It might, though. And that’s the problem.
Well, if you know a location more specific than not under a rock, feel free and invite him to explain his position. Otherwise, maybe you can address my argument.
Well, we disagree on that. Which is exactly my point. The standard set for the SCOTUS justices is set out in the Constitution. If you want something stricter, get an amendment passed. Otherwise, you’re just pissing in the wind.
His statement stands as it is, and doesn’t need further explanation from me.
Serious question: Do you think that if Ms. Thomas stayed home and baked cookies all day instead of having a career as a lobbyist, that Justice Thomas would rule differently on this legislation?
No, as a matter of fact, I don’t.
Now, serious question for you: If Mrs. Thomas’ website said literally, “Hire me and I’ll talk to Clarence about your issue.” and she had been hired by an anti-health care group. Would you expect Thomas to recuse?
I should note that Breyer is one of Thomas’ best friends, so he might not be entirely objective on this issue (ideological differences notwithstanding).
I don’t understand why you can’t give a straight answer to that question. I mean, I’m really freaking confused. Everyone should give an immediate “no” to the question of whether SCOTUS judges should act improperly.
It’s a meaningless question. No one should act “improperly”, whatever that the hell that means.
You were asking about a Justice doing something that appeared improper. At what point was it decided his actions were improper? And who made the decision?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/top-reagan-doj-official-slams-scalia-for-tea-party-meeting/ Here is a fine example. Scalia is such an arrogant prick that he feels comfortable crossing all the lines . He is undermining whatever belief people ever had in the court. Thomas is just as aggressive in his actions. He has no problems attending right wing political functions, with no regard of how it makes the court look.
So then you’d agree that any Justice who was a member of the ACLU or attended ACLU meetings should resign?
I posted about this in a thread 6 or 12 months ago. Supreme Court Justices get a salary of about $214k plus substantial benefits. Here’s a wiki link.
Ginny Thomas is getting, what, $150k salary as a lobbiest. She got something similar as the “head” of a non-profit, and IIRC didn’t have to disclose who the financial backers of the non-profit were.
It stinks to high heaven to have a spouse that makes a monetarily significant salary vis-a-vis Clarence Thomas. This stinks to high heaven in the appearance if not fact of impropriety stakes. (and yes, we should pay the supremes more money with the requirement their spouses don’t work and they can pay for their own vacations).
Sure… Because spouses are not their own people and cannot have their own professional interests and lives, but have to be tied to their Supreme Court spouse at the hip and live off their salary. How 19th century of you. How dare the little woman have any aspirations to anything outside of home.
Hey Terr, this is about the appearance of impropriety. Ginny Thomas makes 75% of what her husband makes. Her husband does not make fuck you money. Ipso facto, this is definately the appearance of impropriety. Pull this shit in most corporate jobs and you’d be out on your ass in minutes. This isn’t anything to do with sexism but everything to do with raw capitalism and greed.
BTW, read for comprehension please. Note the use of “spouse” as opposed to “little woman”. I would write the exact same things if genders were reversed or even the same. Like I wrote in the above paragraph, most major corporations and publicly listed corporations have explicit codes of conduct that would make such a spousal relationship a condition of employment (eg a potential firing offence). Yet, somehow one of the most powerful non-elected people in the US gets a free pass? Is that your point?
So then you were disgusted with Bill Clinton for not resigning when his wife became an associate and later a partner with a blue-chip Arkansas firm which got jobs from the State of Arkansas?
200+K annually, for life, with no possibility of being laid off, is “fuck you money”.
Since none of the female justices are currently married, no, the genders are not reversed.
That’s the point, yes. He cannot be fired. That’s why his high salary is “fuck you money”.
Or Obama’s wife getting the high paying University of Chicago Hospitals “liaison” position which mysteriously became unnecessary and disappeared when she quit to move to DC.
Whats wrong with the ACLU?
I thought we were debating the Supremes and not Clinton or Obama spouses before they were President. Open another thread if that’s what you care to debate.
Point being that it’s ***quite ***a stretch that Ginny Thomas’ career does not have at the minimum the appearance of impropriety.
Only if you think spouses are tied at the hip.
My wife is quite a bit to the left of me. Doesn’t mean I am going to run out and donate to DNC or work for the local Democrat politician’s campaign.
Don’t you think Thomas is old enough to make his own decisions?
Running a political campaign is a lot different than owning a company where your earnings are based on your ability to influence people in power. I laid out the differences with the ACLU and Thomas’ work above. Thomas’ wife is getting paid specifically for her contacts with people in power, which may or may not include her husband. Contrast that with someone getting paid to run a campaign or the ACLU. In those, there is no way to directly draw a link between their pay and access to their spouse.
Plus, it sets up a far too easy pay to play system. Does paying Thomas’ lobbying firm 500k get me a favorable ruling? Probably not, but that possibility is going to cross most people’s mind.