yes. in that case, the plaintiff/party was citizens united, a nonprofit advocacy group. last i checked, nonprofits do not make contributions.
sorry, but that's just not how recusal works as much as you might want it to
The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics for the first time
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
sorry, but that's just not how recusal works as much as you might want it to
LOL...did the ruling benefit millionaires and billionaires who wanted to hide their identities? Did he rule the same way in Doe v Reed? Thomas was the lone dissenter there and appears to have been chastised by Scalia himself in his concurrence to the majority opinion.
There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.
Thomas has a record of wanting to allow the wealthy to influence politics from the dark...which makes sense given the way he comports himself personally.
So let's make this simple. You are the billionaire owner of a real estate conglomerate. ANOTHER real estate conglomerate has business before the court where a ruling in ITS favor would greatly benefit YOU. You lavish hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and cover the expenses of a presiding justice who rules in your favor and you don't see that as a problem. I get it. You should probably remove phrases like "the appearance of impropriety" from your vocabulary.
If an assistant manager at walmart gets baseball tickets from a vendor they are fired.
If a member of the US Supreme Court gets a half million dollar gift they.......ask for another.
If a member of the US Supreme Court gets a half million dollar gift they.......ask for another.
I have never understood why Congress and the Supreme Court don't at least have the same reasonable requirements as most businesses and other organizations. Every year we have to sign an ethics policy and disclose gifts/relationships. We have to take a course and sign that we understand the respectful workplace policy. Congress needs its own HR department or something. Why can they threaten and try to fight each other and scream at each other when you would be fired fast if you did that in the workplace?
Last edited:
How do you explain where the Right is? They go balls-in on taking down the FBI and defend corruption in the judiciary, the Supreme Court. An attempt to overturn the results of a Presidential election is supported by a majority of a major Party, and a candidate from that party favored in the race for the presidential nomination is facing over 90 criminal counts for prosecution.
This is a sick, bizarre world.
Of all organizations operating within the government, you'd think the SCOTUS would be careful to remain remote and unassailable. Thomas doesn't fit the jet set mold but his association with his billionaire squeeze is not appropriate considering his station, the huge money involved in politics, and his wife's activism.
Whether or not Thomas crossed the line of impropriety, you don't put yourself in the position for judgement. A federal judge should know better.
Whether or not Thomas crossed the line of impropriety, you don't put yourself in the position for judgement. A federal judge should know better.
Amazing how spot on this is.
“As we agreed, it’s worth a lot to Americans to have the constitution properly interpreted”.
I mean: WTF????
