The Lawfare Continues
-
@Jolly said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wasn't a thing said when Ginsburg was in there.
She's in there.
@kluurs said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Jolly said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wasn't a thing said when Ginsburg was in there.
She's in there.
Yes.
Now, were the cases in which she was involved related to her "gifts?"
Were the cases in which Thomas involved related to the people who gave him gifts?
Unrelated...
Nancy Pelosi's stock portfolio.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@kluurs said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Jolly said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wasn't a thing said when Ginsburg was in there.
She's in there.
Yes.
Now, were the cases in which she was involved related to her "gifts?"
Were the cases in which Thomas involved related to the people who gave him gifts?
Unrelated...
Nancy Pelosi's stock portfolio.
@George-K But George, as you have said, it is perception!
Regardless of whether (generic) you like or dislike a particular judge..........
I am confident that all of the supreme court judges are smart people. So, how they fail to see that something like the above chart would not raise your eyebrows is beyond me.
-
@kluurs said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Jolly said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wasn't a thing said when Ginsburg was in there.
She's in there.
Yes.
Now, were the cases in which she was involved related to her "gifts?"
Were the cases in which Thomas involved related to the people who gave him gifts?
Unrelated...
Nancy Pelosi's stock portfolio.
@George-K said in [The Lawfare Continues]\
Nancy Pelosi's stock portfolio.
Yup. I think I've mentioned there's a service that tracks the investments that congress critters make. It's a great way to beat the market - as our congress people are just incredibly gifted in being able to predict market movements - that just so happen to occur after something they're working on is made public. It's uncanny how good (gifted?) they are.
It's legal - unethical, possibly immoral - but legal.
One just has to remember the words of Harry Truman saying that anyone getting rich while in office is a crook. By his definition, we are ruled by crooks.
The American people know it and resent it - typically, resent it more for whichever party is on the other side, which for me is sad - because, it a corrupt government - corrupt people governing in a corrupt manner. We may not even have the ethical standards of a third world country as the money corrupts so effectively.
That's at least part of the success of DJT - though neither he nor his opponent have any compelling desire to fix the corruption - just to make it benefit their respective audience.
As for Clarence Thomas, he may have been just a tad greedy.
-
Yes, likely that is the intent - to encourage his departure. Of course, he won't leave. It's a good gig. He's thinking that he only needs to ride out the storm - if even rises to that level. As for the audacity of suggesting an investigation, the Republicans would do the same for less. They investigated Hillary for Christmas cards.
-
Thomas is very conservative and does not (according to Scalia) believe in stare decisis.
That makes him a dangerous man in some circles...
-
Thomas is very conservative and does not (according to Scalia) believe in stare decisis.
That makes him a dangerous man in some circles...
-
Obviously there’s a political element, but what he did wasn’t very smart for such a smart guy
-
Obviously there’s a political element, but what he did wasn’t very smart for such a smart guy
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Obviously there’s a political element, but what he did wasn’t very smart for such a smart guy
No, the optics are not the best. But Thomas did not come from money and I suspect that rubbing elbows with people that are rich can cloud your perception of how other people see things.
But...Just like Ginsburg, I don't think this has changed anything in his rulings. And most folks don't know, he's written quite a few...Last time I looked, over 10% if SCOTUS opinions have been written by Thomas.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Obviously there’s a political element, but what he did wasn’t very smart for such a smart guy
No, the optics are not the best. But Thomas did not come from money and I suspect that rubbing elbows with people that are rich can cloud your perception of how other people see things.
But...Just like Ginsburg, I don't think this has changed anything in his rulings. And most folks don't know, he's written quite a few...Last time I looked, over 10% if SCOTUS opinions have been written by Thomas.
@Jolly said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Obviously there’s a political element, but what he did wasn’t very smart for such a smart guy
No, the optics are not the best. But Thomas did not come from money and I suspect that rubbing elbows with people that are rich can cloud your perception of how other people see things.
But...Just like Ginsburg, I don't think this has changed anything in his rulings. And most folks don't know, he's written quite a few...Last time I looked, over 10% if SCOTUS opinions have been written by Thomas.
Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. I think there is definitely a risk in this guy taking a lot of perks and freebies in that his credibility could be challenged.
I've said before, in my lowly job as humble servant of industry, I'd be fired for taking what he's taken. Saying he's rich so he's used to being treated like King Tut doesn't really address the concern.
I was only joking
-
@Jolly said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Obviously there’s a political element, but what he did wasn’t very smart for such a smart guy
No, the optics are not the best. But Thomas did not come from money and I suspect that rubbing elbows with people that are rich can cloud your perception of how other people see things.
But...Just like Ginsburg, I don't think this has changed anything in his rulings. And most folks don't know, he's written quite a few...Last time I looked, over 10% if SCOTUS opinions have been written by Thomas.
Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. I think there is definitely a risk in this guy taking a lot of perks and freebies in that his credibility could be challenged.
I've said before, in my lowly job as humble servant of industry, I'd be fired for taking what he's taken. Saying he's rich so he's used to being treated like King Tut doesn't really address the concern.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
I think there is definitely a risk in this guy taking a lot of perks and freebies in that his credibility could be challenged.
Yes.
Is there any evidence that his judgments and rulings have been influenced by his receipt of perks and freebies?
I mean, it's not like he got book deals and then ruled on cases involving the publisher or anything,
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
I think there is definitely a risk in this guy taking a lot of perks and freebies in that his credibility could be challenged.
Yes.
Is there any evidence that his judgments and rulings have been influenced by his receipt of perks and freebies?
I mean, it's not like he got book deals and then ruled on cases involving the publisher or anything,
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
Is there any evidence that his judgments and rulings have been influenced by his receipt of perks and freebies?
Not that I'm aware, but that's really not the point. 4 million in gifts is roughly $3,999,980 more than I'm allowed to accept. Why should that type of rule apply to somebody toiling away in the private sector, and not to a public servant? What is it that puts them above suspicion in this way?
-
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
Is there any evidence that his judgments and rulings have been influenced by his receipt of perks and freebies?
Not that I'm aware, but that's really not the point. 4 million in gifts is roughly $3,999,980 more than I'm allowed to accept. Why should that type of rule apply to somebody toiling away in the private sector, and not to a public servant? What is it that puts them above suspicion in this way?
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Not that I'm aware, but that's really not the point.
That is precisely the point. The implication is that he accepted gifts which affected his judgment and rulings.
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
(Let's see how many people stay in government. )
I have no problem with that.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Not that I'm aware, but that's really not the point.
That is precisely the point. The implication is that he accepted gifts which affected his judgment and rulings.
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
(Let's see how many people stay in government. )
I have no problem with that.
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Not that I'm aware, but that's really not the point.
That is precisely the point. The implication is that he accepted gifts which affected his judgment and rulings.
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
(Let's see how many people stay in government. )
I have no problem with that.
Don't government employees have ethics rules and guidelines? When I've worked with government departments they have been extremely keen to avoid any possible suspicion this type of thing. We couldn't even take them out for lunch. Admittedly, I'm working withe engineers and scientists rather than lawyers. My dad worked for the civil service his entire life, and as far as I'm aware never received a gift worth more than a two-day old sandwich.
And no, the point is not whether there's evidence of wrong-doing. The point is that he needs to be above suspicion, and taking 4 million dollars worth of gifts does not help him meet that criterion.
-
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Not that I'm aware, but that's really not the point.
That is precisely the point. The implication is that he accepted gifts which affected his judgment and rulings.
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
(Let's see how many people stay in government. )
I have no problem with that.
Don't government employees have ethics rules and guidelines? When I've worked with government departments they have been extremely keen to avoid any possible suspicion this type of thing. We couldn't even take them out for lunch. Admittedly, I'm working withe engineers and scientists rather than lawyers. My dad worked for the civil service his entire life, and as far as I'm aware never received a gift worth more than a two-day old sandwich.
And no, the point is not whether there's evidence of wrong-doing. The point is that he needs to be above suspicion, and taking 4 million dollars worth of gifts does not help him meet that criterion.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Don't government employees have ethics rules and guidelines? When I've worked with government departments they have been extremely keen to avoid any possible suspicion this type of thing.
They supposedly do.
And no, the point is not whether there's evidence of wrong-doing. The point is that he needs to be above suspicion, and taking 4 million dollars worth of gifts does not help him meet that criterion.
My point is broader. If you look at the wealth of government officials (elected ones in particular) you'll see that there's a gap between what their official compensation is and what their wealth is. How does that happen?
Should Thomas be held to a higher standard that Rick Scott, Mark Warner, or Nancy Pelosi? I suggest no. Apply the same standard to everyone. How did Sonia Sotomayor accumulate a net worth of $6MM. How about Roberts at a very enviable $17MM?
How did Obama get so rich on $450K a year? Book sales? Yeah, pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
I don't disagree with you, in principle, at all. But this is coordinated and targeted because his votes offend some sensibilities.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@kluurs said in The Lawfare Continues:
Here's a chart of financial gifts by justice. Nothing suspicious here.
What’s the source for establishing the values of the gifts? I remember where they were pointing to the trips on the yacht and said that renting that type of yacht for a week would cost $100K, completely ignoring the fact that it wasn’t a chartered yacht, and they weren’t private cruises.
-
@Jolly said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Obviously there’s a political element, but what he did wasn’t very smart for such a smart guy
No, the optics are not the best. But Thomas did not come from money and I suspect that rubbing elbows with people that are rich can cloud your perception of how other people see things.
But...Just like Ginsburg, I don't think this has changed anything in his rulings. And most folks don't know, he's written quite a few...Last time I looked, over 10% if SCOTUS opinions have been written by Thomas.
Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. I think there is definitely a risk in this guy taking a lot of perks and freebies in that his credibility could be challenged.
I've said before, in my lowly job as humble servant of industry, I'd be fired for taking what he's taken. Saying he's rich so he's used to being treated like King Tut doesn't really address the concern.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
I'd be fired for taking what he's taken.
Same.
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
That brings up my question I asked at the top of this forum thread. Who can regulate the Supreme Court judges? I believe that when people in congress proposed some sort of "ethics statement" for the Supreme Court, it was rejected because that was not something Congress could do.
Heck, even the federal judges have a ethics code.
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf -
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Not that I'm aware, but that's really not the point.
That is precisely the point. The implication is that he accepted gifts which affected his judgment and rulings.
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Make it across the board. ALL government employees are prohibited from receiving gifts.
(Let's see how many people stay in government. )
I have no problem with that.
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
Wanna eliminate gifting in government? Legislate it.
Want to eliminate chickens being slaughtered in the middle of night? Call a Meeting of the Foxes and have them draft a Statement of Intent regarding acceptable night-time behaviour.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
Don't government employees have ethics rules and guidelines? When I've worked with government departments they have been extremely keen to avoid any possible suspicion this type of thing.
They supposedly do.
And no, the point is not whether there's evidence of wrong-doing. The point is that he needs to be above suspicion, and taking 4 million dollars worth of gifts does not help him meet that criterion.
My point is broader. If you look at the wealth of government officials (elected ones in particular) you'll see that there's a gap between what their official compensation is and what their wealth is. How does that happen?
Should Thomas be held to a higher standard that Rick Scott, Mark Warner, or Nancy Pelosi? I suggest no. Apply the same standard to everyone. How did Sonia Sotomayor accumulate a net worth of $6MM. How about Roberts at a very enviable $17MM?
How did Obama get so rich on $450K a year? Book sales? Yeah, pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
I don't disagree with you, in principle, at all. But this is coordinated and targeted because his votes offend some sensibilities.
@George-K said in The Lawfare Continues:
I don't disagree with you, in principle, at all. But this is coordinated and targeted because his votes offend some sensibilities.
Well, sure. The way to win at actual chess, as opposed to the imaginary 4D made-up game that some people talk about isn't to tip over the board and shout "I WON, I WON, THE OTHER GUY WAS CHEATING", it's to find a weakness in their position and attack it.
He created a weakness in his position.
It is very regrettable that the SCOTUS is so politicized, but that's the world we live in.
The reason I'm not allowed to accept a weekend in the Berkshires from my customer isn't because it would actually influence my decision making at work, it's because our competitors could quite likely raise it as questionable with the people who accredit us (ironically enough, a branch of the US government)
I honestly don't understand why it's ok for the highest-paid members of the government to accept things that their much less wealthy salaried employees would not be allowed to take.
