The "Weinerdog" is oficially a crackpot..

[jillian]

Remember all the backroom deals Obama and his cronies had with the health insurance companies when creating the Obamacare bill? Did Weiner speak out against that? I hope so.

judges are required to recuse if they are biased or if there is an APPEARANCE of bias.

i don't believe the president is subject to the same concerns. I also don't recall you complaining when Cheney devised our energy policy in the back room with oil company and auto company execs and lobbyists.

just sayin.

The President and politicians SHOULD be subject to the "same concerns." There's a term for that: Crony Capitalism.

And what is this crap about me not complaining about Cheney? Where have I ever said anything positive about Cheney or Bush? You've obviously got me confused with somebody else.

i'm not sure how the president shouldn't be biased toward his own programs. but i'd be perfectly happy if all political campaigns were paid for with a set amount of government funds so lobbyists become nonexistant.

finally, for the record, there are conflict of interest rules that pertain to politicians, but they generally regard the taking of money.

 

[jillian]

You, an alleged attorney should know that Weiner doesn't have a argument. You should read section Title 28 of the U.S. Code.

I am quite familiar with the rule.

How can you not think he has a conflict or an apparent bias?

For the simple reason that he nor his wife would directly benefit financially by ruling against Obamacare. She works for the Heritage foundation and they are not inline to benefit by such a ruling either.

For a person that is quite familiar with Title 28 you sure got it wrong.

if you don't mind, i think i won't get my interpretation of laws from you.

Thanks.

And if i am working for certain things, and a ruling will effect me, then if my husband rules on those issues, he is affecting me. the ethically challenged scalia should have recused from bush v gore, too.

but ethics seem to escape some of you until something is done by someone on the left.

then you get all hot and bothered.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I am quite familiar with the rule.

How can you not think he has a conflict or an apparent bias?

For the simple reason that he nor his wife would directly benefit financially by ruling against Obamacare. She works for the Heritage foundation and they are not inline to benefit by such a ruling either.

For a person that is quite familiar with Title 28 you sure got it wrong.

if you don't mind, i think i won't get my interpretation of laws from you.

Thanks.

And if i am working for certain things, and a ruling will effect me, then if my husband rules on those issues, he is affecting me. the ethically challenged scalia should have recused from bush v gore, too.

but ethics seem to escape some of you until something is done by someone on the left.

then you get all hot and bothered.

I provided the law as it is written. Not my fault you can't understand what you read.

Read the law and show specififally where the conflict is.

TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 455
Prev | Next § 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
How Current is This? (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

 

[xsited1]

judges are required to recuse if they are biased or if there is an APPEARANCE of bias.

i don't believe the president is subject to the same concerns. I also don't recall you complaining when Cheney devised our energy policy in the back room with oil company and auto company execs and lobbyists.

just sayin.

The President and politicians SHOULD be subject to the "same concerns." There's a term for that: Crony Capitalism.

And what is this crap about me not complaining about Cheney? Where have I ever said anything positive about Cheney or Bush? You've obviously got me confused with somebody else.

i'm not sure how the president shouldn't be biased toward his own programs. but i'd be perfectly happy if all political campaigns were paid for with a set amount of government funds so lobbyists become nonexistant.

finally, for the record, there are conflict of interest rules that pertain to politicians, but they generally regard the taking of money.

Of course a politician should be 'biased toward their own programs', but that wasn't the point. Crony capitalism has to end, period. Obama is one of the worst offenders and he's currently the President which is why I mentioned him, and Weiner is a big Obama supporter. What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[WillowTree]

weenie is pissed cause Judge Thomas voted for Citizens United.

 

[jillian]

The President and politicians SHOULD be subject to the "same concerns." There's a term for that: Crony Capitalism.

And what is this crap about me not complaining about Cheney? Where have I ever said anything positive about Cheney or Bush? You've obviously got me confused with somebody else.

i'm not sure how the president shouldn't be biased toward his own programs. but i'd be perfectly happy if all political campaigns were paid for with a set amount of government funds so lobbyists become nonexistant.

finally, for the record, there are conflict of interest rules that pertain to politicians, but they generally regard the taking of money.

Of course a politician should be 'biased toward their own programs', but that wasn't the point. Crony capitalism has to end, period. Obama is one of the worst offenders and he's currently the President which is why I mentioned him, and Weiner is a big Obama supporter. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I'm perfectly fine with Anthony calling out the scum. Someone's got to do it.

And I don't think Obama comes close to his predecessors in that regard. Can you say Haliburton? Sure, I knew you could.

 

[WillowTree]

i'm not sure how the president shouldn't be biased toward his own programs. but i'd be perfectly happy if all political campaigns were paid for with a set amount of government funds so lobbyists become nonexistant.

finally, for the record, there are conflict of interest rules that pertain to politicians, but they generally regard the taking of money.

Of course a politician should be 'biased toward their own programs', but that wasn't the point. Crony capitalism has to end, period. Obama is one of the worst offenders and he's currently the President which is why I mentioned him, and Weiner is a big Obama supporter. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I'm perfectly fine with Anthony calling out the scum. Someone's got to do it.

And I don't think Obama comes close to his predecessors in that regard. Can you say Haliburton? Sure, I knew you could.

You really shouldn't call a black man "scum" that makes you a racist in liberal land don'tyaknow?

 

[washamericom]

coming up for reelection every two years isn't easy for an american politician.
here is weiner trying to score some cheap points, loser.
another back door to keeping obamercair.

Anthony Weiner - Conflicted Clarence Thomas

PolitiFact | Rep. Anthony Weiner: Law clear that Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from health care case

scotusblog.com

truth hurts, huh?[/QUOTE



the guy who writes scotusblog was on Fox news. The number one source for news in America and he said. not one of the liberal judges on the supreme court will side with the weenie. they will stand firmly at Thomas' side. Care for a weenie roast?

i saw trump get it last night... holy shith

 

[jillian]

Of course a politician should be 'biased toward their own programs', but that wasn't the point. Crony capitalism has to end, period. Obama is one of the worst offenders and he's currently the President which is why I mentioned him, and Weiner is a big Obama supporter. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I'm perfectly fine with Anthony calling out the scum. Someone's got to do it.

And I don't think Obama comes close to his predecessors in that regard. Can you say Haliburton? Sure, I knew you could.

You really shouldn't call a black man "scum" that makes you a racist in liberal land don'tyaknow?

it isn't racist when you call scum, scum, regardless of color.

but keep posting with the racists. i'm sure they'll love it to pieces.

 

[washamericom]

coming up for reelection every two years isn't easy for an american politician.
here is weiner trying to score some cheap points, loser.
another back door to keeping obamercair.

Anthony Weiner - Conflicted Clarence Thomas

PolitiFact | Rep. Anthony Weiner: Law clear that Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from health care case

scotusblog.com

Remember all the backroom deals Obama and his cronies had with the health insurance companies when creating the Obamacare bill? Did Weiner speak out against that? I hope so.

judges are required to recuse if they are biased or if there is an APPEARANCE of bias.

i don't believe the president is subject to the same concerns. I also don't recall you complaining when Cheney devised our energy policy in the back room with oil company and auto company execs and lobbyists.

just sayin.

jillian yer a lawyer ? one good thing is that soliciter sotameyer will have to recuse from more than she can hear, which is good for our team.

 

[Sallow]

I have to wonder if Rep. Weiner is really just this ignorant of the law (Which is sad on the basis that he has a part in creating them) or purposely providing false information (which is sad because our political representatives shouldn't be corrupt).

What "false" information?

There's been some clear violations of ethical code in the SCOTUS recently..particularly by Scalia. And there are several cases coming up that both Thomas and Scalia have clear conflict of interest issues.

They should voluntarily recuse themselves...but it seems they have no intention of doing so. That leave it up to Congress to get involved..unfortunately.

 

[Mini 14]

Weiner has now started a campaign to have Thomas disbarred.

Weiner has officially jumped the shark.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I have to wonder if Rep. Weiner is really just this ignorant of the law (Which is sad on the basis that he has a part in creating them) or purposely providing false information (which is sad because our political representatives shouldn't be corrupt).

What "false" information?

There's been some clear violations of ethical code in the SCOTUS recently..particularly by Scalia. And there are several cases coming up that both Thomas and Scalia have clear conflict of interest issues.
They should voluntarily recuse themselves...but it seems they have no intention of doing so. That leave it up to Congress to get involved..unfortunately.

Can you give specifics?

 

[WillowTree]

I'm perfectly fine with Anthony calling out the scum. Someone's got to do it.

And I don't think Obama comes close to his predecessors in that regard. Can you say Haliburton? Sure, I knew you could.

You really shouldn't call a black man "scum" that makes you a racist in liberal land don'tyaknow?

it isn't racist when you call scum, scum, regardless of color.

but keep posting with the racists. i'm sure they'll love it to pieces.

you mean it isn't racist if you call a black Republican scum. we got it.

 

[Sallow]

coming up for reelection every two years isn't easy for an american politician.
here is weiner trying to score some cheap points, loser.
another back door to keeping obamercair.

Anthony Weiner - Conflicted Clarence Thomas

PolitiFact | Rep. Anthony Weiner: Law clear that Justice Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from health care case

scotusblog.com

Remember all the backroom deals Obama and his cronies had with the health insurance companies when creating the Obamacare bill? Did Weiner speak out against that? I hope so.

Those were court cases?

 

[Sallow]

I have to wonder if Rep. Weiner is really just this ignorant of the law (Which is sad on the basis that he has a part in creating them) or purposely providing false information (which is sad because our political representatives shouldn't be corrupt).

What "false" information?

There's been some clear violations of ethical code in the SCOTUS recently..particularly by Scalia. And there are several cases coming up that both Thomas and Scalia have clear conflict of interest issues.
They should voluntarily recuse themselves...but it seems they have no intention of doing so. That leave it up to Congress to get involved..unfortunately.

Can you give specifics?

For you specifically? No. It's not worth the effort.

You lack the cognitive skills. I've been down this road before with you..and you have rote answers for any point.

 

[Sallow]

Weiner has now started a campaign to have Thomas disbarred.

Weiner has officially jumped the shark.

No he hasn't.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What "false" information?

There's been some clear violations of ethical code in the SCOTUS recently..particularly by Scalia. And there are several cases coming up that both Thomas and Scalia have clear conflict of interest issues.
They should voluntarily recuse themselves...but it seems they have no intention of doing so. That leave it up to Congress to get involved..unfortunately.

Can you give specifics?

For you specifically? No. It's not worth the effort.

You lack the cognitive skills. I've been down this road before with you..and you have rote answers for any point.

That's what I thought. Stupid fucks like you are all talk and no action or as we say in Texas "all hat and no cattle".

I'm glad you remembered the last time you got pwned debating me and I don't blame you at all for conceding.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Weiner has now started a campaign to have Thomas disbarred.

Weiner has officially jumped the shark.

No he hasn't.

Wow, great debating skills. No wonder you get your ass kicked in every debate.

 

[Sallow]

Can you give specifics?

For you specifically? No. It's not worth the effort.

You lack the cognitive skills. I've been down this road before with you..and you have rote answers for any point.

That's what I thought. Stupid fucks like you are all talk and no action or as we say in Texas "all hat and no cattle".

I'm glad you remembered the last time you got pwned debating me and I don't blame you at all for conceding.

Your concession is duly noted.

Go fuck yourself you whiny little maggot. You "t'aint" worth the effort to swat.

Now that we've gotten over bein' all polite and all...