The Lawfare Continues
-
@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.
-
@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.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
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.
We agree.
Drug and equipment reps are not permitted to meet with docs and give so much as a ballpoint pen...
-
@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@taiwan_girl said in The Lawfare Continues:
@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.pdfDifferent rules, miss.
One of the smartest ladies I ever knew, I worked for. She was a stockbroker before she became a commodity trader. I caught her at the very twilight of her career, as she was working just to have something to do.
I'll never forget what she said more than once. Tell me the rules and I'll play to win.
In Thomas' case or Pelosi's? Or others? Change the rules.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Lawfare Continues:
@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.pdfDifferent rules, miss.
One of the smartest ladies I ever knew, I worked for. She was a stockbroker before she became a commodity trader. I caught her at the very twilight of her career, as she was working just to have something to do.
I'll never forget what she said more than once. Tell me the rules and I'll play to win.
In Thomas' case or Pelosi's? Or others? Change the rules.
@Jolly You make sense. But........ who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
-
@Jolly You make sense. But........ who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
@taiwan_girl said in The Lawfare Continues:
who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
Good question. I think you're right.
Who sets rules for Congress?
They, like SCOTUS are a COEQUAL branch of the government. Congressional oversight over the excutive brans, How was that established? Did the presidency say, "OK, we'll let you look into our shit?"
-
@Jolly You make sense. But........ who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
@taiwan_girl said in The Lawfare Continues:
@Jolly You make sense. But........ who can change the rules for the Supreme Court? Only themself?
A SCOTUS judge can be impeached. Only the Congress has the authority to do so.
Somebody recently tried to do so...
A Supreme Court Justice has never been impeached.
-
The discussion really shouldn't be about Clarence Thomas at all. It should be about removing the opportunity for corruption at the highest levels of government.
Based on the wealth of significant numbers of senior political figures, I'd say that was potentially bigger concern than voter fraud.
-
The discussion really shouldn't be about Clarence Thomas at all. It should be about removing the opportunity for corruption at the highest levels of government.
Based on the wealth of significant numbers of senior political figures, I'd say that was potentially bigger concern than voter fraud.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Lawfare Continues:
The discussion really shouldn't be about Clarence Thomas at all. It should be about removing the opportunity for corruption at the highest levels of government.
Based on the wealth of significant numbers of senior political figures, I'd say that was potentially bigger concern than voter fraud.
No, but I'd say it ranks right up there...
-
Justice Elena Kagan called Thursday for an enforceable code of conduct for Supreme Court justices, saying that ethical rules the court adopted under pressure last year are flawed because they rely on the justices to police their own behavior.
“Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them and this one, this set of rules, does not,” Kagan told a judicial conference. She suggested that compliance could be overseen by a committee of respected lower-court judges appointed by the chief justice, which could decide when sanctions for violations should be imposed.
and
Kagan said having an enforceable ethics code would benefit the court’s reputation. “Sometimes people accuse us of misconduct where we haven’t engaged in misconduct,” she said. Having a credible compliance system wouldn’t only serve to enforce “the rules against people who have violated them but also [would protect] people who haven’t violated them,” she said.
-
Keagan is on to something. It provides an independent enforcement mechanism without separation of powers concerns.
