Obviously Thomas Must Recuse Himself - New England Patriots Forums

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 11-15-2011, 02:12 PM

Too bad it takes another thread to discuss the same subject - but WP seems to think that you can discuss one without discussing the other - hence a new thread on a current subject.

From a letter to Thomas signed by 74 congressional representatives.

Dear Justice Thomas:

As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has "experience and connections" and appeals to clients who want a particular decision - they want to overturn health care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas's receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of healthcare reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern

44 - House Democrats say Justice Thomas should recuse himself in health-care case

Legally speaking, (and I don't mind blurring both Thomas and Kagan since there's barely an article out there that does not mention both of them in regards to the Health Care Hearings) it seems that neither of them meets the criteria for a necessary recusal.

From what has been revealed so far, most legal experts think not. Putting it plainly, James Sample, a law professor at Hofstra University School of Law who focuses on recusal issues, tells The Washington Times these accusations don't pass the bar. “I am generally one of the most pro-recusal scholars you can find, and yet I think in this instance those who are trying to argue for the recusal of Justice Kagan and Justice Thomas alike are opportunists who are trying to use a mechanism that just doesn’t fit,” he said.

Recusal Wars Heat Up for the Supreme Court's Health Care Case - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

In the interest of fairness, I say either both of them recuse themselves or they both stay.

Calling for one to to do and not calling for the other to do so as well is the height of partisanship.

***DarrylS*** · 11-15-2011, 02:17 PM

From another thread.. some heads are gonna explode, because they only think that ethics apply to the left.. Clarence's issues are clear.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Quote:

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

(c)the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d)the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

***Wolfpack*** · 11-15-2011, 02:38 PM

Sorry but no matter how hard you look there's just no conflict of interest there. The only conflict is Thomas "conflicts" with the liberal viewpoint.

***DarrylS*** · 11-15-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Sorry but no matter how hard you look there's just no conflict of interest there. The only conflict is Thomas "conflicts" with the liberal viewpoint.

]

What don't you understand about this.. the extreme right only wants ethics to apply to the left.

Quote:

c)the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 11-15-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

What don't you understand about this.. the extreme right only wants ethics to apply to the left.

From the looks of it, he only understands pictures.

***Wolfpack*** · 11-15-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

What don't you understand about this.. the extreme right only wants ethics to apply to the left.

How is Thomas, or any member of his family, going to make money off his decision?

***Harry Boy*** · 11-15-2011, 04:05 PM

Thomas is a Black Man who thinks for himself in doing so he decided he didn't want to be a member of the hateful biased Democrat Plantation, the Left Wing can't tolerate this or even begin to understand it therefore Thomas, Herman Cain or any other Black Person who dares to leave "the fold" must be DESTROYED along with their whole family.

It Is Called "LEFT WING LIBERAL RACISM"

Black People Who Don't Tow The Line:
(there are millions of them all over america who just get up in the morning go to workthen come home and watch tv, they are called "americans" they are normal hard working people" thats why you never hear about them.

Racism is alive and well over on the left wing liberal democrat plantation.

***DarrylS*** · 11-15-2011, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

How is Thomas, or any member of his family, going to make money off his decision?

Try and read this slowly.. it might be difficult, so read it very slowly.

Quote:

c)the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

***Wolfpack*** · 11-15-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Try and read this slowly.. it might be difficult, so read it very slowly.

Yup, just as I thought. You have absolutely no answer because fact is neither Thomas nor any family member of his stands to profit from the outcome of this USSC case.

You just really don't have a clue how logic works, do you? I'm not arguing what the law says. I understand that a judge should be recused if they stand to profit from the outcome of a case. So you can quote the law (or ethical rulings) all day long and you still haven't established how Thomas will profit from making a decision one way or another.

***DarrylS*** · 11-15-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Yup, just as I thought. You have absolutely no answer because fact is neither Thomas nor any family member of his stands to profit from the outcome of this USSC case.

You just really don't have a clue how logic works, do you? I'm not arguing what the law says. I understand that a judge should be recused if they stand to profit from the outcome of a case. So you can quote the law (or ethical rulings) all day long and you still haven't established how Thomas will profit from making a decision one way or another.

The law is not necessarily based on right wing logic..

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...

Allow me to break it down and make it simpler..

in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;