Corruption in the SCOTUS

Still, she should have recused.

 

I agree but there is a big difference between deciding whether or not to hear a case and deciding a case on its merits. In principle she didn't act completely ethically although it didn't make any difference. I suppose that one could have made the same argument regarding Thomas on the executive privilege case since he was the only justice who apparently agreed with Trump's position that the White House documents subpoenaed by the House Committee were protected by executive privilege.

 

I was but a mere grunt working for the state of FL but had to decline EVERY offer of consulting within the state having anything to do with natural resources. For most of them there was no conflict - but I was told it could have that appearance to someone wishing to criticize the agency.
I gave talks and held workshops where an OK honorarium was offered - had to turn down anything more than dinner.
It distresses me that members of the highest court in the land have a less stringent code of ethics than a swamp grunt in FL. My Naiveté I guess.

 

Again, I stopped reading after you said it didn’t make a difference. So you aren’t interested in ethics, just Republican ethics. Got it. At least you don’t hide your partisanship.

 

Here is the response to Congress from Harlan Crow’s lawyers. In reading it I found it interesting that it seemed, more than anything, to provide cover to Thomas by addressing the right of Congress to investigate SCOTUS rather than the request itself. Response letter in tweets below.

 

What a silly response. Congress funds the Supreme Court and can impeach the justices. The idea that it doesn't have any ability to investigate them or provide oversight is laughable. In fact, the Judiciary Act of 1802 actually cancelled the Supreme Court's 1802 term. Subpoena him, and refer him for prosecution if he refuses to show and produce the requested documents.

 

And apparently you failed to understand the distinctions in my post.

 

No, I just saw you were playing politics. I have no time for dealing with people who only call it one way.

 

I never said that Sotomayor should not have recused herself. What I did point out was that there were differences between the her situation and that of Thomas and whether you agree or not there is a big difference between deciding whether or not to hear a case and actually deciding a case on its merits.

 

LOL. Here is what you said: "In practical terms it would not have made a difference as to whether or not Sotomayor recused herself."

The whole point was she should have excused herself. She took $3 Million from them. It's cut and dry. The rest is unfortunately you playing politics and only calling it one way.

 

If we can agree that she should have recused herself, we should also be able to agree there's a difference in making a recusal decision when you have disclosed the book income in your financial forms (like Sotomayor) and in not disclosing a number of large financial gifts (like Thomas).

At least there's transparency in Sotomayor's case to open her up to criticism that she should have recused. In the case of Thomas, he was ruling in cases without the public being made aware of his conflict of interest.

 

Transparency? I mean she flat out didn't recuse herself. That's ridiculous, and the MSM didn't cover it all. Wonder why...

 

You don't see the difference between you being able to criticize her because she disclosed in her financial forms that she received that book money and Thomas getting under the table benefits, that were not disclosed, for many years?

 

No, I see that Thomas should've disclosed any gifts and I know that Sotomayor should've recused herself from that case. Simple as that. The rest is playing politics.

 

Both are bad. This court is a kangaroo court and a joke to most educated folk. I don't like partisan hacks deciding important legal doctrines. The Right has really given the Left a lot of ammo for 24.

 

Alito heads off ProPublica to show he's not corrupt. That seat on the private jet would have remained unoccupied if he didn't take it, and the food of the cabin was just average. Boy has he exposed them. Thread

 

Same story. More facts, less sarcasm. But Alito still looks terrible

 

That's how you show them you're unbiased, Sammy! Run to do a preemptive op-ed in a right-wing media outlet.

 

I'm sure it wasn't to influence him because he's a Supreme Court justice. I mean almost weekly someone offers me a fishing trip to Alaska on a private jet, all expenses paid. I just get overwhelmed with such invitations. Yachting around the world too. I'm sure it happens to you as well. It's not because they're Supreme Court justices. With Alito, it's just his winning personality and good company

 

Anyone who has worked in government or corporate America knows this stinks since generally any sort of gift above ~$25 isn't permitted or requires jumping through a series of hoops.

And how stupid does he think we are with "the seat would have been empty" defense? Incredible hubris.