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

[Sallow]

Does it really matter who they dine with?

We already know how they are going to vote

Thomas will vote to squash the law. Scalia? Not so sure. Given that he's handed down some really controversial decisions that reek of judicial activism..this might be where he draws the line.

 

[BenNatuf]

they were helping lawyers get donations who had a case pending in front of them.

No, they were going to dinner.

 

[Defiant1]

Yes, a conservative group. A dinner with a lawyer from the firm who will be arguing against the health care law. Understand?

OMG!!!!!!! Are you saying our Supreme Court Justices actually eat dinner?

With other people? In a restaurant?

OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!!!!!


I thought they were sequestered for the rest of their lives.

You're not too bright, are you?

I very bright. Why do you ask?

 

[Sallow]

Jesus Christ, you are a fucking idiot. Listen as I slowly explain this to you: I understand that there are no ethical rules that SC justices must abide by. However, I believe that their behavior is unethical. That does not mean that I believe they broke any rules, it simply means that I feel they are acting unethically. If you can't wrap your little head around that, then you are beyond my help. Moron.

Which puts this squarely in the court of congress. Scalia and Thomas really flaunt this recusal stuff.

Except of course that the cannons on ethics would not require (or even suggest) that they should recuse themselves for simpy going to dinner.

Working on writing the law and actually working on the defense of the law... yeah, that would be covered.

Thomas' wife gains from these sorts of cases, financially. Heck yeah..it demands recusal. The fact he "forgot" to disclose that little chestnut really makes him look lousy, ethically.

 

[Sallow]

OMG!!!!!!! Are you saying our Supreme Court Justices actually eat dinner?

With other people? In a restaurant?

OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!!!!!


I thought they were sequestered for the rest of their lives.

You're not too bright, are you?

I very bright. Why do you ask?

"I very bright"?

So easy..a caveman can do it?

 

[rightwinger]

Does it really matter who they dine with?

We already know how they are going to vote

Thomas will vote to squash the law. Scalia? Not so sure. Given that he's handed down some really controversial decisions that reek of judicial activism..this might be where he draws the line.

I really doubt Scalia would vote in favor of Obamacare

It will go 5-4 one way or the other with Kennedy holding the key

 

[Sallow]

Does it really matter who they dine with?

We already know how they are going to vote

Thomas will vote to squash the law. Scalia? Not so sure. Given that he's handed down some really controversial decisions that reek of judicial activism..this might be where he draws the line.

I really doubt Scalia would vote in favor of Obamacare

It will go 5-4 one way or the other with Kennedy holding the key

Don't be so sure. He's been hinting he might do just that.

 

[Conservative]

they were helping lawyers get donations who had a case pending in front of them.

there are no donations solicited at the annual Federalist Dinner, dick spittle. you're lying again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who was the "lawyer" they "dined with"? I couldn't find it in the article, making this a classic example of:

OP Attached article disconnect syndrome

 

[BenNatuf]

Which puts this squarely in the court of congress. Scalia and Thomas really flaunt this recusal stuff.

Except of course that the cannons on ethics would not require (or even suggest) that they should recuse themselves for simpy going to dinner.

Working on writing the law and actually working on the defense of the law... yeah, that would be covered.

Thomas' wife gains from these sorts of cases, financially. Heck yeah..it demands recusal. The fact he "forgot" to disclose that little chestnut really makes him look lousy, ethically.

No it does not, it suggests that "judges should" not that they must, it says nothing about justices as the only person who can determine whether a justice should recuse themselves, is the justice. And yeah, that would cover kagan too. That I believe taking an active roll in both constructing and building the defence for the law is grounds for her to do so, is relatively meaningless, as she is the only one who can make that decission. When justices are elevated to the SCOTUS the assumption is that they can be impartial in any circumstance, as evedence that they cannot be would be grounds for thier never being elevated in the first place.

 

[BenNatuf]

Does it really matter who they dine with?

We already know how they are going to vote

Thomas will vote to squash the law. Scalia? Not so sure. Given that he's handed down some really controversial decisions that reek of judicial activism..this might be where he draws the line.

I really doubt Scalia would vote in favor of Obamacare

It will go 5-4 one way or the other with Kennedy holding the key

I'm not so sure it will go 5-4. The questions that were granted cert are interesting.

 

[J.E.D]

OK, lets investigate and find out where obamaturds 300 million dollars in campaign contributions came from since he won't disclose that.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Obama doesn't have to disclose his campaign contributions because of the conservative SC's ruling on Citizens United.

Ok, you're wrong, where would you make up that idea from? CU had nothing to do with disclosure rules of the campaigns.

I didn't make shit up. If I was mistaken, then it was just that - a mistake. Whatever the case was - some donations don't have to be disclosed.

 

[Sallow]

Except of course that the cannons on ethics would not require (or even suggest) that they should recuse themselves for simpy going to dinner.

Working on writing the law and actually working on the defense of the law... yeah, that would be covered.

Thomas' wife gains from these sorts of cases, financially. Heck yeah..it demands recusal. The fact he "forgot" to disclose that little chestnut really makes him look lousy, ethically.

No it does not, it suggests that "judges should" not that they must, it says nothing about justices as the only person who can determine whether a justice should recuse themselves, is the justice. And yeah, that would cover kagan too. That I believe taking an active roll in both constructing and building the defence for the law is grounds for her to do so, is relatively meaningless, as she is the only one who can make that decission. When justices are elevated to the SCOTUS the assumption is that they can be impartial in any circumstance, as evedence that they cannot be would be grounds for thier never being elevated in the first place.

Your specious complaint about Kagan aside..one of the things that would cause a judge to recuse is financial gain.

Which is probably why this is eventually going to end up in congress.

 

[CaféAuLait]

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 healthcare 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.

I guess Ginsburg and Kennedy should also recuse themselves, because they too also attended a dinner put on by Bancroft PLLC the same firm you mention above:

On August 15, 2011, Paul Clement, along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States, was invited to speak at the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference at the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, California.

Mr. Clement’s speech presented a recent review of the Supreme Court as part of a larger program focused on the limits of federalism, use of neuroscience evidence in the courtroom, historical overviews of search and seizure law, the future of the courts, and women in the law.

Paul Clement participates as Guest Speaker in the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference


For a video of the speech, please go to


Paul Clement participates as Guest Speaker in the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference

 

[BenNatuf]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Obama doesn't have to disclose his campaign contributions because of the conservative SC's ruling on Citizens United.

Ok, you're wrong, where would you make up that idea from? CU had nothing to do with disclosure rules of the campaigns.

I didn't make shit up. If I was mistaken, then it was just that - a mistake. Whatever the case was - some donations don't have to be disclosed.

OK.. good enough. The donations that do not have to be disclosed are to third party groups like pacs and interest groups. CU had little to do with the actual campaigns reporting requirements.

 

[J.E.D]

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 healthcare 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.

I guess Ginsburg and Kennedy should also recuse themselves, because they too also attended a dinner put on by Bancroft PLLC the same firm you mention above:

On August 15, 2011, Paul Clement, along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States, was invited to speak at the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference at the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, California.

Mr. Clement’s speech presented a recent review of the Supreme Court as part of a larger program focused on the limits of federalism, use of neuroscience evidence in the courtroom, historical overviews of search and seizure law, the future of the courts, and women in the law.

There is a difference. I'm sure you're quite aware of it. Justices Thomas and Scalia spoke at an event hosted by a conservative group associated with this lawyer; justices Kennedy and Ginsburg were present at the 9th Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference (which on its face doesn't sound too partisan) where this lawyer spoke.

 

[Truthmatters]

Paul Clement participates as Guest Speaker in the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference



On August 15, 2011, Paul Clement, along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States, was invited to speak at the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference at the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, California.

Mr. Clement’s speech presented a recent review of the Supreme Court as part of a larger program focused on the limits of federalism, use of neuroscience evidence in the courtroom, historical overviews of search and seizure law, the future of the courts, and women in the law.




Its a judges conferance for hells sake.


The thing scalia and Thomas did were fund raisers for poltical action.

 

[BenNatuf]

Thomas' wife gains from these sorts of cases, financially. Heck yeah..it demands recusal. The fact he "forgot" to disclose that little chestnut really makes him look lousy, ethically.

No it does not, it suggests that "judges should" not that they must, it says nothing about justices as the only person who can determine whether a justice should recuse themselves, is the justice. And yeah, that would cover kagan too. That I believe taking an active roll in both constructing and building the defence for the law is grounds for her to do so, is relatively meaningless, as she is the only one who can make that decission. When justices are elevated to the SCOTUS the assumption is that they can be impartial in any circumstance, as evedence that they cannot be would be grounds for thier never being elevated in the first place.

Your specious complaint about Kagan aside..one of the things that would cause a judge to recuse is financial gain.

Which is probably why this is eventually going to end up in congress.

LOL, for what? So they can waste their time debating something they have absolutely no role in or authority over? Who is the only person who can decide whether a justice should recuse themselves? What role does congress have in that decission? What role could they ever have in that decission? Is waisting the publics time and money tilting at windmills what you think the congress should be doing?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 healthcare 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.

I guess Ginsburg and Kennedy should also recuse themselves, because they too also attended a dinner put on by Bancroft PLLC the same firm you mention above:

On August 15, 2011, Paul Clement, along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States, was invited to speak at the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference at the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, California.

Mr. Clement’s speech presented a recent review of the Supreme Court as part of a larger program focused on the limits of federalism, use of neuroscience evidence in the courtroom, historical overviews of search and seizure law, the future of the courts, and women in the law.

Paul Clement participates as Guest Speaker in the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference


For a video of the speech, please go to


Paul Clement participates as Guest Speaker in the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference

I don't see how they can live with the shame

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Paul Clement participates as Guest Speaker in the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference



On August 15, 2011, Paul Clement, along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States, was invited to speak at the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference at the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, California.

Mr. Clement’s speech presented a recent review of the Supreme Court as part of a larger program focused on the limits of federalism, use of neuroscience evidence in the courtroom, historical overviews of search and seizure law, the future of the courts, and women in the law.

Its a judges conferance for hells sake.


The thing scalia and Thomas did were fund raisers for poltical action.

Hypocrite