The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#10,026
#10,026
With the request for recusal being rebuffed by Justice Alito, the stage is set. Oh, how rich it will be if the SCOTUS unanimously opines that no POTUS is immune from prosecution for violations of federal or state laws, making distinction between official acts which could be construed as violations* and other actions outside the purview of the office.

*For example, should a POTUS OK a surgical strike which kills the Defense Minister of a country supporting terrorists targeting US interests & personnel, a state prosecutor could not bring charges of murder against the President, claiming the action to be an assassination outside of the nation’s interests.
 
#10,027
#10,027
Tin Man said:
With the request for recusal being rebuffed by Justice Alito, the stage is set. Oh, how rich it will be if the SCOTUS unanimously opines that no POTUS is immune from prosecution for violations of federal or state laws, making distinction between official acts which could be construed as violations* and other actions outside the purview of the office.

*For example, should a POTUS OK a surgical strike which kills the Defense Minister of a country supporting terrorists targeting US interests & personnel, a state prosecutor could not bring charges of murder against the President, claiming the action to be an assassination outside of the nation’s interests.
Click to expand...
or how about a president ordering a drone strike on a foreign wedding knowing Americans would be there and be killed/hurt and ordering it anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and volfanhill
#10,028
#10,028
Tin Man said:
With the request for recusal being rebuffed by Justice Alito, the stage is set. Oh, how rich it will be if the SCOTUS unanimously opines that no POTUS is immune from prosecution for violations of federal or state laws, making distinction between official acts which could be construed as violations* and other actions outside the purview of the office.

*For example, should a POTUS OK a surgical strike which kills the Defense Minister of a country supporting terrorists targeting US interests & personnel, a state prosecutor could not bring charges of murder against the President, claiming the action to be an assassination outside of the nation’s interests.
Click to expand...

The case against Alito was very weak. If you followed that system, literally Judges would have to recuse themselves 80% of the time.
 
#10,029
#10,029
volbound1700 said:
The case against Alito was very weak. If you followed that system, literally Judges would have to recuse themselves 80% of the time.
Click to expand...
Sam’s reply was candid. I appreciated his point that his spouse’s freedom of expression shouldn’t be limited by his job. Honestly, how many married persons have had their spouses express reactions, opinions, or advocacy which were not necessarily shared?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, hUTch2002, KptVFL and 1 other person
#10,030
#10,030
Tin Man said:
Sam’s reply was candid. I appreciated his point that his spouse’s freedom of expression shouldn’t be limited by his job. Honestly, how many married persons have had their spouses express reactions, opinions, or advocacy which were not necessarily shared?
Click to expand...

Assuming that he put up the flags, they don't even equate to any real message other than he is a conservative. Being a conservative/Republican is not a crime to dissuade you from the court. Using that logic, all 9 judges are biased with regard to the Trump Election cases.
 
#10,032
#10,032
Sandman 423 said:
Dems setting the stage to pack the court.

How is Sotomayor telling the press that she has to cry in her chambers because of the situation on the court any different than Alito flying a flag that signifies the country is in distress?
Click to expand...
lots of red meat being thrown around.
 
#10,033
#10,033
Sandman 423 said:
Dems setting the stage to pack the court.

How is Sotomayor telling the press that she has to cry in her chambers because of the situation on the court any different than Alito flying a flag that signifies the country is in distress?
Click to expand...

You are only supposed to recuse yourself if you stand to gain from the decision in the case either Financially or some other personal gain.

Going off political bias is stupid because nearly every judge has a political leaning, heck we can guess how they lean right now.
 
#10,034
#10,034
From a column written by a couple of lawyers in The Hill today:

"When Supreme Court justices assume their roles, they swear to 'faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States.' This oath — which is taken by the justice and the justice alone — places upon them the highest ethical responsibilities to help maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.


One of these responsibilities, which is borne by all federal judges including Supreme Court justices, is a requirement to recuse themselves from 'any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' If a justice fails to recuse in a case pertaining to their spouse’s political or financial interests, the public can reasonably assume that a justice might make decisions that would benefit or protect not just themselves, but also their spouse. It is the justice’s responsibility to acknowledge this reality and recuse themselves to avoid even the appearance of undue bias or a conflict of interest.


Clarence Thomas's wife is a right-wing crazy who was actively involved in trying to subvert the election. That is an obvious case for recusal by Thomas, and to pretend otherwise is nonsense. He's a disgrace in many ways.

Alito has always been a right-wing crackpot and christian crazy. You're a Supreme Court justice: you don't let your wife put a "stop the steal" flag...unless you're ok with it, which Alito obviously was. He's violated his oath of office. Blaming his publicly displayed bias on his wife is laughable.
 
#10,035
#10,035
turbovol said:
From a column written by a couple of lawyers in The Hill today:

"When Supreme Court justices assume their roles, they swear to 'faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States.' This oath — which is taken by the justice and the justice alone — places upon them the highest ethical responsibilities to help maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.


One of these responsibilities, which is borne by all federal judges including Supreme Court justices, is a requirement to recuse themselves from 'any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' If a justice fails to recuse in a case pertaining to their spouse’s political or financial interests, the public can reasonably assume that a justice might make decisions that would benefit or protect not just themselves, but also their spouse. It is the justice’s responsibility to acknowledge this reality and recuse themselves to avoid even the appearance of undue bias or a conflict of interest.


Clarence Thomas's wife is a right-wing crazy who was actively involved in trying to subvert the election. That is an obvious case for recusal by Thomas, and to pretend otherwise is nonsense. He's a disgrace in many ways.

Alito has always been a right-wing crackpot and christian crazy. You're a Supreme Court justice: you don't let your wife put a "stop the steal" flag...unless you're ok with it, which Alito obviously was. He's violated his oath of office. Blaming his publicly displayed bias on his wife is laughable.
Click to expand...

That's some of the dumbest ish you have ever posted.

Having an opinion doesn't mean you can't be impartial. Your spouse displaying her opinion doesn't mean you can't be impartial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and hUTch2002
#10,036
#10,036
hog88 said:
That's some of the dumbest ish you have ever posted.

Having an opinion doesn't mean you can't be impartial. Your spouse displaying her opinion doesn't mean you can't be impartial.
Click to expand...

I may not have been reading it properly but did they actually fly a "stop the steal" flag? I have told they flew other flags tied to Conservatism (notably one that George Washington flew). If would still be a very weak argument to recuse but it is an argument if it was "stop the steal".
 
#10,037
#10,037
volbound1700 said:
I may not have been reading it properly but did they actually fly a "stop the steal" flag? I have told they flew other flags tied to Conservatism (notably one that George Washington flew). If would still be a very weak argument to recuse but it is an argument if it was "stop the steal".
Click to expand...

I have no idea what flags were flown but it doesn't matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Vol423
#10,038
#10,038
turbovol said:
From a column written by a couple of lawyers in The Hill today:

"When Supreme Court justices assume their roles, they swear to 'faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States.' This oath — which is taken by the justice and the justice alone — places upon them the highest ethical responsibilities to help maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.


One of these responsibilities, which is borne by all federal judges including Supreme Court justices, is a requirement to recuse themselves from 'any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' If a justice fails to recuse in a case pertaining to their spouse’s political or financial interests, the public can reasonably assume that a justice might make decisions that would benefit or protect not just themselves, but also their spouse. It is the justice’s responsibility to acknowledge this reality and recuse themselves to avoid even the appearance of undue bias or a conflict of interest.


Clarence Thomas's wife is a right-wing crazy who was actively involved in trying to subvert the election. That is an obvious case for recusal by Thomas, and to pretend otherwise is nonsense. He's a disgrace in many ways.

Alito has always been a right-wing crackpot and christian crazy. You're a Supreme Court justice: you don't let your wife put a "stop the steal" flag...unless you're ok with it, which Alito obviously was. He's violated his oath of office. Blaming his publicly displayed bias on his wife is laughable.
Click to expand...
I notice that you only show examples of two of the judges. Are they the only ones that have shown they may have a bias on any particular issues?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#10,040
#10,040
hog88 said:
That's some of the dumbest ish you have ever posted.

Having an opinion doesn't mean you can't be impartial. Your spouse displaying her opinion doesn't mean you can't be impartial.
Click to expand...
...and that was most definitely NOT a low bar to clear.
 
#10,043
#10,043
#10,044
#10,044
Sandman 423 said:
I notice that you only show examples of two of the judges. Are they the only ones that have shown they may have a bias on any particular issues?
Click to expand...

We talking about aggressively public partisanship. Anybody who thinks that Clarence "For Sale" Thomas shouldn't recuse himself from Jan.6 cases and these immunity case has lost his or her ethical bearings. His wife was actively and aggressively engaged in trying to subvert the election. He's got a serious conflict--as does Alito. Duh. They don't give a damn, and that is why public confidence in SCOTUS is in the toilet. It's been corrupted, badly, by partisan conservatives. Fact. You don't see the three progressives on the court engaged in any of this kind of bull$hit, corrupt behavior.
 
#10,045
#10,045
turbovol said:
We talking about aggressively public partisanship. Anybody who thinks that Clarence "For Sale" Thomas shouldn't recuse himself from Jan.6 cases and these immunity case has lost his or her ethical bearings. His wife was actively and aggressively engaged in trying to subvert the election. He's got a serious conflict--as does Alito. Duh. They don't give a damn, and that is why public confidence in SCOTUS is in the toilet. It's been corrupted, badly, by partisan conservatives. Fact. You don't see the three progressives on the court engaged in any of this kind of bull$hit, corrupt behavior.
Click to expand...

Are you responsible for what your spouse does?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, McDad, 85SugarVol and 1 other person
#10,047
#10,047
turbovol said:
We talking about aggressively public partisanship. Anybody who thinks that Clarence "For Sale" Thomas shouldn't recuse himself from Jan.6 cases and these immunity case has lost his or her ethical bearings. His wife was actively and aggressively engaged in trying to subvert the election. He's got a serious conflict--as does Alito. Duh. They don't give a damn, and that is why public confidence in SCOTUS is in the toilet. It's been corrupted, badly, by partisan conservatives. Fact. You don't see the three progressives on the court engaged in any of this kind of bull$hit, corrupt behavior.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? I seem to remember an ethics issue with a book deal with one and something with Justice Ginsburg and Trump. Try opening both eyes, you see better.

Also, you point to public confidence.......Who in government isn't in the toilet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#10,048
#10,048
LouderVol said:
it was just a ruling that the NRA can pursue that argument. not actually a ruling on the argument itself.
Click to expand...
Not a ruling on the lawsuit.
She’ll claim qualified immunity there now, and prevail.

It was an absolute smack down of the State’s, and the 2nd Circuit’s, argument that she did absolutely nothing wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top