "friend" who does business before the court, and not disclosing them? You think her mom is living rent free in a house that some rich buddy, who is deeply involved with Sup Ct business, bought for her, and she's just not saying so? You think some self-interested sugar daddy is secretly funneling $$$$$$ to a family member of hers?

That's what you actually think?

I don't.[/quote]

They don't actually think this. What they think is that liberals are evil and bad for the country so anything that liberals dislike is probably good for the country. And, even if corruption is bad, liberals are worse, so the ends justifies the means and the benefits outweigh the costs. [/quote]

^And this is the definition of extremism ladies and gentlemen. Conservative my ass.

[/quote]

It's called rule utilitarianism. Pretty much describes both parties these days really. Things only disintegrate from here.[/quote]
No, it really only describes one party. The GOP. The Democratic Party continues to operate above board. [/quote]

It doesn’t even matter.  There are certainly corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle.  The difference is that one party holds their people accountable and the other does not. [/quote]

You really cannot both sides where we are right now.[/quote]

You certainly can't on this website.[/quote]

Not recusing yourself when one party has paid you $3.6 million seems like both sides to me

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5[/quote]

What rule do you think would indicate she should have recused?  This is not a situation where a judge would normally recuse.  That's probably why Gorsuch also didn't recuse from that case even though he was paid a lot of money by the same company.[/quote]

You don't think ongoing payments from one party toping $3 million is a reason to reuse? On any other federal court, they would have been required to recuse themselves by law

"(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455[/quote]

Certainly not under that rule (or any other one that I'm aware of).  She didn't have a financial interest in either the subject matter or a party, or any other interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome.   [/quote]

She had a financial interest in one of the parties [/quote]

No, she didn't.  Financial interest means that you own stock in one of the parties.  That's the way this is interpreted and applied by every federal judge.  The same term is also used in the executive branch ethics rules and is defined the same way.[/quote]

You think a contracting officer can award a contract to a bidder that is paying them millions on the side? [/quote]

The executive branch has additional rules restricting outside income that don't apply to judges, and those rules would probably prohibit that.  But that particular rule would not stop a CO from doing that.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics