SCOTUS Conflict of Interest

SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 2:17:54 PM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110518/pl_dailycaller/newdocumentssuggestsupremecourtjusticeelenakaganinvolvedwithcraftinglegaldefenseofobamacare Sounds like to me it is a conflict of interest. What do you think? Don't forget, she has refused to recuse herself.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 2:24:54 PM)
I think that she should recuse herself from any actual law she helped write in Obamacare. Otherwise, what the fuck? Here is a man, as a necktie he defends against a DUI case for Jethro. Later he becomes a prosecutor and Jethro is up for DUI again, he prosecutes him. Later as a judge, Jethro is sentenced by the same feller for his third DUI. What about crafting a defense of a law is a conflict of interest, really? I think that anyone who is going to write an opinion against healthcare or is going to vote against them should recuse themselves as well. If not before then at the vote time. Because they think it is (or will think it is, illegal). Makes as much sense.

tazzygirl -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 2:31:45 PM)
Just out of curiosity, they mentioned emails sent by others to Kagan.... yet no mention of mails sent by her to anyone. Why werent those released?

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 2:32:07 PM)
conflict of interest.

tazzygirl -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 2:32:53 PM)
Huh? Im confused.

joether -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 2:41:07 PM)
Someone else who should recuse themselves.... The 'Dodd-Frank' bill that Thomas's wife references is the consumer protections that was recently passed (during that video's time frame) that basically told big banks how to deal with mortages (i.e. no more shady deals). If your calling on Kagan to recuse, I say Thomas should ALSO recuse himself.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 2:47:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Someone else who should recuse themselves.... The 'Dodd-Frank' bill that Thomas's wife references is the consumer protections that was recently passed (during that video's time frame) that basically told big banks how to deal with mortages (i.e. no more shady deals). If your calling on Kagan to recuse, I say Thomas should ALSO recuse himself. Recuse himself from what case? Is SCOTUS hearing something on mortgages?

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 3:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: joether Someone else who should recuse themselves.... The 'Dodd-Frank' bill that Thomas's wife references is the consumer protections that was recently passed (during that video's time frame) that basically told big banks how to deal with mortages (i.e. no more shady deals). If your calling on Kagan to recuse, I say Thomas should ALSO recuse himself. Recuse himself from what case? Is SCOTUS hearing something on mortgages? How about the Citzens United case? Thomas' wife stood to directly benefit from the ruling which is pretty much the most basic example of when a judge must recuse himself. Or maybe Scalia is more your speed. He had spoken prior to the Citizens United ruling indicating that he had already decided before the arguments were heard. Bias is another of those clear cut times when recusal is required. Being involved in policy discussions prior to appointment, if Kagan was, isn't even in the same area code as recent SCOTUS justices conflicts where the justice failed to recuse themselves.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 3:14:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: joether Someone else who should recuse themselves.... The 'Dodd-Frank' bill that Thomas's wife references is the consumer protections that was recently passed (during that video's time frame) that basically told big banks how to deal with mortages (i.e. no more shady deals). If your calling on Kagan to recuse, I say Thomas should ALSO recuse himself. Recuse himself from what case? Is SCOTUS hearing something on mortgages? How about the Citzens United case? Thomas' wife stood to directly benefit from the ruling which is pretty much the most basic example of when a judge must recuse himself. Or maybe Scalia is more your speed. He had spoken prior to the Citizens United ruling indicating that he had already decided before the arguments were heard. Bias is another of those clear cut times when recusal is required. Being involved in policy discussions prior to appointment, if Kagan was, isn't even in the same area code as recent SCOTUS justices conflicts where the justice failed to recuse themselves. IF your facts are right and presented fairly (not your strong suit) I agree, they should have/should recuse themselves. I disagree with the last sentence though...not only is it the same area code, its right fucking next door. SHE was involved in formulating health care for the very idiot that appointed her. Payback for your job is bias of the worst possible kind.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 3:19:13 PM)
I did not see anything that said she was involved in 'formulating' healthcare laws, only the 'formulation' of a defense. All the times you make a distinction without a difference, when there is a hammer coming for you, you get hammered right in the kisser. This what she actually formulated, is a distinction with a difference, unless I have missed something in the article at this point.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 3:25:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: joether Someone else who should recuse themselves.... The 'Dodd-Frank' bill that Thomas's wife references is the consumer protections that was recently passed (during that video's time frame) that basically told big banks how to deal with mortages (i.e. no more shady deals). If your calling on Kagan to recuse, I say Thomas should ALSO recuse himself. Recuse himself from what case? Is SCOTUS hearing something on mortgages? How about the Citzens United case? Thomas' wife stood to directly benefit from the ruling which is pretty much the most basic example of when a judge must recuse himself. Or maybe Scalia is more your speed. He had spoken prior to the Citizens United ruling indicating that he had already decided before the arguments were heard. Bias is another of those clear cut times when recusal is required. Being involved in policy discussions prior to appointment, if Kagan was, isn't even in the same area code as recent SCOTUS justices conflicts where the justice failed to recuse themselves. IF your facts are right and presented fairly (not your strong suit) I agree, they should have/should recuse themselves. I disagree with the last sentence though...not only is it the same area code, its right fucking next door. SHE was involved in formulating health care for the very idiot that appointed her. Payback for your job is bias of the worst possible kind. Thomas and his wife hiding their conflict for 20 years. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/justice-clarence-thomas-amends-financial-disclosure-reports-virginia/story?id=12750650 Scalia and Thomas conflict on citizens United http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47855.html

rulemylife -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 4:06:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Huh? Im confused. You're in the thread of confusion, don't be afraid.

tazzygirl -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 4:17:06 PM)
Whew. My point was simply if those who obtained the information had all those emails from others, why not any from her?

SilverMark -> RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest (5/18/2011 4:22:42 PM)
Pretty weak "involvment"

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875