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

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
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.

Did you look in a mirror when you stated this or something? Seriously, you should be kinder to yourself when you self reflect.

Sorry forum readers, I wont make that mistake again.

No need to apologize to others. Most of them don't agree with you either.

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.

Mods, please take notice. The above post is precisely why I'm a bitch around here.

This thread is not about the constitutionality of the bill, but whether or not there's probable cause to remove a judge whose spouse is very active in its repeal, and whether he should be eligible to serve over the case. Don't derail my thread with your pathetic, vacuous tehadist bullshit. You want to talk constitutionality? Make your own thread.
 
3

326807

Guest
Justice Thomas is a conflict of disinterest..a deeply flawed,disturbed individual who likes pubic hairs on coke cans....
 

flame80

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Location
Fullerton
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Sorry Vince truly I will moderate myself, if Vinylboy can refute something that actually makes sense, his blithering idiocies are quite evident. Ok supreme justice Clarence Thomas is a standing judge and should recuse himself, beacause of his wife's business doings. Your contention vinyl liberal boy is that he should recuse himself over what his wife believes or the political action comittee she heads up, correct? Well you are wrong, I believe supreme Justice Elena Hagen worked directly for the Obama administration as legal counsel on obamacare, so since she was directly involved and it was not what her wife was saying, believing and doing, she must recuse herself immediately. there is no way she can be unbiased. Iam jacking your thread cuz, yours makes no sense. Now for the love of god explain yourself, i know thats gunna be really tough, since you went throuh the failed liberal taught New York school system. The question is not whether Clarence Thomas should recuse himself, but will Elena Kagen do the right thing and recuse herself. Just remember I totally explained my side and i did not spout someone elses political pablum.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Sorry Vince truly I will moderate myself, if Vinylboy can refute something that actually makes sense, his blithering idiocies are quite evident. Ok supreme justice Clarence Thomas is a standing judge and should recuse himself, beacause of his wife's business doings. Your contention vinyl liberal boy is that he should recuse himself over what his wife believes or the political action comittee she heads up, correct? Well you are wrong, I believe supreme Justice Elena Hagen worked directly for the Obama administration as legal counsel on obamacare, so since she was directly involved and it was not what her wife was saying, believing and doing, she must recuse herself immediately. there is no way she can be unbiased. Iam jacking your thread cuz, yours makes no sense. Now for the love of god explain yourself, i know thats gunna be really tough, since you went throuh the failed liberal taught New York school system. The question is not whether Clarence Thomas should recuse himself, but will Elena Kagen do the right thing and recuse herself. Just remember I totally explained my side and i did not spout someone elses political pablum.
There are many others who believe that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any decision on the Affordable Care Act, including myself:
"
Seventy-four House Democrats, led by New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, sent a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas Wednesday calling on him to sit out deliberations on the Affordable Care Act because of his wife's ties to a lobbying group that opposes the health care law.
"The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law," the letter said. "From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred."
Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, founded the conservative group Liberty Central, but stepped down in December amid controversy over a memo under her name calling for the repeal of the "unconstitutional law."
The group, which later took down the memo from its site, blamed staff error and said it "assiduously avoids" taking positions on the constitutionality of issues.
Under federal law, justices have to recuse themselves from cases where they feel a conflict of interest may arise, or if their spouses have a financial stake in the case, but the decision ultimately rests with each justice.
"It's up to the individual justice to determine whether he believes that, in fact or appearance, there's sufficient concern about his impartiality to make recusal appropriate," said Deborah L. Rhode, a legal ethics scholar and professor of law at Stanford University. "So he [Thomas] should be considering whether he believes he can act in a disinterested manner, but also the court's credibility with the public, and will Americans, who may differ with him... believes he comes to the table with an unbiased view.""

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Should Sit Out On Health Care Case, Democrats Say - ABC News
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Sorry Vince truly I will moderate myself, if Vinylboy can refute something that actually makes sense, his blithering idiocies are quite evident. Ok supreme justice Clarence Thomas is a standing judge and should recuse himself, beacause of his wife's business doings. Your contention vinyl liberal boy is that he should recuse himself over what his wife believes or the political action comittee she heads up, correct? Well you are wrong, I believe supreme Justice Elena Hagen worked directly for the Obama administration as legal counsel on obamacare, so since she was directly involved and it was not what her wife was saying, believing and doing, she must recuse herself immediately. there is no way she can be unbiased. Iam jacking your thread cuz, yours makes no sense. Now for the love of god explain yourself, i know thats gunna be really tough, since you went throuh the failed liberal taught New York school system. The question is not whether Clarence Thomas should recuse himself, but will Elena Kagen do the right thing and recuse herself. Just remember I totally explained my side and i did not spout someone elses political pablum.
There are also many of us that believe that Justice Kagan does not have to recuse herself, including myself:
The constitutional case against health reform is exceptionally weak — even ultraconservatives like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia reject a narrow vision of the Constitution which would hold this law unconstitutional. So with the cards already laid out against them, the right has decided it needs to stack the deck by eliminating justices who are likely to uphold the law. Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial falsely claiming that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan must recuse herself from health care litigation just their first cut at this deck stacking:
Ms. Kagan was unlikely to have been consulted on the merits of health-care policy, and even if she did express an opinion on policy this would not be grounds for recusal. The legal precedents on that are clear.
Recusal arises as a matter of judicial ethics if as a government official she expressed an opinion on the merits of the health-care litigation.
This is what she would have to render a judgment on were she to be confirmed for the High Court. It is also the question on which she is likely to have participated given her role at the Justice Department.
Wonk Room

 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,759
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Now I bet if someone spent 10 minutes with the Google Machine they could find "reasonable" journalists expressing the opinion that Justice Kagan SHOULD recuse herself and that Justice Thomas doesn't need to.

Reasonable political discussion can be had.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
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.

United States Code: Title 28,455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge | LII / Legal Information Institute

The first two subsections of this federal statute from the US Code:

"(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he 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 in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

......."

[emphasis added by me]
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Now I bet if someone spent 10 minutes with the Google Machine they could find "reasonable" journalists expressing the opinion that Justice Kagan SHOULD recuse herself and that Justice Thomas doesn't need to.

Reasonable political discussion can be had.

Thank you Indy for showing it how it's done. Hopefully flame80 has taken notice and will do something else besides speculating as to how unintelligent he thinks I am.
 

B_Boy_Boy_Boy

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Posts
58
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
United States Code: Title 28,455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge | LII / Legal Information Institute

The first two subsections of this federal statute from the US Code:

"(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he 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 in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

......."

[emphasis added by me]
I sincerely appreciate your argument, its the best I've seen.

I think the problem is with the word "require." Justice Thomas is the person who decideds if Justice Thomas recuses himself. This has been the rule on the SC for a long time. There is no rule requiring Thomas to recuse himself.

Here are some commentators:
On Justice Thomas and the Supreme Court’s Strange Recusal Process - Law Blog - WSJ

When Do Supreme Court Justices Recuse Themselves? - Emily Yoffe - Slate Magazine

Since you brought it up I'll go more in depth:
If you check S.455(D)(4) you'll read the defintion of a "financial interest." The other guy here (who is ignored now) couldn't wrap his head around the definition of "investment." Well, its defined right there.

Viginia's interest does not qualify under this definition for several reasons:
1) Viginia Thomas does not own an interest in the affairs of a party.
2) She cannot be said to be holding stocks, bonds, securities, mutual funds, or any other investment instrument of Liberty Central. She also does not owe Liberty Central a fiduciary duty. Therefore there is no "financial interest" according to the definition.
3) Liberty Central has measures that keep Virginia Thomas from having a conflict of interest. In fact, Thomas could hear the case all day if he simply agrees to give back any financial incentive he may have recieved, assuming there is one.
4) S.455(D)(4)(ii) exempts Virginia as holding an office in a civic organization is not construed as holding an interest.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Boy_Boy_Boy said:
Since you brought it up I'll go more in depth:
If you check S.455(D)(4) you'll read the defintion of a "financial interest." The other guy here (who is ignored now) couldn't wrap his head around the definition of "investment." Well, its defined right there.

Well obviously I don't give a damn if he has me on ignore. However, what's clearly obvious is that Boy times three is looking for the actual words in the law and is completely ignoring the context of it.

Just because "financial interest" doesn't show up in the law doesn't mean that it does not qualify. Verses three & five cannot be spelled out any clearer:

(3) Where he 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 in controversy;

5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:


Virginia Thomas is financially invested into the repeal of the Health Care Law. She is the president and founder of Liberty Central, an organization that has been under heavy suspicion for receiving funding by Koch Industries, a major corporation that has spent billions of dollars funding many conservative and Tea Party campaigns & politicians. Regardless if she doesn't owe an organization she created a "fiduciary duty", there isn't a single person out here that can point to a business where the president does not assume or conduct any form of relationship with some (or all) of its trustees or benefactors. Also, the law specifies several different instances where a judge can be deemed ineligible. In no shape or form does it say that all of the provisions need to be met in order for it to qualify. Therefore, cherry picking any instance to find one condition that doesn't apply doesn't work. Boy times three would need to prove that Virginia's conduct doesn't fall in line with everything listed as a qualifying circumstance, and going by the current information available there's no way he can do that. In other words, there could be probable cause for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any Supreme Court cases associated with the Health Care Law. Which is what I've said all along in this thread, even with corresponding links that explain the judicial process as well as jury & judge selections. But apparently he didn't like being told that he was wrong even when I was trying to be civil about it. Tough shit. :rolleyes:

I swear... I'm so fuckin' sick of unintelligent people who vehemently ignore context around here and have the audacity to question other people's intelligence because of it. They really need to check themselves.
 
Last edited:

B_Boy_Boy_Boy

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Posts
58
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
Gentlemen! Please read this link and follow what it says or the moderation team will be forced take action:

Political Forum Rules

Thanks

Hey, just saw your post. As you can see from my previous post I am sorry for feeding the trolls. I know that people that are new to forums, especially politics forums, can come across as being instigators or agitators; I want neither to be the moderators opinion of me. As you can see from my other post I have take affirmative actions to not come in contact with those who are trolling. I apologize profusely for my involvement.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Another story that points out the "accidental omission" of spousal income from financial disclosure forms of Justice Thomas. In 2009, he reported spousal income as "none" when Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from the Heritage Foundation over five years - Clarence Thomas: Justice Thomas reportedly failed to report wife's income - latimes.com

Also, it is speculated by the website Common Cause that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary in the same year.

I don't think it takes much for anyone to notice that something is definitely wrong here...
 
Last edited:

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I sincerely appreciate your argument, its the best I've seen.

I think the problem is with the word "require." Justice Thomas is the person who decideds if Justice Thomas recuses himself. This has been the rule on the SC for a long time. There is no rule requiring Thomas to recuse himself.

Here are some commentators:
On Justice Thomas and the Supreme Court’s Strange Recusal Process - Law Blog - WSJ

When Do Supreme Court Justices Recuse Themselves? - Emily Yoffe - Slate Magazine

Since you brought it up I'll go more in depth:
If you check S.455(D)(4) you'll read the defintion of a "financial interest." The other guy here (who is ignored now) couldn't wrap his head around the definition of "investment." Well, its defined right there.

Viginia's interest does not qualify under this definition for several reasons:
1) Viginia Thomas does not own an interest in the affairs of a party.
2) She cannot be said to be holding stocks, bonds, securities, mutual funds, or any other investment instrument of Liberty Central. She also does not owe Liberty Central a fiduciary duty. Therefore there is no "financial interest" according to the definition.
3) Liberty Central has measures that keep Virginia Thomas from having a conflict of interest. In fact, Thomas could hear the case all day if he simply agrees to give back any financial incentive he may have recieved, assuming there is one.
4) S.455(D)(4)(ii) exempts Virginia as holding an office in a civic organization is not construed as holding an interest.

I didn't make an argument. I posted a piece of the US Code. I did so in response to YOUR argument:

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.

A cursory reading of the quoted piece of the Code, clearly illustrates that your argument is completely fallacious. The statute DOES "require" recusal from cases involving a conflict of interest on the part of a justice. By stating that a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned", the language of the code expressly refutes your argument. It is axiomatic that the impartiality of a justice who has a conflict of interest, would be questioned. While the inclusion of the word "may" in a statute potentially allows for a discretionary application of the issue at hand, the use of the word "shall" in a statute means "must" or "will".

You argue the definition of "financial interest", but 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5) involves a mere "interest", NOT a "financial interest", and as such, your definitional analysis is inapplicable to that section of the statute. Mrs. Thomas clearly "is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding".

Lastly, your attempts in a different post to conflate all four subsections of 455(b)(5) are clearly misguided and incorrect. All four subsections refer to distinctly different actors, and the lack of language expressly indicating one must meet the criteria of all four subsections (e.g., an "and" at the end of each subsection) refutes your interpretation.

In any event, the situation with Thomas' wife is expressly addressed by 455(a), so the other arguments are unnecessary.
 
Last edited:

B_Boy_Boy_Boy

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Posts
58
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
41
I didn't make an argument. I posted a piece of the US Code. I did so in response to YOUR argument:
You dont need to be snippy.

A cursory reading of the quoted piece of the Code, clearly illustrates that your argument is completely fallacious.
I guess you'll have to pardon me repeating myself: precedence dictates that Thomas is the only person who can require Thomas to recuse himself. This is how it has been practiced for a LONG time, it wont change because some folks wanna pout about one issue or the other. In fact, the SC has argued strongly against recusal of SC justices as it sets up a scenario when the Court cannot carry out its constutional duties. You can find this both in Scalia's Cheney v. US Dist Court and Renquists Microsoft v. US.

Procedurally, the moving party will file a Motion to Recuse with the Court. This motion is answered by the justice of whom recusal is requested. That justice, alone, writes a memorandum addressing whether or not they will recuse themself and why. No one on Earth can force recusal if the justice doesn't want to, there is no appeal, no re-hearing, no arbitration or negotiations, and no mistrial. Nothing. I know what the statute says, I've read it. It, and all the other statutes in the US Code cannot make Thomas recuse himself.

The statute DOES "require" recusal
Yes, but the LAW doesn't. Notice how law professor Steven Lubit explains that “Thus. . . No matter what most Americans — including the eight other Supreme Court justices — may think about Thomas’ ability to be impartial in a case that means so much to his wife, Thomas alone will make the critical determination.”

You argue the definition of "financial interest", but 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5) involves a mere "interest", NOT a "financial interest", and as such, your definitional analysis is inapplicable to that section of the statute. Mrs. Thomas clearly "is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding".
S.455 speaks of two interests, right? There is an intenional distinction between financial interests, and other interests. We aren't discussing other interests. We are talking about Virginia Thomas getting money; this is a FINANCIAL interest. This is addressed by (B)(4), intentionally, then the undefined interest is addressed in (B)(5).

Alright, lets scroll down to what a "financial interest" is.

That is defined as an interest in a party before the court.

Further, interest isn't meant to be construed so broadly that justices cannot be politcally active. They can still donate to campaigns, write editorials, and make speeches. Virginia's PAC isn't just about advocating the repeal of Obamacare. They work on any and all issues relating to politics in the United States. There is no way in hell that Clarence simply can't rule on any issue relating to politics.

It's also interesting to note that Virginia has been politically active for quite some time. In fact, she worked for the Heritage Foundation for 9 years as White House liason. Justice Thomas didn't have to recuse himself one single time because of his wifes activities; he sat on Bush v. Gore, too.

Lastly, your attempts in a different post to conflate all four subsections of 455(b)(5) are clearly misguided and incorrect. All four subsections refer to distinctly different actors, and the lack of language expressly indicating one must meet the criteria of all four subsections (e.g., an "and" at the end of each subsection) refutes your interpretation.
That isn't a (B)(5) argument. That is a (D)(4) argument. (Evidenced by my statement "S.455(D)(4)")

In any event, the situation with Thomas' wife is expressly addressed by 455(a), so the other arguments are unnecessary.
This simply isn't true. This issue is not "expressly" addressed. No where does it say that if a justices wife is involved in a political organization that the justice must recuse himself where issues overlap; that would be expressly addressed.

My other arguments are extremely pertinent and cannot be refuted given the current knowledge of the facts. Namely, if Thomas' wife took reasonable measures to ensure that she was insulated from any biasing by financial incentive then Clarence can sit on the trial. Further, if his wife did, say, recieve money directly related to repealing Obamacare then she can simply give the money back and eliminate any biasing influence. This happens all the time in government. And she clearly fits within the 'civic organization' exemption to a financial interest.


But, hey, lets just turn the whole system on its head this one time.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You began by making this strongly worded statement of "fact":

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.

Subsequently, a provision of the US Code, the supreme statutory federal law of the land, was posted here to highlight the incorrectness of your previous assertion.

United States Code: Title 28,455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge | LII / Legal Information Institute

The first two subsections of this federal statute from the US Code:

"(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he 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 in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

......."

[emphasis added by me]

You then turned to arguing, apparently, that the statute was nuanced to a degree that would put Thomas' situation outside the purview of the statute.


You dont need to be snippy.

I guess you'll have to pardon me repeating myself: precedence dictates that Thomas is the only person who can require Thomas to recuse himself. This is how it has been practiced for a LONG time, it wont change because some folks wanna pout about one issue or the other. In fact, the SC has argued strongly against recusal of SC justices as it sets up a scenario when the Court cannot carry out its constutional duties. You can find this both in Scalia's Cheney v. US Dist Court and Renquists Microsoft v. US.

Procedurally, the moving party will file a Motion to Recuse with the Court. This motion is answered by the justice of whom recusal is requested. That justice, alone, writes a memorandum addressing whether or not they will recuse themself and why. No one on Earth can force recusal if the justice doesn't want to, there is no appeal, no re-hearing, no arbitration or negotiations, and no mistrial. Nothing. I know what the statute says, I've read it. It, and all the other statutes in the US Code cannot make Thomas recuse himself.

Yes, but the LAW doesn't. Notice how law professor Steven Lubit explains that “Thus. . . No matter what most Americans — including the eight other Supreme Court justices — may think about Thomas’ ability to be impartial in a case that means so much to his wife, Thomas alone will make the critical determination.”

S.455 speaks of two interests, right? There is an intenional distinction between financial interests, and other interests. We aren't discussing other interests. We are talking about Virginia Thomas getting money; this is a FINANCIAL interest. This is addressed by (B)(4), intentionally, then the undefined interest is addressed in (B)(5).

Alright, lets scroll down to what a "financial interest" is.

That is defined as an interest in a party before the court.

Further, interest isn't meant to be construed so broadly that justices cannot be politcally active. They can still donate to campaigns, write editorials, and make speeches. Virginia's PAC isn't just about advocating the repeal of Obamacare. They work on any and all issues relating to politics in the United States. There is no way in hell that Clarence simply can't rule on any issue relating to politics.

It's also interesting to note that Virginia has been politically active for quite some time. In fact, she worked for the Heritage Foundation for 9 years as White House liason. Justice Thomas didn't have to recuse himself one single time because of his wifes activities; he sat on Bush v. Gore, too.

That isn't a (B)(5) argument. That is a (D)(4) argument. (Evidenced by my statement "S.455(D)(4)")

This simply isn't true. This issue is not "expressly" addressed. No where does it say that if a justices wife is involved in a political organization that the justice must recuse himself where issues overlap; that would be expressly addressed.

My other arguments are extremely pertinent and cannot be refuted given the current knowledge of the facts. Namely, if Thomas' wife took reasonable measures to ensure that she was insulated from any biasing by financial incentive then Clarence can sit on the trial. Further, if his wife did, say, recieve money directly related to repealing Obamacare then she can simply give the money back and eliminate any biasing influence. This happens all the time in government. And she clearly fits within the 'civic organization' exemption to a financial interest.

But, hey, lets just turn the whole system on its head this one time.

You hemmed and hawed, and conflated terms within the statute, and scrambled to muddy the waters.

But it's clear. You were dead wrong when you said "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." There IS, in fact, such a rule. And anyone of reasonable intelligence can see that it applies to Thomas' situation. Only a blatant partisan would deny that.
 

joseph_hung

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 31, 2010
Posts
73
Media
36
Likes
3,614
Points
328
Location
Houston (Texas, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm not allowed to sit in a jury if I know someone involved in the case. Why is Clarence Thomas allowed to sit in as a Supreme Court judge while being married to someone making a fortune on one side of the case? If it were any of us lesser peasantry, we'd be kicked out instantly. Then again, this is one of the same guys that ruled last year that corporations should have no limit to the amount of bribes--i mean campaign donations--they're allowed to give congressmen.