The Spouses Of Supreme Court Justices Shouldn't Be Forced To Disclose Anything

[Mac-7]

you'd said you'd ban them from working did you not?

If you want to put it that way

The lawyers can fill in the fine print, but using judges as an example, wives would have to give up their jobs when hubby was appointed

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

if they wont follow the standards already in place why would they follow new ones,,,

Because there is no punishment involved?
If we insist on treating these people like Gods, don't clutch your pearls when they act like them

 

[meaner gene]

The differene between Thomas and Sotomayor, is that there was NO case in front of the Court involving the family friend...unlike Sotomayor. There was no actual conflict.

Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Friend Did Have Business Before the Supreme Court

Justice Clarence Thomas said he was advised he didn’t have to disclose private jet flights and luxury vacations paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow because, although a close friend, Crow “did not have business before the court.”

www.bloomberg.com

Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Friend Did Have Business Before the Supreme Court

Justice didn’t recuse from rejection of architecture firm case

 

[Marener]

Adult children would be allowed to work

But not wives

“allowed”
How kind.

The point stands that the kids didn’t consent to your terms but you’d force them to play by your rules.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

If you want to put it that way

The lawyers can fill in the fine print, but using judges as an example, wives would have to give up their jobs when hubby was appointed

No, if the wife is working...she can still work, she just can't work directly for donors who are CURRENTLY TRYING TO LOBBY her husband to rule a certain way on cases before his court

 

[meaner gene]

A GOP donor who treated Clarence Thomas to trips and private jets had a case before the court, despite what Thomas said.

 

[struth]

If you want to put it that way

The lawyers can fill in the fine print, but using judges as an example, wives would have to give up their jobs when hubby was appointed

That is beyond silly

 

[Mac-7]

“allowed”
How kind.

The point stands that the kids didn’t consent to your terms but you’d force them to play by your rules.

Children are exempted

But not wives

 

[Mac-7]

No, if the wife is working...she can still work, she just can't work directly for donors who are CURRENTLY TRYING TO LOBBY her husband to rule a certain way on cases before his court

Under your rules yes

But not under my rules

 

[struth]

As I have pointed out, the supreme court has politicized itself. By looking at the legislatures ability to over ride their rulings. And where they find the politics to be deadlocked, making bold rulings only they know there isn't the political will to reverse them.

No it hasn't....and only you have made that claim. Well, maybe some dembot made it and you are parroting it.

Show me one opinion where the Court any Court, stated that.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Under your rules yes

But not under my rules

You are irrelevant....you don't make any rules......didn't your wife explain this to you already?

 

[meaner gene]

No it hasn't....and only you have made that claim. Well, maybe some dembot made it and you are parroting it.

Show me one opinion where the Court any Court, stated that.

That's how they ruled in the voting rights case, throwing out the pre-clearance requirement that congress put into it in the 1960's.

The court in throwing out the pre-clearance requirement specifically said that they did so, because if congress objected to their throwing it out, they merely had to pass a law putting it back in.

The supreme court’s decision didn’t get rid of the Voting Rights Act entirely. Congress could restore the full power of the law by coming up with a new formula to determine which places need to submit their voting changes for pre-clearance. But since 2013, that hasn’t happened. House Democrats passed a new formula late last year, but Republicans in the senate have refused to take the measure up.

 

[struth]

Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Friend Did Have Business Before the Supreme Court

Justice Clarence Thomas said he was advised he didn’t have to disclose private jet flights and luxury vacations paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow because, although a close friend, Crow “did not have business before the court.”

www.bloomberg.com

Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Friend Did Have Business Before the Supreme Court

Justice didn’t recuse from rejection of architecture firm case

hahaha no he didn't...r did he even know the case was going on according to your own link.

Harlan Crow said he had no knowledge of or involvement in case....there is nothing to even suggest Thomas knew about the distant connection either.

The National Multifamily Housing Council,.. filed briefs, a group that numerous real estate developers are paying members of, had some cases, he pays dues to the Council, but they file all sorts of lawsuits related to real estate.

You guys are desperate to make an issue where there is none, and don't even try hiding how desperate you are, and don't even try to hide the fact that you don't care one bit about the issue of "ethics" when you remained compeletely silent when a Justice you like, set over a case involving a company she was directly paid millions from.

 

[struth]

That's how they ruled in the voting rights case, throwing out the pre-clearance requirement that congress put into it in the 1960's.

The court in throwing out the pre-clearance requirement specifically said that they did so, because if congress objected to their throwing it out, they merely had to pass a law putting it back in.

haha no they didn't...first they didn't throw up the pre-clearance requirement. Well, yeah, it's always the case that Congress can make or change law, and the Court applies it.

When the Court ruled in Holder v Shelby was that the data used was 40 years old, that things of changed, and they had to use current data for the states they wanted pre-clearance for. Congress is free to go back and do that. That's not political, that's a ruling on the law, that's how the Courts have acted since the founding...that's what Courts do

Once again, you show you ignorance.

 

[meaner gene]

hahaha no he didn't...r did he even know the case was going on according to your own link.

Harlan Crow said he had no knowledge of or involvement in case....there is nothing to even suggest Thomas knew about the distant connection either.

This is like when Al Gore pointed out that George W. Bush owned a lumber company, which was in his blind trust. Had Thomas done proper financial disclosure, then outside forces ex the MSM would have made Thomas aware of his potential conflict of interest. And made available the links so that Thomas could make the proper recusal decision.

Instead Thomas would have had to do his own due diligence, which he would not / could not do. And thus fein ignorance

 

[meaner gene]

When the Court ruled in Holder v Shelby was that the data used was 40 years old, that things of changed, and they had to use current data for the states they wanted pre-clearance for. Congress is free to go back and do that. That's not political, that's a ruling on the law, that's how the Courts have acted since the founding...that's what Courts do

The court knew the same thing, that congress could pass a law to put roe v wade back in effect too.

But in both cases, they knew the political will prevented it from happening, thus they were free to throw it out, without fear congress could overrule them.

 

[struth]

This is like when Al Gore pointed out that George W. Bush owned a lumber company, which was in his blind trust. Had Thomas done proper financial disclosure, then outside forces ex the MSM would have made Thomas aware of his potential conflict of interest. And made available the links so that Thomas could make the proper recusal decision.

Instead Thomas would have had to do his own due diligence, which he would not / could not do. And thus fein ignorance

There was no conflict of interest...hahah the media making him aware? hahaha

He didn't have to recuse himself. Even if he were aware that a Council that his friend paid dues to, wrote a brief, he woudn't of had to recuse himself.

 

[struth]

The court knew the same thing, that congress could pass a law to put roe v wade back in effect too.

But in both cases, they knew the political will prevented it from happening, thus they were free to throw it out, without fear congress could overrule them.

They always know that...the Court is well aware of Art V of the US Constitution and what legislative power is.

 

[Marener]

Children are exempted

But not wives

So kids don’t have to report anything?

 

[meaner gene]

There was no conflict of interest...hahah the media making him aware? hahaha

Financial disclosure would also allow congress to check for such conflicts too.