I think that as a nation we should be offended that Justice Thomas lied and continues to lie about being a horn dog 25 years ago. Apparently Mrs. Thomas thinks that it is okay for us to call up the Thomas household at 7:30 a.m. and passive aggressively suggest an apology. I’m pretty sure that if any of us did such a thing the Courts would not interpret it as an expression of free speech, but rather as harassment and at a minimum put a restraining order on us, if not throw us in jail.
Anita Hill did not want to testify and had no motive for doing so. Thomas wanted and felt entitled to the cushy lifetime appointment and had a motive for testifying and making himself look non-horny at all times in the work place. It is pretty apparent that one of them was a perjurer, and that it is Justice Thomas, following in the tradition of Rhenquist, who perjured himself when he denied having tried to intimidate voters. It’s okay to perjure yourself to be a Supreme Court Justice.
If there is anything that America stands for, it is that those in power perjure themselves without consequence.
Honeyplease. You know exactly what I was doing here. You’ve led people down the garden path in exactly the same way in other threads, and you know very well that I knew what your answers would be here, but that I was simply setting up the later portion of my argument.
:rolleyes: I know that you’ve agreed it wasn’t an olive branch. I also know that the cognitive dissonance from agreeing that it wasn’t an olive branch while still maintaining that any reasonable person could possibly see the voicemail as being a good idea, regardless of whether or not they thought (absent any actual evidence whatsoever) that Hill had been lying, is probably giving you such a fucking headache that it’s turning you into a bigger dick than usual.
Funny, it’s *exactly the fucking same thing *I asked fifty other times, when you kept being dismissive.
AFAICT, every single person here but you thinks that even someone who thought Hill was lying would realize it would be a terrible idea to make that call. I hate to make what could be seen as an argumentum ad populum, but when the question is “how would most people see this,” how most people see it is a pretty valid piece of evidence.
Do you think that Ms. Thompson has any *evidence *that Hill was lying? Do you think that Ms. Thompson has any evidence that much of the public thinks Hill was lying? Either of these things would mitigate tone deafness. What we have, instead, is a woman accusing another woman who was allegedly abused by her husband of instead being an abuser, then demanding an apology for it, and expecting zero negative fallout. That is not a position that any reasonable person would take. Accordingly, Ms. Thompson is either (a) a disingenuous shit-stirrer or (b) tone deaf.
Absolutely irrelevant analogy. More accurate: walk up to a member of the KKK and ask if you can take his daughter on a date. Will you be shocked at his reaction?
My, my, my, that cognitive dissonance really *is *terrible today. I carry ibuprofen: would you like some?
P.S. Are you going to come play with Morella or have you given up all pretense at being anything but another hardline conservative hackjob?
Nor is it limited in meaning to “financial interest,” as the statute makes abundantly clear by referring to “a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy . . . or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
What does “any other interest” encompass and not encompass, in your learned opinion?
On the subject of Supreme Court recusal policy, I think Marbury v. Madison established, among other precedents, that a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t have to recuse himself unless he feels like it. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the ruling in a case in which he was virtually a defendant.
Yeah, I want to make clear that I’m not taking the position that Justice Thomas would be required to recuse himself in that situation; I’m simply stating that the statutory standard doesn’t appear to be anywhere near as narrow as Bricker is describing it.
There’s also Hepburn v. Griswold, in which recently appointed Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled that financial policies, which he had carried out as Secretary of the Treasury eight years earlier, were unconstitutional.
Do you think Ms. Hill’s reaction was as unanticipated by Ms. Thomas as the WalMart clerk’s? How about a slightly more plausible question, such as “don’t you feel bad working for a company exploiting children in China?” The questioner might be a rabidly anti-corporate rabble rouser, who actually thinks all WalMart employees are ashamed of what they do, or he might be a troll, but isn’t he tone deaf in either instance about the possibility of getting a civil response? do you think the truth or falsity of WalMart’s practices (which the clerk has no part in deciding and is not privy to the actual conditions in China) have any bearing on anything here?
No. We could imagine that the shopper could reasonably, and un-tone-deaf-ly, might expect a, “I know, but I need the money,” or a stiff but civil, “Where can I direct you, sir?”
Um…there’s nothing “remote, contingent or speculative” about Ginny Thomas’s interest in the outcome of the proceeding, and furthermore, you’ve dodged my question:
The statute encompasses “a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy . . . or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” What other interests comprise “any other interest”?
“[Section] 455(a) requires judicial recusal ‘if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge’ of his interest or bias in the case.” Sao Paulo State of Fed. Rep. of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 232-33 (2002) (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 861 (1988)).
“The goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of partiality. If it would appear to a reasonable person that a judge has knowledge of facts that would give him an interest in the litigation then an appearance of partiality is created even though no actual partiality exists because the judge does not recall the facts, because the judge actually has no interest in the case or because the judge is pure in heart and incorruptible.” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 860 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphases added).
"The Court asks not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in his position is ‘likely’ to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional ‘potential for bias.’” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252, 2262 (2009).
28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a) “provides that a judge ‘shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” Sao Paulo State of Fed. Rep. of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 230 (2002)
Unlike a trial court, where one judge rules on a motion for recusal and then his decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, a motion for recusal at the Supreme Court would be rule upon by the court – that is, Thomas does not have to decide to recuse himself.
So I think you’re reading far too much into the rule. But given the paucity of rulings, I’m willing to wait and see this settled by an actual finding.
As a final can-kick, what if her income from the lobbying group (or whatever it is) is more than he makes as a Justice? If she’s buying things that become marital assets, a case can be made that he’s deriving benefit from one of the sides of the case.
Of course, there may be no immediate indication his wife will get fired if he votes for Obamacare in a relevant proceeding.
Tone deafness involves not realizing that there is a very plausible negative response to your action. Someone screaming at you for asking where the bathroom is is not a plausible negative response, though it is a possible one. If your definition of tone deafness excludes cases where there is some chance of a positive response, you’ve defined away the term for all practical purposes.
If a guy goes into a gay bar, walks up to two ladies engaging in extreme PDAs, and asks them to go back to his place, he might get lucky. But I’d say he was being a mite tone deaf (and well as tone blind and tone dumb) - wouldn’t you?