Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6 (6 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
03:25 PM on 10/21/2010
"a request for disclosure and accountability is not a "lynching" high-tech or otherwise."

There is indeed another Hi-tech lynching. This time, a suicide, and Ginny is the one that kicked the horse out from under him.
itolduso
lateral thinker
03:08 PM on 10/21/2010
Justice Thomas should resign based on his own conduct. His own lack of regard for the appearence of impartiality when every decision he makes results in a boost in his own household's income.
04:40 PM on 10/21/2010
They rushed his swearing in or there were two reporters going to report on his porno- problem too..At Abc.com 2007!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barney123
02:43 PM on 10/21/2010
Thomas attends political meeting with Koch Brothers who are involved up to their noses in the teaparty and Thomas's wife just happens to start a teaparty of her own with big bucks from unknown supporters; then even stranger Mrs. Thomas tries to contact a victim of Clarence Thomas from 20 years back.

I do not believe in coincidences and they are both up to their necks in all this together. This is not a very flattering picture of a Supreme Court Justice and his wife.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dnlmsstch
too much for so few words
03:04 PM on 10/21/2010
The only resonable explanation of the phone call is - Mrs. Thomas drunk diled Mrs Hill. If she was sober .... then i would guess it was part of a plan what ever that may be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dzymzlzy
02:38 PM on 10/21/2010
He should have recused himself from the Citizens United case. The case made it possible for organizations to take in countless billions of dollars and to not have to reveal their sources. Ginny's tea party-inspired group Liberty Central is a direct beneficiary of that ruling. It's a direct conflict of interest that has lasting and devastating ramifications.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barney123
02:44 PM on 10/21/2010
f and f
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
03:26 PM on 10/21/2010
it sure brings the CU case into focus, doesn't it?
DUSAA-1775
never moon a werewolf
03:57 PM on 10/21/2010
ummm...nope
thebigbike
ran away to be a cowboy
02:27 PM on 10/21/2010
thomas's recusal would require that he has some sense of honor and decency. Lots of luck with that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zx880
02:26 PM on 10/21/2010
I'm willing to give latitude to the justices about the activities of their spouses and family members. This extends to those justices with whom I often disagree.

However, as others have brought up, I think the line is clearly crossed when the justices themselves engage in political activities that bring into question their impartiality.
02:10 PM on 10/21/2010
Supreme Court Justices are allowed to have political views and, from listening to them, most do. Sitting on the Supreme Court does not imply support of or opposition to the head of the Executive branch. As you state, justices are only required to recuse themselves if they have an interest in the outcome or have demonstrated a bias. Neither is the case with Justice Thomas. And, of course, the suggestion that he resign because his wife made a phone call is beyond ridiculous.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dnlmsstch
too much for so few words
04:19 PM on 10/21/2010
If a Justice attends a political strategy meeting that the stated purpose is to enact a political agenda and radical interpretation of the constitution (radical because it would have to overturn 1 century of precedent- and in not just talking about campaing finance reform) and they not only attend the meeting but help lead the meeting and a spouse who runs one of the groups working for and recieveing funding from this umbrela organization.... than yes they should resign or be impeached. And any decision that they were a deciding factor should be reevaluated but justices that can be see as unbiased.

If it was only aobut his affiliation with a political party it be one thing - this is about his affiliation with people that have cases that are being heard by the SC and that the decision of the court will have HUGE finacial implications.
04:50 PM on 10/21/2010
No the suggestion to resign was based on his attending Koch brothers seminars, his wife starting a highly partisan fundraiser/organization, etc...

...please at least read the whole article next time
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IFany
move forward or die
02:05 PM on 10/21/2010
There maybe some arrangement between the Judge and his wife, but that presumption is threadbare given the attendance of the judge to a Right Wing strategy session hosted by the Koch Brothers. Impartiality can no longer be a barrier to the judges credibility.He has none, none whatsoever. Recusal has maybe been forfeited and a resignation would be more proper
DUSAA-1775
never moon a werewolf
04:02 PM on 10/21/2010
So if a SC Justice who discusses political or current events or has a spouse or friends that he talks to, or if said spouse and/or friends express their views in the presence of the Justice, the Justice should resign??
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dnlmsstch
too much for so few words
04:13 PM on 10/21/2010
If a Justice attends a political strategy meeting that the stated purpose is to enact a political agenda and radical interpretation of the constitution (radical because it would have to overturn 1 century of president - and in not just talking about campaing finance reform) and they not only attend the meeting but help lead the meeting and a spouce who runs one of the groups working for and recieveing funding from this umbrela organization.... than yes they should resign or be impeached. And any decision that they were a deciding factor should be reevaluated but justices that can be see as unbiased.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dnlmsstch
too much for so few words
04:14 PM on 10/21/2010
* i ment precedent not president
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MilesToGo
02:03 PM on 10/21/2010
Thank you for your post, Judge Sarokin. This very curious development is bringing forth quite a bit, not the least of which is a former girlfriend, and administrative judge, of Justice Thomas' who confirms the likelihood truth behind Anita Hill's original testimony. It would be good to see this vapid, vacuous and insipid justice, who often is seen sleeping during court sessions, actually resign. Not very likely though.
jhNY
Mercy.
02:03 PM on 10/21/2010
Yes, he should recuse himself; no he won't. Now what?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Soup McGee
Paying attention one wooden nickel at a time.
02:03 PM on 10/21/2010
Soup McGee could not agree more; bless you, sir. Swift removal if not resignation...how do we know it's getting worse before it gets too late? How would we know, if this is now is not too far?

Love,

Soup.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dnlmsstch
too much for so few words
02:02 PM on 10/21/2010
There are many good reasons for Justice Thomas to resign - my favorite is that he is demonstrably not interested in the aguments being presented beofre him, since he doesnt ask any questions. the more important one is that he (and Scalia) attended political strategy meetings funded by the Koch Borthers - in my opinion grounds for impeachment. But from reading his decisons and public comments, it really doesnt matter whether his wife is taking money or advocating a postion, he will vote like he is told to by right wing ideology. He is not impartial or an independent thinker. I can respect Scalia's mind and thought - when reading his decision i find myself in the unconfortable place of agreeing with him alot. Thomas, is not fit for the court, not because of his wifes actions or his ideology, but because of all the conservative justices he is obviously a puppet.
02:16 PM on 10/21/2010
This assertion that Thomas votes as he is told and "is obviously a puppet" is fascinating. Tell us, exactly how does this work? Who contacts Justice Thomas to tell him how to vote? What happens when different representatives of the "right wing ideology" have different views on a topic as they seem to do on "don't ask, don't tell"? Who decides which view Thomas will be told to uphold? Thomas can't decide himself, being a puppet. Do they have a vote or a conference to decide. Please enlighten us with the specific mechanics of how this works.
02:19 PM on 10/21/2010
Or maybe you're saying that Justice Thomas blindly follows the tenets of right wing ideology, much as you have followed those of the left. Is that it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
02:27 PM on 10/21/2010
The word I prefer is "tool."