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

[bripat9643]

Correct. She also gained financially from the Citizens United ruling last year.

How do you figure that?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The point is they aren't liberals so they are EVIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL!!!!

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yet you show nothing about this influencing thier decsion, or impacting thier view on the law. Its guilt by association, and its against the two justices most likely to vote against the law being consitutional. Thier views on this are well known already, regardless of being fed a crappy piece of chicken and a slice of cheescake at a legal function.

No ethics law has been violated, they have no reason to recuse themselves.

How can I show how it influences their decision when they haven't made a decision? They may no be breaking any rules, but their is clearly a conflict of interest here. BTW, they did more than eat a crappy piece of cake, as you put it; they actually spoke at the event.



Why? Because you made the charge, that's why. I have a link for this story. Where's your link? You said liberal justices do the same thing. Link it or shut up. HACK.

Again, the only reason you are SO CONCERNED about scalia and thomas is that you disagree with them politically.

So, now you can read my mind? Or is it because you're a partisan hack and can't imagine anybody being non-partisan on any issue? I would be just as outraged if the tables were turned. Prove me wrong. HACK.

And for the hack comment, you can go fuck yourself with a tire iron.

Go eat a bag of dicks. HACK.

They spoke? So the fuck what? How does that translate to them having to recuse themselves?

I gave you a link showing what organziations ALL the justices travel to, among them were several groups that could have connections to various cases. Somehow you dont care about them, only thomas and scalia because you know thier judical philosophy and track record, and want them out of the decsion. Kagan has a far more concrete connection to the Obamacare law, yet you are just hunky dory with her being on the panel, because she will vote they way you want the vote to go.

and a homophobic attack? tsk, tsk, what will your progressive homosexual freinds say about that? For shame.

 

[Sarah G]

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're slimey. What can you do?

 

[francoHFW]

Bought off Pub scumbags all over the place. Dittoheads are totally brainwashed....amazing- even if it's just the whole flag and bible waving ignorance thing...

 

[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.

They're slimey. What can you do?

yet, Ginsburg and Bryer aren't scummy for accepting an invitation to a dinner paid for by the same company.

 

[Conservative]

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

That's just different. Why? It just... is.

 

[martybegan]

Bought off Pub scumbags all over the place. Dittoheads are totally brainwashed....amazing- even if it's just the whole flag and bible waving ignorance thing...

I reiceve no vast right wing conspiracy check, i assure you. Are you so narrow minded that you cannot comprehend that someone has an opposite opinion than yours without them being a "paid schill", or somehow fooled or stupid?

 

[JoeB131]

Of course the two justices you disagree with most MUST be removed from hearing the case.

How about you try to win the case on its merits, not by making up some conflict of interest. I'm sure Ginsberg et al on the liberal side have attended dinners given by Supporters of Obamacare, amazing you seem just fine ignoring it.

Also, implying that, on a non real time message board, 25 min period with no response from someone who opposes your opinion means that said people HAVE no retort is the sign of a person unable to win debates using proper logic, instead resorting to cheap "gotcha" tricks.

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.

They all know each other, they all hang out and politics is faker than wrestling.

What is your point.

26 States have sued the Federal GOvernment over ObamaCare because they know it would be economically ruinous. That should be a clue enough it was a bad idea.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

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?

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

you seem to know a lot about "ethics".

 

[jillian]

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

you seem to know a lot about "ethics".

that's funny.

 

[jillian]

They all know each other, they all hang out and politics is faker than wrestling.

What is your point.

26 States have sued the Federal GOvernment over ObamaCare because they know it would be economically ruinous. That should be a clue enough it was a bad idea.

while there are aspects of politics that make that true, good judges try very hard to maintain their impartiality. that doesn't mean they have to be without personal opinion. but the mark of a good judge is that everyone who appears in front of them at least believes they will receive a fair hearing.

i can tell you that i believe that if scalia were a judge in new york state, he would have had to recuse from bush v gore because the outcome affected his hunting buddy and there was an appearance of impropriety.

i can tell you that i believe that if thomas were a judge in new york state, he would have had to recuse from citizen's united because his wife was reliant for compensation on similarly situated groups and the outcome of the case affected her PERSONALLY.

would kagan have to recuse? i don't think so. she worked for an agency. judges don't generally have to recuse when cases are brought before them by an agency they worked for. BUT... it would depend on what her personal involvement was.

that said, the way the rules of ethics work (notwithstanding the lunacy of the troll who intentionally tried to wreck this thread), is that if there is even the smell of something wrong, you're supposed to recuse.

those rules are not binding on supreme court justices. they are only guidelines and there is no mechanism to force them to recuse or to discipline them unless they do something that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

 

[JoeB131]

while there are aspects of politics that make that true, good judges try very hard to maintain their impartiality. that doesn't mean they have to be without personal opinion. but the mark of a good judge is that everyone who appears in front of them at least believes they will receive a fair hearing.

i can tell you that i believe that if scalia were a judge in new york state, he would have had to recuse from bush v gore because the outcome affected his hunting buddy and there was an appearance of impropriety.

i can tell you that i believe that if thomas were a judge in new york state, he would have had to recuse from citizen's united because his wife was reliant for compensation on similarly situated groups and the outcome of the case affected her PERSONALLY.

would kagan have to recuse? i don't think so. she worked for an agency. judges don't generally have to recuse when cases are brought before them by an agency they worked for. BUT... it would depend on what her personal involvement was.

that said, the way the rules of ethics work (notwithstanding the lunacy of the troll who intentionally tried to wreck this thread), is that if there is even the smell of something wrong, you're supposed to recuse.

those rules are not binding on supreme court justices. they are only guidelines and there is no mechanism to force them to recuse or to discipline them unless they do something that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

Well, thankfully, we don't have NY's laws binding on our Justices. The Supreme Court should be above that because they have to be the ultimate authority.

I would say that Kagan and Sotomoyor should recuse themselves because Obama appointed them. But they won't. They will be allowed to vote on Obama's legacy.

The real problem here is that for a long time, liberals have looked at the Supreme Court as a place to get laws made they couldn't ever get through the legislature. They'd have never gotten a national legalization of abortion or a nationalwide ban on prayer in schools through Congress. Those guys like getting re-elected.

But appointing partisans for life, who will find 'Hey, there's a right to an abortion, right there, hiding in the 14th Amendment, nobody noticed it for 100 years", that works just fine. Can't blame the SCOTUS for weilding the power Congress foolishly gave them.

In that regard, the Democrats have always appointed partisans, and Republicans haven't. Yeah, you have Scalia and Thomas, but you've also had Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy, who side with the liberals more often than the conservatives.

Now Conservatives have control of this "ultimate legislature", and you all are crying foul when you get decisions you don't like.

 

[editec]

I no longer trust the SCOTUS to hand down rulings that aren't tainted by partisanship.

The SCOTUS is the third part of our government trokia that is failing us.

The Democractic Republic is dead.

We're morphing into something more Venician: a Corporate Republic of America.

All hail the Doges!

 

[JoeB131]

I no longer trust the SCOTUS to hand down rulings that aren't tainted by partisanship.

The SCOTUS is the third part of our government trokia that is failing us.

The Democractic Republic is dead.

We're morphing into something more Venician: a Corporate Republic of America.

All hail the Doges!

I think you mean "Venetian"...

But again, you had no problem when the SCOTUS was dominated by liberals under Burger and Warren and were handing down liberal rulings like Roe v. Wade.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

Bolded the crucial part. Only Kagan and Thomas can decide if they can or should recuse. Honestly both should, and if they were in any lower position they'd either have to, or their respective situations would become grounds for a near immediate appeal.

I do think that it might be time for Congress to resurrect their power to impeach SCOTUS Justices, or to at least investigate. If Kagan is acting unethically here, she needs to be reviewed for possible removal via impeachment. If the fact that Thomas's wife acted as a lobbyist here could have impacted his rulings, he should be under the same jeopardy.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Bolded the crucial part. Only Kagan and Thomas can decide if they can or should recuse. Honestly both should, and if they were in any lower position they'd either have to, or their respective situations would become grounds for a near immediate appeal.

I do think that it might be time for Congress to resurrect their power to impeach SCOTUS Justices, or to at least investigate. If Kagan is acting unethically here, she needs to be reviewed for possible removal via impeachment. If the fact that Thomas's wife acted as a lobbyist here could have impacted his rulings, he should be under the same jeopardy.

the provision on family members earnings is only applicable in the event the income actually DOES influence a judge, they SHOULD avoid the appearance of impropriety, but thier is no provision stating they MUST.

In kagan's case the fact that she actually worked on both the law and designing the defence of it, if she were a judge and not a justice, would DEMAND she recuse. people can appeal for any reason they like, has no bearing on the outcome of that appeal.

What either one does is their own business, as thier is no authority above them to make the determination for them, neither is the congress empowered to interfere with it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

That I believe taking an active roll in both constructing and building the defence for the law is grounds for her to do so

She didn't.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

Yes, god forbid they hear the reasoning of the opposition before deciding to hear the case, The ATROCITY OF IT ALL!!!!!
If this dinner had happened after the decision to hear the case was made, then it might be an issue, but being that it was not decided to be heard before the time the dinner happened, no biggie.

 

[grunt11b]

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 should be investigated and their financial records subpoenaed to see if they have been paid off, and if so they should be impeached.

You know how stupid that sounds? They are two conservative justices, they would not need to be paid off to decide this law as unconstitutional. And as I stated before, the dinner happened before the court decided to hear the case. So this whole thread is null.