J.E.D
Gold Member
- Jul 28, 2011
- 14,159
- 2,229
- 280
- Banned
- #1
Forget about Kagan; if anybody should recuse themselves from the SC health care law case, it should be Thomas and Scalia. This isn't the first time these two have crossed ethical boundaries. Anybody interested in a fair process should be outraged.
Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case - latimes.com
The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obamas healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.
~snip~
Clements law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles. Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.
Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the court's conference over the case. In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senates top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.
The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.
Its nothing new: The two justices have been attending Federalist Society events for years. And its 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.
If they were, they arguably fell under codes Canon 4C, which states, A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event.
Nevertheless, the sheer proximity of Scalia and Thomas to two of the law firms in the case, as well as to a company with a massive financial interest, was enough to alarm ethics-in-government activists.