Clarence Thoams & Healthcare Reform Case - A Conflict of interest?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_VinylBoy, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    With a potential supreme court hearing on the Health Care Bill looming in the distance, some Democrats go on the offensive and shine a spotlight on a supreme court judge that could prove to be pivotal to the outcome of the case. - source

    A group of 73 House Democrats on Wednesday demanded U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from any case examining the constitutionality of healthcare reform. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and 72 other colleagues wrote Thomas on Wednesday to ask him to sit out any Supreme Court review of President Obama's healthcare law, citing the work by Thomas's wife on behalf of efforts opposing that healthcare law.

    "As members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," the Democrats wrote. "We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act."



    In a standard court case where a jury selection is deliberated upon, something like this would be considered a conflict of interest and would disqualify the jury candidate. Should these rules also apply to Justice Thomas as well, despite him being on the highest court of the land?
     
  2. dude_007

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    It is sad to me that the country is so divided on reforming healthcare. Unfortunately, I think much of the opposition is to just make a mess of anything the Obama Administration tries to accomplish. What good, ultimately, does that do? We cannot continue without reform, the system is already bursting. Plus, I do not see Tea Partiers offering solutions. Only rants and protests.
     
  3. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,532
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    "I think much of the opposition is to just make a mess of anything the Obama Administration tries to accomplish."

    Same can be said of Bush when he tried to fix Social Security (which still needs to be done... fix the the fucked programs first, btw). As you said "We cannot continue without reform [soc sec in this case], the system is already bursting. But, sifting thru the all-anti-Bush-all-the-time ranting vs valid arguments against the privitization of social security (or whatever) which I get and was rare to get into a healthy debate upon on the true economics vs Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Wall St in big bold red capital lettered FONT was next to impossible (esp here). There are MANY valid arguments against this disaster of legislation, that's why, after the fact... many Democrats didn't even bring it up during their campaigns this last year... it was nuclear. That being there are Republicans and Libertarians throughout the country that are pro w/ the legislation,... and it's certainly not because they are pro-Obama. To be honest, if anything, I see more ppl on the right more true to their convictions vs. just voting for whomever has an (R) next to their name. It's often to their own demise. Just as the Green Party said F you to the DNC... but current Tea Party > prior Green Party movement.

    P.S. Was in Petaluma yesterday on a fly by to the Valley o' the Moon.... still dig that south Napa/Sonoma area.
     
    #3 faceking, Feb 13, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011
  4. flame80

    flame80 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fullerton
    You bunch of dummy liberals, Justice thomas should stand over this case as any other supreme court justice. If what you are saying is true, that justice Thomas should recuse himself, Than Sorto Mayor or whats her name should do also, because she directly worked on obamacare. Everyone and anyone that needs medical attention in this country can get it especially at a emergency room and not be turned away. Taking over one eighth of our economy when we are dead broke is practically a joke. No we do not need to spen additional trillion and a half dollars to our deficit, beside all the new bureaucracies, I believe ( over 200 committees) and a bunch more paper work. Ronald Reagan said it best, " the goverment is not the solution, its the problem". anything government does, they cluster fuck, it could be done way more efficiently by private business. What our country needs most for healthcare is to limit malpractice lawsuits and rid ourselves of all all government unions. Now as far as the Tea Party, get off our backs, thats right Iam a Tea Party member, we back our stuff up with real facts, not propaganda like you bleeding heart liberals. All of us Tea Partiers want is to move our country back to its rightful constitutional order, put the dollar back on the gold standard and keep congress within its constitutional limits. Well, Iam sure you all will have lots to say but i will refute stupidity where ever I find it. So bring it on liberals, lets hear more of your lies and hyperbole.
     
  5. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Here we go again... :rolleyes:
     
  6. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Adding the details to the political distortions...
    After extensive searching on the internet on liberal and conservative blogs, there is no cohesive evidence to show that Judge Sotomayor has done any fundraising, has ties to family members or spouses that have done any fundraising or propagating, or has any financial investment in the passing or supporting of the Health Care Bill. The only objections made in regards to Sotomayor came about during her hearings where certain GOP members voiced concern for her "wise Latina" comments. The only link this has to Health Care was also made by selected GOP members who claimed that she was too biased, therefore not able to oversee issues such as Health Care Reform objectively… and that was said on record by the same people who were upset at her "wise Latina" comment.

    Clarence Thomas has a wife who is financially invested in the defeat of the Health Care Law. She is an admitted lobbyist who has openly stated this at various rallies, and Thomas failed to disclose receipts in the amount of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of health-care reform, between 2003 and 2007. This is much different than just a few rabid ideologues looking solely down political lines and worrying how a particular judge is going to vote. And as I stated before, any regular court of law would deem a jury candidate ineligible if there was a conflict of interest on this level. Therefore, there are real grounds to question the eligibility of Clarence Thomas if an actual case for the Health Care Bill did make it to the Supreme Court, whereas there are no sensible grounds to question the eligibility of Sonia Sotomayor since she has no personal or financial commitments associated with it.

    Alas, I'm sure some of our beloved, blindly ideological, non-link posting Conservatives (which include the majority of teabaggers) will continue the banter of false equivalency and ignore the specifics so they can continually scream about how I'm "misinformed" or "stupid" or a "hypocrite" or a "libtard". That's usually the response when facts are brought to the table and I may as well get used to it since that's gonna be the status quo until America elects another Republican to the White House.
     
  7. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,383
    Likes Received:
    2,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Don't ever expect Thomas to do the right thing. Ever. He and his wacko tea-bagging wife are complete jokes....cruel jokes to the electorate who expected better.

    You want to look at government waste look at Mr. Thomas's salary.


    No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence
     
  8. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Dear Flame80:

    Get out an engineering calculator. Get the specs on how much gold there is in the world. Then work on a formula to get the USA back on the Gold Standard. I think you will find there is a considerable short fall of available AND potential gold -- even if we plow the next ten years of gold mined in the USA directly into a holding area looked after by the Treasury.

    Also, you ARE aware, I assume, that the gold being mined throughout the USA is being mined by foreign-owned mining companies that have purchased the rights to mine gold, silver, copper, zinc, lead, molybdenum, tin, platinum, from the US Government because the USA, per se, doesn't really have it's own, home-grown mining industry anymore. Give it some thought. The old Ruby Dome exists only in name these days. There is still plenty of ore that can be refined from historically famous places such as Kennecott and Park City, UT, Anaconda and Bozeman MT, and even Virginia City, NV. Trouble is, it's not rich enough to make mining and processing that ore a viable option. In Park City, UT, skiing and real estate are still more important than the gold and silver ore hiding under that portion of the Wastach Mountains.

    I wish every Tea Bagger who is Hell bent on getting the US Dollar back on the Gold Standard had a fucking clue about the mining industry in the USA. As with most things they insist they want back, they don't know enough about the current status (forget the historical precedents) of those issues to effectively do anything. And Tea Baggers think we call them dumb just because they cannot spell words correctly on a home-made picket sign. And, of course, everyone against them must, that's EVERYONE absolutely MUST be a Liberal. Such a clueless uneducated mass of sad people. They really are the generation that has been left behind.
     
    #8 midlifebear, Feb 14, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2011
  9. B_Boy_Boy_Boy

    B_Boy_Boy_Boy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    This was more of a strategy on the part of the Democrats than it was a conflict of interest on Thomas' behalf. Why? Well, his wife is entitled to be politically active. You can't simply say that she has forever foregone her right to hear and be heard because her husband sits on the court. Also, she doesn't speak for Thomas. Though, as a strong supporter of states rights, Thomas will likely find the bill unconstitutional. Which brings us to the last reason: Thomas was never going to rule for the bill in the first place. So, he isn't 'more biased' because his wife was politically active. He would apply the exact same philosophy that (if say his wife and he share views) got him to not support Obamacare as he will when it comes in front of his bench. There has been no additional biasing caused by his wifes political activism.

    Why is it strategy? Because this case will likely come down to the usual split on the court. States rights voting against the bill being constitutional and federalists voting for it with one justice in the middle casting the deciding vote.

    You'll have Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito in the states rights camp. And Ginsburg, (maybe) Sotomayor, (maybe) Kagen, and Bryer in the big gov camp. Kennedy will cast the deciding vote. If Democrats could pressure Thomas into recusing himself they would either divide the court evenly or possibly force a win. This has nothing to do with bias, and everything to do with eliminating a states rightist from the court.
     
  10. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't confuse Royalty and others with facts it only makes them angry and bitter.
     
  11. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Well it's obviously a political strategy. Everything in politics is regardless of the direction or the target. Also, the issue isn't just about being politically active. As I stated before, there is a major financial investment involved with Clarence & Virginia Thomas if the Health Care Bill does get repealed, including a failure to disclose where some of their donations have come from. Because there's money involved, there's room for concern.

    Despite having various clues and drawing conclusions, we don't actually know how Thomas is going to vote. A person's beliefs and one's actions are two entirely different things. Regardless, the issue isn't about how he's going to vote even though most people would agree with you that he'd probably go against the bill if it got to the Supreme Court.

    And really, "Obamacare"? Doesn't that get tired after a while? :rolleyes:

    As stated before, everything in politics is a strategy. Almost no actions conducted by a politician isn't done without considering the options and seeking out the best benefit for themselves first. If this was the grounds for finding legislation or a person's vote invalid then our country would grind to a complete halt.

    You're right... it has nothing to do with bias, nor does it have anything to do with the rhetorical tripe of "big government versus small government". It has everything to do with an obvious financial investment made by Virginia Thomas to see a piece of legislation fail. If any other judge or jury candidate had this kind of personal connection to a case they would be deemed ineligible to serve on it. State & federal rules surrounding judge & jury selections are not supposed to change just because of anyone's political views or whether or not you don't like the Health Care Law. Despite many people's beliefs, I'm solely looking at this from an individual's standpoint... not through the narrow scope of Democrat vs. Republican. Can you please do the same?
     
  12. B_Boy_Boy_Boy

    B_Boy_Boy_Boy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Be careful with this one. The United States is home to some of the largest gold mining companies in the world and there are many gold mines still producing for US based companies. Among the "foreign" companies are many from Canada, which in my book, doesn't really count as being entirely foreign.

    Park City was more about environmental activism than it was about profitability. Those mountains are painfully profitable but they can't be mined. The local legislature will go to war before they let another mine in those hills. You have to remember, those mines would be within miles of Deer Valley, the richest city in the state by no small margin. No jillionaire wants to watch mine trucks haul off overburden from their back porch.

     
  13. B_Boy_Boy_Boy

    B_Boy_Boy_Boy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still don't see it. Ginny Thomas can still be politically active. It has absolutely nothing to do with republican vs democrat (I'm still wondering where you got that) and everything to do with what is customary. Virginia Thomas has been politically active for a long time and Clarence Thomas has yet to recuse himself. Even though Virginia was getting paid by the Heritage Foundation. If he did then all the other justices, who donated or advocated anything at any point in their lives ever, would have to recuse themselves as well, citing the potential for mysterious payoffs. This is why the Supreme Court has no rules governing when they must recuse themselves. There are only nine justices. When a Circuit court judge recuses himself there is usually another judge that can step into his place.

    Didn't realize (or understand how) that was particularly offensive.

    I'm not sure how tough the political thread on a big-dick forum can get, but you guys are amazingly thin skinned.

    You are misusing the word "investment."

    EXACTLY! YES! The rules clearly (or the absence of rules) say Thomas can sit on the case. We can't change the rules because one party or the other wants to sway the court.
     
  14. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    What part of "financially invested" do you not understand?

    Not offensive... just tired as I stated earlier.

    You don't know me very well, do ya? :rolleyes:

    Investment is putting money into something with the expectation of profit. More specifically, investment is the commitment of money or capital to the purchase of financial instruments or other assets so as to gain profitable returns in the form of interest, income (dividends), or appreciation (capital gains) of the value of the instrument. - source

    Whether you want to adhere to the fact or not, there's no denying that Virginia Thomas is invested in seeing the Health Care Bill repealed. If there was no money involved, then there wouldn't be an issue. However, there is... including nearly $700,000 in receipts received by Thomas that have not been disclosed.

    The questioning and/or challenging of a judge or jury's eligibility to oversee a court case is an integral and standard process. I'm not imposing or suggesting anything that hasn't been done in our court system for decades (if not centuries). I really have no idea where you're getting that I'm somehow trying to change that beyond trying to continue a blindly ideological argument that is lacking of facts. There's still a conflict of interest that has the grave potential to affect millions of people in this country. Despite the usual rhetorical Democrat vs. Republican arguments, you have yet to dispute or find any reasonable argument to counteract that issue. Eliminating or getting rid of judges whose family members or spouses are financially invested in political causes makes our legislative and judiciary process more honest. I don't care if you are for state's rights or against the Health Care Bill... this is about making the vote once it gets to the Supreme Court as fair as possible.
     
  15. flame80

    flame80 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fullerton
    Ok than lets back our currency with silver, something of value. When the dollar is backed by a precious metal, we can only spend up to the value of our silver holdings. Not a bunch of worthless paper dollars. This way it disciplines congress to live within its means, they can no longer have a spending deficit. Oh sorry, it was not Sorto mayor it was the new supreme court justice Kagen that legally assisted with obamacare, so she should recuse herself, Not Clarence Thomas, who gives a crap what his wife does or doesnt do with healthcare, he is a justice of the law, that I would quess makes his own decisions. How many of us think and do exactly what our wife's do?

    I read your replies and none of you counter what i say, you attack it. Please, for the love of god, could a liberal ever think for themselves. Just listen to the lies and propaganda that the Obama administration and the liberal media and boy do you guys have marching orders to say and repeat it over and over with no facts ever to refute it logically. Anything done by government is a joke, go in to a post office or a dmv and watch a huge line wait while only one person is working, while the other 6 workers are over bsing and drinking coffee and eating donuts. There is zero efficiency. Give those same jobs over to the private sector and you can hire way more people without the lifetime gornment benefits and if they are not efficient, they are fired or the company goes out of business. And another business steps up and does the job at a much less expensive price and does it way more efficiently.

    Thats its for now, bet i will hear more attacks instead of a true honest refutation of this situation. Healthcare, post office, dmv and any other government entity could go away and it would serve our fellow Americans way better, with a move toward privatization. We again are broke, another words we are out of money, why go spending more money we dont have? Who's gunna pay the price? you and I are gunna pay for it in higher taxes. we need to rid ourselves of government unions, get rid of their pensions, and privatize, its the only way we as Americans can survive and have a thriving economy. I think it was the late great conservative thinker, William Buckley, who said " you have to admire the pioneers for going across the great plains heading westward, without one red cent of welfare". We see a society on the brink of collasping, all because the progressives over the last 100 years, with the new deal, the great society and all it is, is taking from the productive and giving it to the non productive. The government needs to cut spending seriously or we all are in trouble. the last thing we need is government involvement in healthcare, spending way more for something that is already been taken care of. In my finish here, lets see you refute this liberals, "The Great Society" remember president Lyndon Johnson, over the last 50 years we have spent well over 20 trillion dollars to lower the poverty line, of which the Johnson administration said was 27 percent of all Americans at that time back in the sixties. Her we have spent all these trillions for what? The poverty line is still at 27% fifty years later and for what? Again big government redistribution of said trillions from the producers to the non productive. Now is that progress?
     
  16. B_Boy_Boy_Boy

    B_Boy_Boy_Boy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Recieved by Thomas, or recieved by Thomas' non-profit advocacy group Liberty Central?

    There is nothing partisan, in the least bit, whatsoever, in any way, at any time, here or anywhere else. I have no clue where you are getting this.

    Fact: there is NO (repeat that, NO) rule that requires Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from cases because of a conflict of interest. There never has been a rule and recusal is extremely rare. "Our system" does not require justices to recuse themselves, it never has. Changing the rule now because Thomas is going to rule on an important case (all the cases at the SC are important) would be using a non-standard process. This is a change from the way things have been done in our court system. That is where I got the idea that you want to change the way things are done.

    Fact. There is nothing about Virginia Thomas' PAC, or its funding, that proves her husband's judgment has been compromised. Or that she is expecting a 'return on investment.' Or that she will, in any way, whatsoever, profit from Obamacare being found unconstitutional.

    Fact. There is absolutely nothing to those facts which can be construed as partisan (even if you really really insist).

    No, I just haven't agreed with you.
     
  17. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    The following post is a sarcastic swipe at some of the most recent responses in this thread that address no facts that pertain to the story.

    Hmmmm... all this, yet nobody who's on the opposite side can address the fact that there's still a conflict of interest that can be seen as grounds for ineligibility. That's not supposed to mean anything all because you're an opponent of the Health Care Bill? And here I thought people were concerned about the prospect of corporations buying out our political figures & judges to provoke actions that could have a harmful effect to our nation's people. Nah, none of that matters now because I'm supposed to be a "Hatfield" and you're a "McCoy". Gotcha. :rolleyes:
     
  18. B_Boy_Boy_Boy

    B_Boy_Boy_Boy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah man! I have got to be the most daft person on this forum! I fell for the oldest trolling ploy of all time: deny, deny do not reply.

    Sorry forum readers, I wont make that mistake again.
     
  19. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Why don't you post your links so we can dispute this? I'm not going to change my story or my argument unless you can produce something with adequate substance and backing. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

    Bullshit. A process to select an adequate jury and judge happens with every state & federal case. That is the law. This does not become null and void due to the fact that it's the Supreme Court.

    Judicial Selection in the States
    Jury selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Also, I never once said that Justice Thomas has to recuse himself. This thread brings forth a motion made by several Democrats that point out a reason why it should be considered and asks if he would do it himself. Nobody is forcing Clarence Thomas to do anything at this point.

    Nobody said it was a requirement. Stop making up arguments that weren't ever raised in this thread.

    For the last time, nobody is proposing a change to judiciary rules or the standard judiciary process as I stated and linked to in this thread. You're confusing requests with requirements. The only thing similar between the two words is that they both start with an re- and end with a -ts. Beyond that, they are not synonymous in any shape or form.

    Bullshit. The same way I can't prove that it has, you can't prove that it hasn't. Don't use the word "fact" next to your opinion since it's an obvious distortion and deflection from the few facts that have actually been posted on this thread. So let's go over them:

    A financial investment made by a family member or spouse of a potential judge or jury selection can be viewed as a conflict of interest if it's determined that such actions are directly related to a particular case. That is a fact. Several Democrats have requested Justice Thomas to do the more peaceful thing by recusing himself, as many other judges and jury selections have done in our court system in our country's history regardless if it's on local, state or a federal level. That is ALSO a fact.

    None of your statements or posts take into account these points. I get bored VERY quickly when people provide nothing but ideological rhetoric and no provable facts in political debates. I don't care what anyone believes if there's no factually related substance to coincide with it.

    Considering your repeated bantering of typical conservative talking points and buzzwords, I think your argument does qualify as partisan. When you use words like "Obamacare", it's a dead giveaway as to what's to follow.

    No kidding, Einstein. At least you have one thing correct on this thread. :rolleyes:
     
  20. flame80

    flame80 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fullerton
    Well anyways, I figured you would go blah blah blah, dude you never say anything and you never have any fatcs. The obamacare law is unconstitutional, plain and simple, now please refute its constitutionality or shut the fuck up. You liberals think just because you say something, its a fact. Once again we are broke, does that make any sense to you. Get serious and give us some substance, oh thats right you have none.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted