You made the statement: “A judge should never give any reasonable person cause to question their impartiality.”
Why? What will happen if the judge doesn’t follow your advice?
Of course it’s in the context of her job; why else would I even ask the question?
One of her clients, who has contracted with her to lobby against the health care law, does this after her husband is part of the majority ruling against the health care law.
Do I understand your position correctly: you would have no problem with this and wouldn’t think anything improper had occurred?
It’s not just pressure, it’s money. A payment to Thomas’ wife is little different than a direct payment to Thomas. And why does it have to turn him more conservative? It’s not like people are ideologically pure about who they take bribes from. That’s the point of a bribe. I give you money, and you do what I want.
He would have done a bad thing and damaged the foundation of our legal system.
OK, so how do we determine what a “reasonable” person thinks?
Well, usually people argue about it and defend their position. You seem to like just asking questions.
Well, we are talking about lawyers, and that’s the way they work. 
Actually, this argument is just going around in circles. You think a reasonable person would conclude that Thomas is not being impartial, and yet you admit that you have no evidence that he’s ruled differently based on anything his wife does. That seems more like an irrational fear than a reasoned position.
We’re talking about the concept of “appearance of impropriety.” By definition, no evidence of wrongdoing is required.
One way: When we see a person insistently evading the subject, often devolving into incoherent babble rather than state and defend a position, we can determine that the person is *not *being reasonable.
Now: You have told us that you agree the appearance of propriety is important for lesser judges, but not Supremes. Do you wish either to defend or withdraw the claim, or simply continue asserting that *those questioning you *are the ones “arguing in circles”? :dubious:
I said a reasonable person would question the arrangement. If I see a large amount of money going from the opposing party essentially directly to the judge, that’s going to make me wonder. I can’t conclude impartiality, and it’s possible that it was a legitimate business arrangement, and the Thomases maintained a firewall. But I have no real way of being sure.
Then no, in the context of her job if someone gave her $100M it wouldn’t be ok. Because her compensation is $150K/year or so and $100M would be wildly over that.
But if she was lobbying against the law and when it was struck down she got a bonus of $50K or something, I would have absolutely no problem with that.
And if you think that a SC justice can be bought for something like $50K, that’s just insulting to the Supreme Court and idiotic.
So far I haven’t seen anyone worried that Thomas will be bribed to make left-leaning rulings. Can you cite me a URL?
Can you “conclude impartiality” without that large amount of money? And if you can, based on what?
So, by this logic, you’d be totally cool with Michele Obama taking on a lobbying position?
Madame, we’ve established what you are. Now we are just bargaining over the price.
Waves hands furiously
I wouldn’t say I can conclude it. I typically simply assume a judge is impartial.
Sure, why not. As I pointed out, she already had $300K/year “liaison” job when her husband was a senator, and based on the fact that the job position disappeared when she left, it was purely a sinecure in order to transfer money to the Obamas. I have never seen any Democrats mention it. So why would I object?
And as I pointed out above, anyone who thinks that a President or a SC justice could be bought for something piddly like $150K, that’s just stupid.
Why? Based on what?
Faith my fellow man. A history of impartial judges in this country. Because it is neigh on impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Take your pick.
Seriously, is this the best argument you guys can come up with? Asking questions and commenting on the size of the theoretical bribes?
I suppose you have a credible cite for this, no?
I am just wondering how you decided that Thomas was impartial in his decisions before Genny Thomas picked up that job, but afterwards you’re losing faith in his impartiality. Did you notice some kind of trend in his decisions - a change from before to after?
Probably for the half dozenth time, the arrangement the Thomas’ had makes me question his impartiality, not conclude any wrong doing. And, as I’ve said numerous times, I don’t think any decision was changed nor was there a change in impartiality. But that is beside the point. The point is avoiding not only impropriety, but the appearance of it. Taking money from interested parties for little more than influencing decisions whiffs of impropriety.