Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

SCOTUS Conflict of Interest


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> SCOTUS Conflict of Interest Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 2:17:54 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 2:24:54 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 2:31:45 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		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?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 2:32:07 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		conflict of interest.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 2:32:53 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Huh? Im confused.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 2:41:07 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 2:47:48 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 3:08:15 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 3:14:07 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 3:19:13 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 3:25:48 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 4:06:33 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Huh? Im confused.


You're in the thread of confusion, don't be afraid.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 4:17:06 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Whew. My point was simply if those who obtained the information had all those emails from others, why not any from her?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: SCOTUS Conflict of Interest - 5/18/2011 4:22:42 PM   
SilverMark


Posts: 3457
Joined: 5/9/2007
Status: offline 		Pretty weak "involvment"

_____________________________

If you have sex with a siamese twin, is it considered a threesome?

The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow

It may be your sole purpose in life to simply serve as a warning to others!

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> SCOTUS Conflict of Interest Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094