Nope!
The law STATES justices, that IS THE SUPREME COURT justices.
Give it up, you're wrong.
Clarence And Virginia Thomas Have An Impressively Corrupt Activist Judge Scheme Going
- Thread starter skews13
- Start date
The law STATES justices, that IS THE SUPREME COURT justices.
Give it up, you're wrong.
Big Bend Texas
Platinum Member
- Mar 14, 2022
- 9,242
- 5,230
- 893
The Federal Code of Ethics for lower court judges does not apply to SCOTUS and never has. That's why Nancy suddenly wants to change the law to target Thomas.
There are two types of judges in the lower courts, magistrates and justices.
You can continue being wrong if you like, or you could learn something for a change. Your choice.
Nope, lower courts are magistrates and JUDGES.
Only the supreme court, are they called justices, dessert texan.
The law is US CODE, for federal judges, magistrates, and the supreme court justices.
You are wrong. It is the LAW. Not some ethical rules and standards.
You've been misinformed.
Big Bend Texas
Platinum Member
- Mar 14, 2022
- 9,242
- 5,230
- 893
You are a clueless boob apparently but by all means feel free to continue being wrong.
Watchdog Group Calls For Supreme Court Ethics Code Amid Conflict Of Interest Fears
Amy Coney Barrett and other Supreme Court justices are not bound by the same rules as other judges, noted former government ethics chief Walter Shaub.
Read, learn.
Chillicothe
Platinum Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 11,182
- 7,139
- 938
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed.
Putting aside the issue of whether Justice Thomas falls under a statutorly requirement to recuse, there are, nonetheless, the realities of propriety, decorum and optics that are not insignificant.
An apt analogy would be ----- if Ginnie Thomas was a prominent an active lobbyist for the Facebook and an important question came before the court centered on Facebook's actions. Of course, the nation ----and hopefully, Chief Justice Roberts ----would expect Clarence Thomas to recuse.
I have read time and time again how senistive to the 'perception' of the SCOTUS Roberts allegedly is. Evidently he feels a strong sense of responsibility to safeguard it's reputation.
The 8-1 decision that directly involved Ms Thomas' emails makes the Court look less than what they should look like. The '8-1' makes Thomas look bad. And it makes Roberts look like less than an alert and attentive administrator.
IMHO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, they don't have ethical standards and codes ruling the supreme court, though the justices can still be impeached for not following an ethical standard.... They do have an obligation to follow them, an Honor System.You are a clueless boob apparently but by all means feel free to continue being wrong.
Watchdog Group Calls For Supreme Court Ethics Code Amid Conflict Of Interest Fears
Amy Coney Barrett and other Supreme Court justices are not bound by the same rules as other judges, noted former government ethics chief Walter Shaub.www.huffpost.com
Read, learn.
Mainly because in lower courts when a judge disqualifies themselves, there is another judge to replace them, with no conflicts....or a higher court to rule on the unethicalness....
That's not so easy and it is impossible with the supreme court....there are 9 justices, and that's it....no replacements in line....
But justices are still required to do so, when an appearance of a conflict of interest occurred with himself or with his spouse.... They govern themselves, on an Honor system involved with ethics.
But the U.S. CODE that I listed is the LAW, that applies to U.S. Supreme court justices....
In the federal gov Justice system, ONLY Supreme court judges are called Justices....not any other judge or appeals court judges are called and labeled JUSTICES.I
At the State level of judges, two states....your state of texas, and new york, call appeals court judges, justices....but again, those are NOT federal judges that this US CODE covers....US CODE covers federal judges, federal magistrates and the US Supreme court justices.
The law I posted, the US CODE, is for federal judges etc, and SC Justices.
Last edited:
Supreme Court justices recused themselves 180 times in most recent term
BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISSJULY 12, 2016, 8:30 AM CDT
U.S. Supreme Court justices recused themselves 180 times during the term that ended in June, according to the transparency group Fix the Court.
Most of the recusals—176—were at the certiorari stage, according to a Fix the Court press release. The vast majority of the recusals—117—were because of “previous work” by Justice Elena Kagan (she was solicitor general) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (she was a federal appeals court judge).
Thirty-three of the recusals were due to stock ownership in companies held by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Al Alito Jr., the press release says. Two of those recusals, in decided cases, didn’t affect the outcome. The other 31 recusals were in cert-stage cases.
The findings highlight “how the breadth of stock ownership by these three justices may be affecting the docket,” according to Fix the Court. “It is possible that any number of the 31 petitions with stock-based conflicts were missing a key fourth vote at the cert. stage, leaving decisions on issues ranging from patents to false claims to class actions in the hands of lower court judges.”
Fifteen recusals related to family ties of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, whose brother is a federal judge, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., whose sister is a partner at K&L Gates.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
What is her interest in all of the court cases? Spell it out.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Any cases come up where she was a lobbyist?
Her interest, is what she clearly stated in her 29 emails with Meadows, to take away the legitimate Biden win, and usurping it with a Trump installation, under a y and all means. She's been very vocal in the public as well.
There is a conflict of interest with Thomas or in the least, an appearance of a conflict of interest, with justice thomas, and he should recuse himself, so that the supreme court can be above that conflict with his rulings
Why are you even questioning this?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
That's one case. You were claiming there were many cases.
BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
That’s stupid. Lots of people have an interest in the allegedly stolen election and in the 1/6 incident. Nobody said a judge can’t rule on an issue where his or her spouse has such an “interest.” You must live in Bizzaro world!
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,277
- 3,600
Do you want to be persecuted for what you believe?
lennypartiv
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2019
- 28,065
- 21,650
- 2,320
Or maybe Clarence Thomas supports the right to protest and realizes why Americans would protest after an election has been stolen.
A variety of cases.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Going after Thomas is so stupid. He has been the single most consistent Justice in modern history. Instead of baseless accusations liberal hacks need to provide some evidence that Thomas' ruling have been effected or compromised. They can't and won't so this whole silly drama queen episode falls flat.
Chillicothe
Platinum Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 11,182
- 7,139
- 938
I regret if my avatar wasn' clear enough up in post #245.
It was my intention to deliniate that the case in question was NOT about January 6th per se, or anyone's right to protest anything.
Rather it was about the emails or other communications, that influenced, discussed, or described the attack on Congress.
And , in fact, that is what the SCOTUS addressed in their rulling ..... the communications. Not the protest. Not any alleged 'stolen election'. It was the email and other communications.
Communications that Ginnie Thomas was an active and influential participant and contributor to.
Justice Thomas knew, or should have known, that his wife was an activist in promoting the developments that eventually lead to the request for those documents. As such, he should have recused.
8-1 is not a testament to Justice Thomas independent thinking.
It is a testament to his poor judgment.
And it reflects poorly on this court. And on Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice and the administrator and enforcer of propriety.
Frankly though, that is all in the rear-view mirror, water under the bridge. No disciplinary action will follow.
Rather, the powers-that-be need view it as a 'lessons learned' opportunity.
We'll see on that. If things will change if another similar case occurs with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas.
But undoubtedly the temperature has been raised, the spotlight has grown brighter.
She and thus her husband, have a strong interest in the ruling of those cases turning out one way, over another way....
So yes, absolutely.
The PACs she belongs to, do as well.
What does that have to do with the tea in China?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
How did that Van Hollen Guy Get Elected? His Questioning of Kristi Noem Makes him Look Incredibly Weak- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
