Justices Have Been Forced to Resign for Doing What Clarence

Kate wrote: Please tell me that you both know "refudiate" is not a word. Palin made it up in one of her brighter moments.

Kinda like when your moron Obama said "corpsemen"? You see, even highly educated geniuses like Odumbo can speak like he's clueless.

I agreed once, didn't I? Now you want to pin me down to it being fishy!



Kate:

We have learned that LJ makes up words, a long time ago, don't hurt her feelings! She is really sensitive, you know.

CriticalBill wrote:

Kate wrote: Please tell me that you both know "refudiate" is not a word. Palin made it up in one of her brighter moments.

Kinda like when your moron Obama said "corpsemen"? You see, even highly educated geniuses like Odumbo can speak like he's clueless.

true, they may speak like they are clueless, but Sarah is at an advantage here....she really IS clueless.

rofllol

Nmysys wrote: I agreed once, didn't I? Now you want to pin me down to it being fishy!

Kate:

We have learned that LJ makes up words, a long time ago, don't hurt her feelings! She is really sensitive, you know.

No, I just use words that are over your head and you don't understand... But that's okay... My feelings aren't hurt. You can't help it.

Archer:

Do you want me to make up a scoreboard for you for Palin?

Superfluous Nmysys.

Regardless, Thomas is one of the worst justices in history. It has been over five years since he participated in oral arguments in cases before the Supreme Court.

Oops, double post. See next post.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Photo-fish wrote: He should also recuse himself from cases that in any way involve his wife's Republican Party lobbying activities.

Which would include anything to do with health care; EPA; abortion/right-to-life cases; stem-cell research; Citizens United type cases; campaign finance issues, etc...

Yeah, that would be a good place to start....

Oh, and here's a site to sign a petition to demand that Thomas resign: http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/res ... =confemail

Yeah, you would really love that, wouldn't you?

If your spouse has a direct interest, such as being employed by a company before the court, holding stock, or consulting with the company about the matter before the court, yes the judge should recuse himself.

But Thomas' wife works for a conservative think tank. So far as I can see, she takes a salary which is in no way tied to court results. The Heritage Foundation doesn't benefit financially in any way. Yes, they take stands on political issues, just like the Democrat and Republican parties do.

Expecting a judge to recuse himself in this case creates a slippery slope. Suppose his wife was a Republican or Demcrat leader or Congress person? With this logic, he should also recuse himself from any cases having to do with politics as well. What if his wife is an officer at Target, and Walmart has a case in the court. Should he recuse himself too? If his wife is a preacher, he can't decide any seperation of church and state issues? Here is a politifact story that covers much of this aspect...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/07/anthony-weiner/rep-anthony-weiner-law-clear-clarence-thoma/

Now, so far as gifts go, I think accepting large gifts is highly inappropriate for any federal judge. And you should certainly recuse yourself if the person that gave the gift has a case in your court. The article didn't mention any specific such cases. Does anyone know of a case in the Supreme Court by a person or group who gave Justice Thomas any large gift and he didn't recuse himself?

There are rules about this for federal judges outside of the Supreme Court.

Beyond the admonition against fund-raising, the code generally discourages judges from partaking in any off-the-bench behavior that could create even the perception of partiality. It acknowledges the value in judges’ being engaged with their communities, lecturing on the law and doing charitable work, but draws a line where those activities might cause a reasonable person to worry that a judge is indebted to or influenced by someone.

“The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or charities, period,” said Arn Pearson, a lawyer with Common Cause. “If any other federal judge was doing it, he could face disciplinary action.”

The justices are not bound by the federal judiciary’s conduct code, because it is enforced by a committee of judges who rank below the justices. Even so, Justices Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy said in testimony before Congress in April that the justices followed the code.

Beyond the code, the justices must comply with laws applying to all federal officials that prohibit conflicts of interest and require disclosure of gifts. Justice Thomas’s gift acceptances drew attention in 2004, when The Los Angeles Times reported that he had accumulated gifts totaling $42,200 in the previous six years — far more than any of the other justices.

Since 2004, Justice Thomas has never reported another gift. He has continued to disclose travel costs paid by schools and organizations he has visited for speeches and teaching, but he has not reported that any travel was provided by Mr. Crow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?pagewanted=4&_r=2&sq=clarence%20thomas&st=cse&scp=2

We need to find a way to make the code apply to Supreme Court members. Just saying they are following it isn't enough. I'm just not sure how you could enforce it. No judge should be accepting large gifts. There should be a way to make sure judges recuse themselves when they have an interest in the case.

And Judge Thomas isn't the only current Supreme Court judge doing this type of thing either (it should be wrong for all)...

It is not unusual for justices to accept gifts or take part in outside activities, some with political overtones.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer has attended Renaissance Weekend, a retreat for politicians, artists and media personalities that is a favorite of Democrats, including former President Bill Clinton. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in a symposium sponsored by the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, and a philanthropic foundation once tried to give her a $100,000 achievement award. She instructed that the money be given to charity.

So in short, I don't agree that Judge Thomas' wife's job should require him to recuse himself from any case the Heritage Foundation has an opinion about. But he should definitely recuse himself from any case where he received a large gift, or has a direct financial interest. Accepting large gifts isn't currently against the law, but it should be.

Looks like it's not just his wife...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/0 ... homas-aei/