Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case

[BluePhantom]

Is it proper for Scotus members to attend poltical events?

Well according to the OP:

If they were, they arguably fell under code’s Canon 4C, which states, “A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations...."

So I guess the answer would be yes.

Look this is irrelevant. Anyone could have told you a year ago that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will vote to kill Obamacare. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagen will vote to keep it. That much is flat out locked. It will come down to Kennedy and that's the end of the story. The rest of this "recuse Scalia", "recuse Kagan" is a bunch of horseshit that just gives people something to squawk about. Give it a rest.

 

[Truthmatters]

Note they refuse to answer the very basic question of if this is good for the country.

They dont care about the good of the country they only care about their fellow right wing republicans

 

[Truthmatters]

Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case - chicagotribune.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 Obama’s 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.

 

[BenNatuf]

Is it proper for Scotus members to attend poltical events?

Unless you want to amend the 1st amendment... yes.

 

[Truthmatters]

Now how is it this is OK?


How is this not a recusable situation?

 

[jillian]

Is it proper for Scotus members to attend poltical events?

Unless you want to amend the 1st amendment... yes.

judges are governed by rules of judicial conduct. no other judges in the country would be permitted to attend political events unless they are running for judgship at the time.

supreme court justices are SUPPOSED to live by those same ethical rules, but are not bound by them.

i hope that helps.

it's not a first amendment issue... it's an ethical issue.

 

[Truthmatters]

“This stunning breach of ethics and indifference to the code belies claims by several justices that the court abides by the same rules that apply to all other federal judges,” said Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause. “The justices were wining and dining at a black-tie fundraiser with attorneys who have pending cases before the court. Their appearance and assistance in fundraising for this event undercuts any claims of impartiality, and is unacceptable.”

 

[Conservative]

from the first fucking post...

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.

If they were, they arguably fell under code’s 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.“

how fucking stupid are you, anyway?

I never said that they broke any ethics rules. I said that their behavior is unethical. See the difference? How fucking stupid are you?

wow.. you are fucking stupid.

breaking ethics rules is unethical. If what they did didn't break any ethics rules.....

I'd continue, but you appear to be stuck on fucking stupid, as usual.

 

[Truthmatters]

They are helping FUND one side of the cases lawyers

 

[BenNatuf]

Now how is it this is OK?


How is this not a recusable situation?

LOL... because the law allows it and it is not a breach of any ethical standards. Last i checked, Pfizer supported the HC law anyway.

Now, who else would you want to strip of their first amendment rights
"for the good of the country"?

 

[Conservative]

BTW, tis thread isn't about Kagan; it's about Thomas and Scalia. But I understand the need for your side to deflect.

am I stoned or was this not your personal, OP commentary...

Forget about Kagan; if anybody should recuse themselves from the SC health care law case, it should be Thomas and Scalia

You're not stoned.. he is stupid.

 

[Conservative]

Is it proper for Scotus members to attend poltical events?

Unless you want to amend the 1st amendment... yes.

judges are governed by rules of judicial conduct. no other judges in the country would be permitted to attend political events unless they are running for judgship at the time.

supreme court justices are SUPPOSED to live by those same ethical rules, but are not bound by them.

i hope that helps.

it's not a first amendment issue... it's an ethical issue.

and as the OP already pointed out, in the OP itself, they broke no ethics rules.

 

[BenNatuf]

Is it proper for Scotus members to attend poltical events?

Unless you want to amend the 1st amendment... yes.

judges are governed by rules of judicial conduct. no other judges in the country would be permitted to attend political events unless they are running for judgship at the time.

supreme court justices are SUPPOSED to live by those same ethical rules, but are not bound by them.

i hope that helps.

it's not a first amendment issue... it's an ethical issue.

That would be false, the law explicitly states judges CAN attend political events. There is NOTHING unethical about following the law.

 

[jillian]

Now how is it this is OK?


How is this not a recusable situation?

LOL... because the law allows it and it is not a breach of any ethical standards. Last i checked, Pfizer supported the HC law anyway.

Now, who else would you want to strip of their first amendment rights
"for the good of the country"?

one mo' time... it's not a first amendment issue.

read and learn

 

[BenNatuf]

They are helping FUND one side of the cases lawyers

and the other side is funded completely by the government, since they are all government employees should they all recuse themselves?

 

[Truthmatters]

So you think its good for this country to have our top legal minds help ONE side of a legal case's team raise money on a case they are about to deside?

That is what you want for America?

 

[kiwiman127]

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 Obama’s 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~

Clement’s 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 Senate’s top Republican and an avowed opponent of the health care law.

The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.

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.

If they were, they arguably fell under code’s 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.

Even though I'd like to see Obamacare tossed because of the mandate, I think it's 100% inappropriate that Scalia and Thomas were part of this clearly motivated event.
These people are supposed to representing the final law of the land.
This is another example of why is country is going down the tubes. Politicians can get legally bought ala "donations" and these are the people make the laws. And then those who make the final determination of justice are exempt form any codes and they turn around and whore themselves.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves non-stop.
Another example of how this country is going away from democracy as it solidifies the future of plutocracy thanks to corruption of our justices and those who are supposed to be representing "We the People".

Oh,,,,and to be consistent,,I think Kagan should also sit this one out.
I just can't understand why posters here have a problem with true justice. If a Supreme has any connection with the party's involved in a case, they should not sit in on the case. It's a friggen conflict of interest, period. Have people, driven by their ideology lost the intended purpose of a non-biased Judaical system?
If there is bias on the court, then there's not justice, it's more like a Third World Kangaroo Court.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its just not good for this country

 

[jillian]

Its just not good for this country

which isn't the basis for whether justices should do something or not.

 

[BenNatuf]

Is it proper for Scotus members to attend poltical events?

Unless you want to amend the 1st amendment... yes.

judges are governed by rules of judicial conduct. no other judges in the country would be permitted to attend political events unless they are running for judgship at the time.

supreme court justices are SUPPOSED to live by those same ethical rules, but are not bound by them.

i hope that helps.

it's not a first amendment issue... it's an ethical issue.

there is no ethics issue. Following the law is and can never be unethical.

a judicial employee may engage in such activities as civic, charitable, religious, professional, educational, cultural, avocational, social, fraternal, and recreational activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach. If such outside activities concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, the judicial employee should first consult with the appointing authority to determine whether the proposed activities are consistent with the foregoing standards and the other provisions of this code.

who is the supreme authority in determining whether or not a justices actions are consistent with the code? It's not a difficult question, it may even have been covered at the university of pheonix when you failed to get your paralegal certificate.

Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees

lest you need more reading

A. A judge shall not solicit or accept and shall urge members of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household* not to solicit or accept gifts, * from anyone except that a judge may accept
(1) a gift* incident to a public testimonial;
(2) books, magazines, journals, audio-visual materials and other resource materials supplied by publishers or organizations on a complimentary basis for official use;
(3) an invitation to the judge and the judge’s spouse, domestic partner or guest to attend without charge
(a) a widely attended event;
(b) a bar-related function; or
(c) any activity devoted to the improvement of the law,* the legal system or the administration of justice;

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/judicialethics/Canon4.authcheckdam.pdf

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) above, a judge may
(a) personally solicit funds from members of the judge’s family, or judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority;17
(b) assist the organization in fundraising and participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds;18
(c) appear at, participate in, and permit the judge’s title to be used in connection with an event of an organization devoted to the improvement of law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, even though the event may serve a fundraising purpose;

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/judicialethics/Canon4.authcheckdam.pdf

Lawyer my ass. My fucking dog knows more about the law than you ever will. And stop pretending you have any ethics at all, or even knowledge of what they might be?