"Independent judiciary" my ass.

I, for one, am shocked, SHOCKED!

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So Bancroft was one of how many sponsors? Two dozen you say? And that the event was the annual dinner held by the Federalist Society, which the two are invited to every year? I can totally see the outrage here.

I mean, it's not like these two helped craft the administration's roadmap for this law and were then appointed to the bench.

It doesn't matter if they went every year prior. To be honest, they shouldn't be attending ANY events/societies that are sponsored or funded by parties who routinely make arguments in front of their bench. Especially in this case. The very lawyers who will be in front of them next year arguing a case were showering them with praise, adulation and free food, FFS!

I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

The article from DKos draws from a article in the LA Times. So, how does reposting a story and adding some personal commentary on it qualify as a dog whistle?

So, how does reposting a story and adding some personal commentary on it qualify as a dog whistle?

Have you tried looking it from the perspective of someone who is such a coward and has so little belief in America they feel the need to build a bunker to live in?

Frankly, I'm glad sites like DKos are out there on the web, and I'm glad it has counterparts from the right as well. Their respective angles aside, they report on the other 90% of the news that the usual media outlets never say a word about because they're too busy with DTWS, Kardashians, and the latest "OMGthiswillkillyourkids" segment.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The very lawyers who will be in front of them next year arguing a case were showering them with praise, adulation and free food, FFS!

Look at it this way: everyone knows full well how they are going to vote on this. Anyone who thinks these two maintain even a semblance of nonpartisanship after Bush v Gore simply isn't paying attention.

2wolves: GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Gee, that never happens in these threads.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So Bancroft was one of how many sponsors? Two dozen you say? And that the event was the annual dinner held by the Federalist Society, which the two are invited to every year? I can totally see the outrage here.

I mean, it's not like these two helped craft the administration's roadmap for this law and were then appointed to the bench.

It doesn't matter if they went every year prior. To be honest, they shouldn't be attending ANY events/societies that are sponsored or funded by parties who routinely make arguments in front of their bench. Especially in this case. The very lawyers who will be in front of them next year arguing a case were showering them with praise, adulation and free food, FFS!

My firm frequenrly hires retired judges as mediators. Retired judges who are occasionally called to sit in courts who are short a judge, and before which I appear. Never have I ever had any reason to believe that I received any special treatment from any of those judges, especially on those occasions when I lost.

Also, the firm isn't challenging health care reform; its client is. I understand that doesn't seem like much of a nuance to those who don't do this for a living, but it's a huge distinction, and you can't act like one is stnading in the shoes of the other.

gilgigamesh: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The very lawyers who will be in front of them next year arguing a case were showering them with praise, adulation and free food, FFS!

Look at it this way: everyone knows full well how they are going to vote on this. Anyone who thinks these two maintain even a semblance of nonpartisanship after Bush v Gore simply isn't paying attention.

Oh, I know - these two are partisan hacks in fancy robes. But on the only case that could be any higher profile than Bush/Gore, you'd think they'd at least try to hide the fact that they are partisan hacks in fancy robes.

This is going to be one of those threads where there are two right answers (Farkers get terribly confused by these).

Correct answer 1) This isn't a big deal
Correct answer 2) This doesn't change the fact that, in general, Scalia and Thomas are worthless sacks of shiat

kronicfeld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So Bancroft was one of how many sponsors? Two dozen you say? And that the event was the annual dinner held by the Federalist Society, which the two are invited to every year? I can totally see the outrage here.

I mean, it's not like these two helped craft the administration's roadmap for this law and were then appointed to the bench.

It doesn't matter if they went every year prior. To be honest, they shouldn't be attending ANY events/societies that are sponsored or funded by parties who routinely make arguments in front of their bench. Especially in this case. The very lawyers who will be in front of them next year arguing a case were showering them with praise, adulation and free food, FFS!

My firm frequenrly hires retired judges as mediators. Retired judges who are occasionally called to sit in courts who are short a judge, and before which I appear. Never have I ever had any reason to believe that I received any special treatment from any of those judges, especially on those occasions when I lost.

I'm glad that is working out for you. Still, ideally, either the judge or your firm should recuse from cases where one of you appears before the other.

Also, the firm isn't challenging health care reform; its client is. I understand that doesn't seem like much of a nuance to those who don't do this for a living, but it's a huge distinction, and you can't act like one is stnading in the shoes of the other.

It may be a huge distinction in the legal world, but the the 99% of the world that's outside of it, it certainly does not appear that way, and while I understand your explanation, the general public won't buy it for a second. All they may see (assuming they paid any attention) is a room full of litigants lined up against HCR hosting two of the judges set to decide that case as the guests of honor.

Ack, sorry. Part of my post got eaten by italics.

GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos anything except the voices in my head.

GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

Just because somebody that you don't like stated that there is an appearance of impropriety, does not make the stated fact that there is an appearance of impropriety any less truthful.

Kasira: How the fark do these people sleep at night?

On a pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful women.

GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

so, Gary, are you saying that justices scalia and thomas were NOT feted by the federalist society? because that seems to be what you're saying.

As I said in the other thread, this is kind of a non-issue. Bancroft is one of two dozen sponsors of the event. Hardly the same as Bancroft directly taking the justices out to dinner, which would have more of an appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest.

In any case, if you've never been to one of those law event dinners, it largely consists of a big ball room with lots of people at lots of tables and the guests of honors making some speech about a given topic while everybody eats their meal (if it's fancy, they'll have servers bring you out your three or four courses). It is about as non-intimate as you can get.

kronicfeld: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So Bancroft was one of how many sponsors? Two dozen you say? And that the event was the annual dinner held by the Federalist Society, which the two are invited to every year? I can totally see the outrage here.

I mean, it's not like these two helped craft the administration's roadmap for this law and were then appointed to the bench.

It doesn't matter if they went every year prior. To be honest, they shouldn't be attending ANY events/societies that are sponsored or funded by parties who routinely make arguments in front of their bench. Especially in this case. The very lawyers who will be in front of them next year arguing a case were showering them with praise, adulation and free food, FFS!

My firm frequenrly hires retired judges as mediators. Retired judges who are occasionally called to sit in courts who are short a judge, and before which I appear. Never have I ever had any reason to believe that I received any special treatment from any of those judges, especially on those occasions when I lost.

Also, the firm isn't challenging health care reform; its client is. I understand that doesn't seem like much of a nuance to those who don't do this for a living, but it's a huge distinction, and you can't act like one is stnading in the shoes of the other.

You might be few CLE's short of your Ethics requirements. The basic standard for judicial recusal is :
"a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." and a judge should automatically disqualify themselves where " he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; or when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.


Now if a Judge is employed by your firm then they have a direct financial interest in the firm's sucess and they SHOULD recuse themselves before any case involving the firm.

As for the Justices, its more of an "appearance of impropriety" thing and they should have nothing whatever to do with any Federalist Society events. As Testimony during the US attorney Scandal established, emmebership in the Federalist society became , during thebush Adminsitration, a de-facto litmus test of your "conservativeness" and a pre-requisitie to be hired by Bush's DOJ (even in the DOJ's non-partisan civil service positions) or appointed to the bench by him.


Because of that the organization is now politicized to a degree that memebership in it should be frowned upon by any judge for whom the appearance of imaprtiality is important.

As for Thomas specifically, a failure to recuse himself from this case, given his wife's employment , should be an open and shut case for impeachment

FlashHarry: GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

so, Gary, are you saying that justices scalia and thomas were NOT feted by the federalist society? because that seems to be what you're saying.

Yeah, because Scalia and Thomas have never been involved or made appearances at functions involving the Federalist Society before this. This is pretty weak tea. Judges don't live in hermetically sealed chambers. Sometimes they mingle about in the legal community and sometimes end up at social functions with lawyers who appear before them. Like Rex says, these functions are about as boring as they get. Even if the dinner is fancy, the entree is usually some kind of chicken. Always chicken. I get so sick of chicken. Anyway, I don't think any judge, much less a Supreme Court justice, is going to be unduly influenced by a chicken dinner with 300 people in a hotel ball room.

Nabb1: Yeah, because Scalia and Thomas have never been involved or made appearances at functions involving the Federalist Society before this. This is pretty weak tea. Judges don't live in hermetically sealed chambers. Sometimes they mingle about in the legal community and sometimes end up at social functions with lawyers who appear before them. Like Rex says, these functions are about as boring as they get. Even if the dinner is fancy, the entree is usually some kind of chicken. Always chicken. I get so sick of chicken. Anyway, I don't think any judge, much less a Supreme Court justice, is going to be unduly influenced by a chicken dinner with 300 people in a hotel ball room.

The guests of honor typically sit at the table with the hosting organization executive board anyway, and the sponsoring firms usually sit at their own tables and not with the guests.

Nabb1: Yeah, because Scalia and Thomas have never been involved or made appearances at functions involving the Federalist Society before this. This is pretty weak tea. Judges don't live in hermetically sealed chambers. Sometimes they mingle about in the legal community and sometimes end up at social functions with lawyers who appear before them. Like Rex says, these functions are about as boring as they get. Even if the dinner is fancy, the entree is usually some kind of chicken. Always chicken. I get so sick of chicken. Anyway, I don't think any judge, much less a Supreme Court justice, is going to be unduly influenced by a chicken dinner with 300 people in a hotel ball room.

Ok, but what about Thomas' wife receiving $150,000 in salary to work for an organization that lobbies against this bill?

Is that not a conflict of interest?

Kasira: How the fark do these people sleep at night?

on large piles of money.

GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

can you prove that this article is a lie?

Weaver95: GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

can you prove that this article is a lie?

Can you prove that you did not rape and kill that little girl in 1990?

/JK. Haven't seen the question posted in while

Weaver95: GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

can you prove that this article is a lie?

They went to an annual dinner, hardly some vast right wing conspiracy. Should we restrict SCOTUS Judges to only be at their homes or in court?

GaryPDX: Weaver95: GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

can you prove that this article is a lie?

They went to an annual dinner, hardly some vast right wing conspiracy. Should we restrict SCOTUS Judges to only be at their homes or in court?

so you concede that the basic facts as stated are correct. excellent! Now - do you further concede that this is a clear conflict of interest or would you like to move the goal posts a bit further back before we start?

Weaver95: so you concede that the basic facts as stated are correct. excellent! Now - do you further concede that this is a clear conflict of interest or would you like to move the goal posts a bit further back before we start?

sorry. I don't see it.

That's about what I expected. This whole thing will come down to what Kennedy thinks. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito will do what the Republicans want, never mind the actual law that doesn't give them any reference point to overturn it, which several courts, including Republican dominated ones, have already said.

Kasira: How the fark do these people sleep at night?

They're comforted by the broken dreams and tears of the less worthy.

GAT_00: That's about what I expected. This whole thing will come down to what Kennedy thinks. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito will do what the Republicans want, never mind the actual law that doesn't give them any reference point to overturn it, which several courts, including Republican dominated ones, have already said.

there is a slight chance thomas will have to recuse himself. his dining habits aside, his wife was paid handsomely by the anti-HCR people. that's a clear conflict of interest.

GaryPDX: Weaver95: so you concede that the basic facts as stated are correct. excellent! Now - do you further concede that this is a clear conflict of interest or would you like to move the goal posts a bit further back before we start?

sorry. I don't see it.

point - the events in the article happened as related in the article. this is not in contention.
point - a judge accepting gifts/meals/money from lawyers who might argue cases in their court room presents the appearance of a conflict of interest.
point - it is a well established fact that even the appearence of a conflict of interest is reason enough for a judge to recuse themselves from hearing any cases from such a lawyer or lawyers from a law firm who offered those gifts.

conclusion - Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from this case.

FlashHarry: there is a slight chance thomas will have to recuse himself. his dining habits aside, his wife was paid handsomely by the anti-HCR people. that's a clear conflict of interest.

he still won't recuse himself. to remind you, his wife worked on the Bush campaign and he did not recuse himself from Bush v. Gore

Weaver95: conclusion - Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from this case.

Meanwhile, Kagan already knows how she is going to vote to uphold the law.

(as will others on the left)

Grand_Moff_Joseph: GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

The article from DKos draws from a article in the LA Times. So, how does reposting a story and adding some personal commentary on it qualify as a dog whistle?

Then post the story from LA Times, so doesn't have the argument about KOS. Jesus Christ, I avoid Brietbart for the same reasons. Give him a bone.

Here (new window), Gary.

Thoughts?

what_now: Nabb1: Yeah, because Scalia and Thomas have never been involved or made appearances at functions involving the Federalist Society before this. This is pretty weak tea. Judges don't live in hermetically sealed chambers. Sometimes they mingle about in the legal community and sometimes end up at social functions with lawyers who appear before them. Like Rex says, these functions are about as boring as they get. Even if the dinner is fancy, the entree is usually some kind of chicken. Always chicken. I get so sick of chicken. Anyway, I don't think any judge, much less a Supreme Court justice, is going to be unduly influenced by a chicken dinner with 300 people in a hotel ball room.

Ok, but what about Thomas' wife receiving $150,000 in salary to work for an organization that lobbies against this bill?

Is that not a conflict of interest?

Well it obviously is. But the issue is, do those supporting their team care?

And that's the crux of it. This isn't about teams, this is about whether or not the law is constitutional. Paying money to rule against, or rather paying money to influence the decision should be illegal, no matter the source and no matter the person receiving it.

Nadie_AZ: Grand_Moff_Joseph: GaryPDX: I don't put much credibility in George Soro's dog whistle, the Daily Kos.

The article from DKos draws from a article in the LA Times. So, how does reposting a story and adding some personal commentary on it qualify as a dog whistle?

Then post the story from LA Times, so doesn't have the argument about KOS. Jesus Christ, I avoid Brietbart for the same reasons. Give him a bone.

Here (new window), Gary.

Thoughts?

From the article..

"It's nothing new: The two justices have been attending Federalist Society events for years. And it's nothing that runs afoul of ethics rules. In fact, justices are exempt from the Code of Conduct that governs the actions of lower federal judges."

Including left wing Judges.

Magorn: As for Thomas specifically, a failure to recuse himself from this case, given his wife's employment , should be an open and shut case for impeachment

UM
wow
who was the last impeached justice? fortas? nope he resigned.
chase? fark that was a long time ago.

FlashHarry: there is a slight chance thomas will have to recuse himself

If any left leaning or even slightly left leaning justice had done anything like what Thomas did, the GOP would demand their head. So, no, he won't recuse himself.

Weaver95: point - the events in the article happened as related in the article. this is not in contention.
point - a judge accepting gifts/meals/money from lawyers who might argue cases in their court room presents the appearance of a conflict of interest.
point - it is a well established fact that even the appearence of a conflict of interest is reason enough for a judge to recuse themselves from hearing any cases from such a lawyer or lawyers from a law firm who offered those gifts.

conclusion - Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves from this case.

Point: The SCOTUS Justices aren't governed by the Code of Conduct rules that apply to lower Federal Judges. That's right in the original article from the LATimes.