Topic: Justice Kagan on healthcare | |
---|---|
I didn't say you were telling me how to think. I was asking you, not myself. No law but codes. And it isn't Justice Roberts place to tell her if she needs to recuse herself. She worked on the defense for the bill so would that not be a conflict of interest? She's not going to recuse herself. Just like Thomas isn't. If there's no law, it can't be enforced. |
|
|
|
What's wrong with Justice Thomas? What's good about him? Well...lots. He has a lot of libertarian ideals and favors small government. He came from nothing and made it to the Supreme Court. Before that, he was one of the most respected lawyers in the country. He has a strong work history, a strong work ethic. So what is wrong with him? Do you ever wonder why he's the only one to never ask questions? I just don't think he compares to the other justices. He doesn't seem to be quite on par with them. I wonder why he was the choice Daddy Bush made. |
|
|
|
Do you ever wonder why he's the only one to never ask questions? I just don't think he compares to the other justices. He doesn't seem to be quite on par with them. I wonder why he was the choice Daddy Bush made. No, not at all. He has his reasons, I'm sure. I suppose you think he's less competent than the other justices? |
|
|
|
Do you ever wonder why he's the only one to never ask questions? I just don't think he compares to the other justices. He doesn't seem to be quite on par with them. I wonder why he was the choice Daddy Bush made. No, not at all. He has his reasons, I'm sure. I suppose you think he's less competent than the other justices? You haven't wondered at all why he's not asked a question for 6 years? Interesting. I think that's quite strange that he's the only one who doesn't. |
|
|
|
I didn't say you were telling me how to think. I was asking you, not myself. No law but codes. And it isn't Justice Roberts place to tell her if she needs to recuse herself. She worked on the defense for the bill so would that not be a conflict of interest? She's not going to recuse herself. Just like Thomas isn't. If there's no law, it can't be enforced. There is a law Emily.....but its not up to anither to enforce but up to the justice to impose it themselves but stating it's a conflict of interest and recusing themselves.....by not recusing themselves they risk future filings against the outcome based on conflict of interest and negating a ruling.....and her actually working on it is conflice.....Justice Thomas's wife has nothing to do with the ruling itself......I find Jusctice Thomes to be a fitting member for the Supreme Court myself......he has always shown himself to abide by the United States Constitution in all his considerations as far as I can tell |
|
|
|
I didn't say you were telling me how to think. I was asking you, not myself. No law but codes. And it isn't Justice Roberts place to tell her if she needs to recuse herself. She worked on the defense for the bill so would that not be a conflict of interest? She's not going to recuse herself. Just like Thomas isn't. If there's no law, it can't be enforced. There is a law Emily.....but its not up to anither to enforce but up to the justice to impose it themselves but stating it's a conflict of interest and recusing themselves.....by not recusing themselves they risk future filings against the outcome based on conflict of interest and negating a ruling.....and her actually working on it is conflice.....Justice Thomas's wife has nothing to do with the ruling itself......I find Jusctice Thomes to be a fitting member for the Supreme Court myself......he has always shown himself to abide by the United States Constitution in all his considerations as far as I can tell I was responding to what the OP said about no law. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest :). |
|
|
|
I didn't say you were telling me how to think. I was asking you, not myself. No law but codes. And it isn't Justice Roberts place to tell her if she needs to recuse herself. She worked on the defense for the bill so would that not be a conflict of interest? She's not going to recuse herself. Just like Thomas isn't. If there's no law, it can't be enforced. There is a law Emily.....but its not up to anither to enforce but up to the justice to impose it themselves but stating it's a conflict of interest and recusing themselves.....by not recusing themselves they risk future filings against the outcome based on conflict of interest and negating a ruling.....and her actually working on it is conflice.....Justice Thomas's wife has nothing to do with the ruling itself......I find Jusctice Thomes to be a fitting member for the Supreme Court myself......he has always shown himself to abide by the United States Constitution in all his considerations as far as I can tell I was responding to what the OP said about no law. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest :). But do you not find it a conflict of interest that she work on the defense case being presented to her? |
|
|
|
I didn't say you were telling me how to think. I was asking you, not myself. No law but codes. And it isn't Justice Roberts place to tell her if she needs to recuse herself. She worked on the defense for the bill so would that not be a conflict of interest? She's not going to recuse herself. Just like Thomas isn't. If there's no law, it can't be enforced. There is a law Emily.....but its not up to anither to enforce but up to the justice to impose it themselves but stating it's a conflict of interest and recusing themselves.....by not recusing themselves they risk future filings against the outcome based on conflict of interest and negating a ruling.....and her actually working on it is conflice.....Justice Thomas's wife has nothing to do with the ruling itself......I find Jusctice Thomes to be a fitting member for the Supreme Court myself......he has always shown himself to abide by the United States Constitution in all his considerations as far as I can tell I was responding to what the OP said about no law. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest :). But do you not find it a conflict of interest that she work on the defense case being presented to her? If you want one to recuse for a conflict of interest, I would think you'd want the other to recuse for the same, since his wife is lobbying for health care. I am not the one who decides who recuses and who doesn't, so I will leave that up to them. |
|
|
|
I didn't say you were telling me how to think. I was asking you, not myself. No law but codes. And it isn't Justice Roberts place to tell her if she needs to recuse herself. She worked on the defense for the bill so would that not be a conflict of interest? She's not going to recuse herself. Just like Thomas isn't. If there's no law, it can't be enforced. There is a law Emily.....but its not up to anither to enforce but up to the justice to impose it themselves but stating it's a conflict of interest and recusing themselves.....by not recusing themselves they risk future filings against the outcome based on conflict of interest and negating a ruling.....and her actually working on it is conflice.....Justice Thomas's wife has nothing to do with the ruling itself......I find Jusctice Thomes to be a fitting member for the Supreme Court myself......he has always shown himself to abide by the United States Constitution in all his considerations as far as I can tell I was responding to what the OP said about no law. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest :). But do you not find it a conflict of interest that she work on the defense case being presented to her? If you want one to recuse for a conflict of interest, I would think you'd want the other to recuse for the same, since his wife is lobbying for health care. I am not the one who decides who recuses and who doesn't, so I will leave that up to them. If you have no opinion then why bother posting other than to be arguementative? |
|
|
|
Sorry, TJN, everyone is allowed to post here whether they agree with you or not. You don't get to decide who posts where, or whether they should agree with you.
|
|
|
|
Sorry, TJN, everyone is allowed to post here whether they agree with you or not. You don't get to decide who posts where, or whether they should agree with you. Where did I say you have to agree with me? If you have a reason as to why you think she shouldn't recuse herself then feel free to post it. And in my opinion asking if Justice Thomas should recuse himself has nothing to do with Justice Kagan. Being married to someone who is a lobbyist isn't the same as working on a case being presented to you. Justice Thomas' wife had nothing to do with the bill. |
|
|
|
Kagan is yet another shining example of why Obama sucks! |
|
|
|
Sorry, TJN, everyone is allowed to post here whether they agree with you or not. You don't get to decide who posts where, or whether they should agree with you. Where did I say you have to agree with me? If you have a reason as to why you think she shouldn't recuse herself then feel free to post it. And in my opinion asking if Justice Thomas should recuse himself has nothing to do with Justice Kagan. Being married to someone who is a lobbyist isn't the same as working on a case being presented to you. Justice Thomas' wife had nothing to do with the bill. ![]() |
|
|
|
Sorry, TJN, everyone is allowed to post here whether they agree with you or not. You don't get to decide who posts where, or whether they should agree with you. Where did I say you have to agree with me? If you have a reason as to why you think she shouldn't recuse herself then feel free to post it. And in my opinion asking if Justice Thomas should recuse himself has nothing to do with Justice Kagan. Being married to someone who is a lobbyist isn't the same as working on a case being presented to you. Justice Thomas' wife had nothing to do with the bill. I was comparing the two. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to tell me how I need to respond. |
|
|
|
Sorry, TJN, everyone is allowed to post here whether they agree with you or not. You don't get to decide who posts where, or whether they should agree with you. Where did I say you have to agree with me? If you have a reason as to why you think she shouldn't recuse herself then feel free to post it. And in my opinion asking if Justice Thomas should recuse himself has nothing to do with Justice Kagan. Being married to someone who is a lobbyist isn't the same as working on a case being presented to you. Justice Thomas' wife had nothing to do with the bill. I was comparing the two. You don't have to agree, but you don't get to tell me how I need to respond. Ther is no comparison. It's two separate things. I'm not telling you how you need to respond. But a respone pertaining to wether or not Justice Kagan should recuse herself would be appreciated. Justice Thomas has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Again, this is another example of the liberal double standard.
Had a Republican appointed justice be sitting on a case where he worked on a Republican law, the media would be screaming "recluse" at the top of their lungs every day, screaming for "justice". |
|
|
|
Seeing as Justice Kagan was Obama's solicitor general should she recuse herself from the case that's in front of the SCOTUS? "As solicitor general of the United States, Kagan headed up an office that formulated the Obama administration’s legal defense of the legislation." She is obliged under Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code to recuse herself from cases where a justice has “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.” Hell yes she should. In fact anyone Obummer appointed to the bench should recuse themselves from the case since they have to show loyalty to the man that gave them their big break. |
|
|