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

[grunt11b]

The Federalist Society?

LOL

They appeared at the Federalist Society??

When Obama loses in 2012 Im going to volunteer at a Suicide Prevention hotline and tell Liberal callers to go suck a howitzer.

The Federalist Society!?

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

 

[J.E.D]

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.

I acknowledged pages back that they didn't actually violate any ethics rules; but that doesn't mean that they are not acting morally unethical. Is that really hard for you to understand, or do you just like to be the sniveling, think-you-know-it-all cock-stain that you've proven yourself to be?

 

[J.E.D]

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.

Right...socialist theology....

You. Are. A. Moron.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

I acknowledged pages back that they didn't actually violate any ethics rules; but that doesn't mean that they are not acting morally unethical. Is that really hard for you to understand, or do you just like to be the sniveling, think-you-know-it-all cock-stain that you've proven yourself to be?

cannons to the left, cannons to the right.

ben natuf is a master of ethics.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I think you lose standing to talk about ethics when you use "dickweed" in the same sentence.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I think you lose standing to talk about ethics when you use "dickweed" in the same sentence.

his argument is, if calling someone dickweed is not illegal, then it cannot be unethical.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

I acknowledged pages back that they didn't actually violate any ethics rules; but that doesn't mean that they are not acting morally unethical. Is that really hard for you to understand, or do you just like to be the sniveling, think-you-know-it-all cock-stain that you've proven yourself to be?

LOL, one cannot act unethically while complying with the law. It is simply not possible. Complying with the law is ALWAYS ethical. That you think it's "wrong" is completely meaningless when determining if its "ethical".

 

[BenNatuf]

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

you have no argument dickweed.

I acknowledged pages back that they didn't actually violate any ethics rules; but that doesn't mean that they are not acting morally unethical. Is that really hard for you to understand, or do you just like to be the sniveling, think-you-know-it-all cock-stain that you've proven yourself to be?

cannons to the left, cannons to the right.

ben natuf is a master of ethics.

If the cannon is big enough everyone will agree to your interpretation of ethics... or at least they won't disagree long.

 

[BenNatuf]

I think you lose standing to talk about ethics when you use "dickweed" in the same sentence.

calling a dickweed a dickweed is unethical? Who'd a thunk it? No dipshit, not being "nice" and not being "ethical" are unrelated, and one is not a reflection on the other. Perhaps I'd be nicer if those who insulted me when I pointed out the actual ethical standards instead of thier made up bullshit standards they pretended to know had bothered to be "nice" themselves? I don't know... could be. Now if you'd like to skip the whole insulting bit... then I'll take back the dipshit part and appologize for calling you one...

dipshit.

LOL (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[BenNatuf]

I think you lose standing to talk about ethics when you use "dickweed" in the same sentence.

his argument is, if calling someone dickweed is not illegal, then it cannot be unethical.

That would be wrong dumbass. the argument is COMPLYING with the law cannot by deffinition be unethical, and in what they did they did not just not break the law... they complied with it by acting in a manner the law explicitly says is NOT unethical.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I think you lose standing to talk about ethics when you use "dickweed" in the same sentence.

his argument is, if calling someone dickweed is not illegal, then it cannot be unethical.

That would be wrong dumbass. the argument is COMPLYING with the law cannot by deffinition be unethical, and in what they did they did not just not break the law... they complied with it by acting in a manner the law explicitly says is NOT unethical.

you don't need to further highlight your "understanding" of ethics.

 

[BenNatuf]

his argument is, if calling someone dickweed is not illegal, then it cannot be unethical.

That would be wrong dumbass. the argument is COMPLYING with the law cannot by deffinition be unethical, and in what they did they did not just not break the law... they complied with it by acting in a manner the law explicitly says is NOT unethical.

you don't need to further highlight your "understanding" of ethics.

I understand them fine, and I know where to go to determine what is and is not considered unethical for a judge... something all of you seem to have forgotten in your rush to judgement (highlighting your own "understanding" of ethics). Which of course would begin with the precept of not judging anothers actions without having all of the information you need to do so in the context of thier actions... something else you seem to have forgotten.

Perhaps befor you attempt to insult my understanding of ethics you should examine your own lack of them.

 

[L.K.Eder]

That would be wrong dumbass. the argument is COMPLYING with the law cannot by deffinition be unethical, and in what they did they did not just not break the law... they complied with it by acting in a manner the law explicitly says is NOT unethical.

you don't need to further highlight your "understanding" of ethics.

I understand them fine, and I know where to go to determine what is and is not considered unethical for a judge... something all of you seem to have forgotten in your rush to judgement (highlighting your own "understanding" of ethics). Which of course would begin with the precept of not judging anothers actions without having all of the information you need to do so in the context of thier actions... something else you seem to have forgotten.

Perhaps befor you attempt to insult my understanding of ethics you should examine your own lack of them.

i am clearly following the law, so what i do cannot be unethical.

stop judging me.

 

[BenNatuf]

you don't need to further highlight your "understanding" of ethics.

I understand them fine, and I know where to go to determine what is and is not considered unethical for a judge... something all of you seem to have forgotten in your rush to judgement (highlighting your own "understanding" of ethics). Which of course would begin with the precept of not judging anothers actions without having all of the information you need to do so in the context of thier actions... something else you seem to have forgotten.

Perhaps befor you attempt to insult my understanding of ethics you should examine your own lack of them.

i am clearly following the law, so what i do cannot be unethical.

stop judging me.

and here we have the atypical liberal defence to everything

neener, neener, neener.

You do know what LEGAL ethics are don't you? You do realize that when accusing o judge of a breach of ethics on the subject of recusal it involves LEGAL ethics... right?

What you consider "ethical" is pretty ******* meaningless in that context.

 

[Inthemiddle]

LOL, one cannot act unethically while complying with the law. It is simply not possible. Complying with the law is ALWAYS ethical. That you think it's "wrong" is completely meaningless when determining if its "ethical".

Okay, so if my state has no law prohibiting marital infidelity, I'm acting ethically when I cheat on my wife?

 

[xotoxi]

When Obama loses in 2012 Im going to volunteer at a Suicide Prevention hotline and tell Liberal callers to go suck a howitzer.

That's a really hilarious joke.

Advocating suicide? NICE!

 

[L.K.Eder]

I understand them fine, and I know where to go to determine what is and is not considered unethical for a judge... something all of you seem to have forgotten in your rush to judgement (highlighting your own "understanding" of ethics). Which of course would begin with the precept of not judging anothers actions without having all of the information you need to do so in the context of thier actions... something else you seem to have forgotten.

Perhaps befor you attempt to insult my understanding of ethics you should examine your own lack of them.

i am clearly following the law, so what i do cannot be unethical.

stop judging me.

and here we have the atypical liberal defence to everything

neener, neener, neener.

You do know what LEGAL ethics are don't you? You do realize that when accusing o judge of a breach of ethics on the subject of recusal it involves LEGAL ethics... right?

What you consider "ethical" is pretty ******* meaningless in that context.

i know what "legal ethics" are.

and they are still ethics.

do you know why and how rules of conduct had to be established?

because people behave unethically without breaking any rules, i.e. by following all rules that apply to them.

then too many behave unethically, or the behaviour is outrageously unethical, so rules have to be created.

those rules can then be codified or established by case law.

look up "inequitable conduct" regarding defense to patent infringement litigation.

or see how a certain rule on this board has recently been changed to close a loop hole, which allowed posters to behave unethically while following the rules.

 

[BenNatuf]

LOL, one cannot act unethically while complying with the law. It is simply not possible. Complying with the law is ALWAYS ethical. That you think it's "wrong" is completely meaningless when determining if its "ethical".

Okay, so if my state has no law prohibiting marital infidelity, I'm acting ethically when I cheat on my wife?

That would depend on what you, your wife, and your mistress have agreed to.

Not really the point though as it does not involve legal ethics.

 

[BenNatuf]

or see how a certain rule on this board has recently been changed to close a loop hole, which allowed posters to behave unethically while following the rules.

didn't know that... gonna have to look it up.

The point here is not that the code of ethics does not just not say they can't do what they did... it's that it EXPLICITLY says they can. It is not possible to act unethically when you are in complete compliance with the law, not just not in violation of it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

didn't know that... gonna have to look it up.

The point here is not that the code of ethics does not just not say they can't do what they did... it's that it EXPLICITLY says they can. It is not possible to act unethically when you are in complete compliance with the law, not just not in violation of it.

of course you can still behave unethically even if you are in complete compliance with the law.

for example if the law in itself is unethical.

ethics are not governed by law.