Obviously Kagan must recuse herself - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 11-15-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Darryl, I know you're not smart enough to understand what I am saying but you're going to have to take my word for it: Just because someone works in the legal profession doesn't mean they are an "officer of the court."

Now I don't mind that you're using terms improperly. I accept that as one of your many intellectual shortcomings so I just grin and bear it. But your inability to understand these terms does not mean I am lying.

So all you do is throw out your personal attacks which liberals are allowed to do in this forum.

No attacks at all, that if you worked for the court you would understand conflict of interest.. it happens all the time. Every day judges and attorneys recuse themselves to avoid an appearance of impropriety..

Remember you witnessed "innumerable proceedings".. FYI innumerable means to many to be counted.

You should not discuss someone's intellectual shortcomings.. if you cannot comprehend the aforementioned code, they have remedial classes for those illiterate in the basic functions of the law, but most of it is common sense.

***Wolfpack*** · 11-15-2011, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

I'd like to take a shower with her

***DarrylS*** · 11-15-2011, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

When all else fails resort to utter silliness.. better than knowledge.

***Wolfpack*** · 11-15-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

No attacks at all, that if you worked for the court you would understand conflict of interest.. it happens all the time. Every day judges and attorneys recuse themselves to avoid an appearance of impropriety..

Remember you witnessed "innumerable proceedings".. FYI innumerable means to many to be counted.

You should not discuss someone's intellectual shortcomings.. if you cannot comprehend the aforementioned code, they have remedial classes for those illiterate in the basic functions of the law, but most of it is common sense.

I understand the concept of conflict of interest. You just haven't established any such conflict either in this thread (which you hijacked just like I knew you would) or in the other thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

She already said she should.. she understands ethics and how sacred it it to avoid any "appearance of impropriety".. know the blogs have their depends in a bunch about this, but it is a nontroversy..

Where did Elena Kagan say she should recuse herself? That would be huge news if she did. How has everyone in this forum except you missed that huge news story?

***Wolfpack*** · 11-15-2011, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

When all else fails resort to utter silliness.. better than knowledge.

Where did Elena Kagan say she should recuse herself?

***DarrylS*** · 11-15-2011, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Where did Elena Kagan say she should recuse herself?

May have been during her confirmation hearings it was a while ago???

Why doesn't Thomas do the same..

***DarrylS*** · 11-15-2011, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I understand the concept of conflict of interest. You just haven't established any such conflict either in this thread (which you hijacked just like I knew you would) or in the other thread.
Where did Elena Kagan say she should recuse herself?

Obviously you have right wing reading comprehension problems, if you cannot see it you will never understand...

It is pretty much the same principle as to why Kagan should recuse herself, there is an obvious "appearance of impropriety".. when you become a judge, your spouse is an active player and her involvement in political activities has to be considered.

If you witnessed "innumerable court proceedings" you would have seen on many occasions judges or attorneys recusing themselves from cases that their wives were involved with. You would also see judges and attorneys recusing themselves from cases that former law partners are involved in. You would see judges and attorneys recusing themselves from many different cases to avoid an "appearance of impropriety".

It is difficult to be viewed as impartial jurist when your wife is involved and gets paid by an organization who is opposed to the health care bill...

***Wolfpack*** · 11-15-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

May have been during her confirmation hearings it was a while ago???

Can you provide a link please? Why is this something that nobody in the country seems to know except you?

***Wolfpack*** · 11-15-2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

It is difficult to be viewed as impartial jurist when your wife is involved and gets paid by an organization who is opposed to the health care bill...

That's silly and more than just a little bit of a stretch. If a USSC justice was married to a doctor, does that mean they should recuse themselves from such a decision? After all, doctors are affected by the decision. Would that be a conflict of interest in your eyes?

Something tells me your answer to that question would depend greatly on which judge it was.

***DarrylS*** · 11-16-2011, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

That's silly and more than just a little bit of a stretch. If a USSC justice was married to a doctor, does that mean they should recuse themselves from such a decision? After all, doctors are affected by the decision. Would that be a conflict of interest in your eyes?

Something tells me your answer to that question would depend greatly on which judge it was.

Has nothing to do with how I view it, it has to do with the code of conduct for the federal judiciary..

Being a doctor is a different station in life, than working for a lobbying group that actively works to overturn said legislation...

As far as your last comment goes, nothing could be further from the truth.. already said Kagan should recuse herself..