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

[BenNatuf]

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

LOL... now lets see how consistant in their beliefs leftist are


or if they abandon the thread.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

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.

they went to dinner.

 

[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.

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.

Yet, Bancroft paid for it. So anyone sitting at a dinner paid for by a firm who has ties should recuse themselves?

The article says they have been attending the dinner for years and it is not new. And goes onto say:

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.

They speak of the proximity since Bancroft PLLC paid for the dinner, they also paid for the Ninth Circut dinner which Kennedy and Ginsberg attended.

 

[J.E.D]

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:

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.

they went to dinner.

Yes, they went to dinner...at a JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, along with other justices. Thomas and Scalia SPOKE at an event sponsored by a CONSERVATIVE GROUP. Your point is?

 

[J.E.D]

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:

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.

Yet, Bancroft paid for it. So anyone sitting at a dinner paid for by a firm who has ties should recuse themselves?

The article says they have been attending the dinner for years and it is not new. And goes onto say:

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.

They speak of the proximity since Bancroft PLLC paid for the dinner, they also paid for the Ninth Circut dinner which Kennedy and Ginsberg attended.

Thomas and Scalia SPOKE at the CONSERVATIVE EVENT. Kennedy and Ginsburg ATE DINNER AT A JUDICIAL CONFERENCE. I find it hard to believe that you can't see the difference; therefore, I can only come to the conclusion that you're being disingenuous.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

they were being wined and dined at a fund raiser for the lawyers who were presenting the case.

They take donations for their causes at these things.

They were helping them raise money by being there.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

they went to dinner.

Yes, they went to dinner...at a JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, along with other justices. Thomas and Scalia SPOKE at an event sponsored by a CONSERVATIVE GROUP. Your point is?

no, they went to dinner. And, even if they had spoke, it's still NOT against the ethical rules which specifically say they CAN speak, neither was there any solicitation at the dinner, which also would not have mattered since the rules do not forbid them from attending or speaking at any event where money is raised simply because money is raised there. There is also no prohibition against attending or speaking at "conservative" groups, only against "partisan" groups, which the federalist society is not as it is niether associated with nor connected to the Republican Party or any other party.

So what's your point?

 

[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.

they were being wined and dined at a fund raiser for the lawyers who were presenting the case.

They take donations for their causes at these things.

They were helping them raise money by being there.

And Kennedy and Ginsberg went to a dinner too sponsered by the same lawfirm. As the article that the OP posted pointed out the justices have been attending the Federalist dinner for years and there is nothing wrong with such.

 

[CaféAuLait]

they went to dinner.

Yes, they went to dinner...at a JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, along with other justices. Thomas and Scalia SPOKE at an event sponsored by a CONSERVATIVE GROUP. Your point is?

no, they went to dinner. And, even if they had spoke, it's still NOT against the ethical rules which specifically say they CAN speak, neither was there any solicitation at the dinner, which also would not have mattered since the rules do not forbid them from attending or speaking at any event where money is raised simply because money is raised there. There is also no prohibition against attending or speaking at "conservative" groups, only against "partisan" groups, which the federalist society is not as it is niether associated with nor connected to the Republican Party or any other party.

So what's your point?

 

[BenNatuf]

Yes, they went to dinner...at a JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, along with other justices. Thomas and Scalia SPOKE at an event sponsored by a CONSERVATIVE GROUP. Your point is?

no, they went to dinner. And, even if they had spoke, it's still NOT against the ethical rules which specifically say they CAN speak, neither was there any solicitation at the dinner, which also would not have mattered since the rules do not forbid them from attending or speaking at any event where money is raised simply because money is raised there. There is also no prohibition against attending or speaking at "conservative" groups, only against "partisan" groups, which the federalist society is not as it is niether associated with nor connected to the Republican Party or any other party.

So what's your point?

liberal morons don't realize that everyone knows the only reason for these attacks is to excuse Kagan for not recusing herself in the time honored "they did it too" defense.

 

[McDowell's]

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.

Yet, Bancroft paid for it. So anyone sitting at a dinner paid for by a firm who has ties should recuse themselves?

The article says they have been attending the dinner for years and it is not new. And goes onto say:

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.

They speak of the proximity since Bancroft PLLC paid for the dinner, they also paid for the Ninth Circut dinner which Kennedy and Ginsberg attended.

Thomas and Scalia SPOKE at the CONSERVATIVE EVENT. Kennedy and Ginsburg ATE DINNER AT A JUDICIAL CONFERENCE. I find it hard to believe that you can't see the difference; therefore, I can only come to the conclusion that you're being disingenuous.

So Thomas and Scalia were influencing others with their words while Kennedy and Ginsburg were being influenced by the words of others. You're right, it's so much worse.

I hope the people sitting next to Kennedy and Ginsburg had their iPhones handy. Sitting next to someone who doesn't say anything for an entire dinner can be really boring.

 

[J.E.D]

So what's your point?

That you're dishonest. That I owned you. That's my point.

 

[J.E.D]

no, they went to dinner. And, even if they had spoke, it's still NOT against the ethical rules which specifically say they CAN speak, neither was there any solicitation at the dinner, which also would not have mattered since the rules do not forbid them from attending or speaking at any event where money is raised simply because money is raised there. There is also no prohibition against attending or speaking at "conservative" groups, only against "partisan" groups, which the federalist society is not as it is niether associated with nor connected to the Republican Party or any other party.

So what's your point?

liberal morons don't realize that everyone knows the only reason for these attacks is to excuse Kagan for not recusing herself in the time honored "they did it too" defense.

Con assholes such as yourself will continue to deflect with irrelevant BS. Carry on.

 

[driveby]

Now how is it this is OK?


How is this not a recusable situation?

Why do you hate black and italian Judges? ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thread Fail

 

[BenNatuf]

So what's your point?

That you're dishonest. That I owned you. That's my point.

so your point is that your a lying sack of shit? How does not being able to refute the ACTUAL ethical cannons instead of your made up bullshit amount to you owning me dipshit?

 

[BenNatuf]

liberal morons don't realize that everyone knows the only reason for these attacks is to excuse Kagan for not recusing herself in the time honored "they did it too" defense.

Con assholes such as yourself will continue to deflect with irrelevant BS. Carry on.

and yet you still cannot refute the actual cannon of ethics. LOL

you have no argument dickweed.

 

[bripat9643]

Note, from your reference:

"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."

BTW, I don't give a damn about a "fair process," whatever that is. I want the Constitution to be enforced.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't have a problem with it, just as you don't have a problem with the leftwing members of the court hob-nobbing with the Communists and socialists who promoted Obamacare.

Speaking of proper logic. Here I show proof that two conservative justices are dining with lawyers arguing against the health care law, and speaking at engagements sponsored by opponents of the law. Then you come in and start throwing out assumptions. Link it or shut up. Hack.

 

[bripat9643]

Agreed. Lifetime appointment, Schlifetime appointment. They may not be beholden to any ethics laws, but they are clearly crossing ethical boundaries. This stinks to high heaven.

The only "ethical boundary" they crossed is the liberal hatred for anyone who doesn't grovel before their socialist theology.