Legal/scotus thread

Not sure why you used the term " bombshell" ?
But sure

The wife of a SCOTUS justice accepting, or even being accused of accepting $200,000 loan from someone before the court teeters the line of your word, "bombshell".
I think it easy to go the next step and use the word, bribe. ?
 
As in. If I were a local procurement officer taking bids to pave a street.
Mysteriously my wife receives a loan via a paving contractor.
Locally, that would meet the headline standard of " bombshell"
Correct ?

Someone once said, " I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it"
That is where we are
 
Doesn't this call into question every major decision Thomas where was involved ?


For instance
Bush v Gore was a 5-4 decision
 
57Brave said:
Not sure why you used the term " bombshell" ?
But sure

The wife of a SCOTUS justice accepting, or even being accused of accepting $200,000 loan from someone before the court teeters the line of your word, "bombshell".
I think it easy to go the next step and use the word, bribe. ?
Click to expand...

Conversely, a conservative consulting group getting paid by conservative activists is hardly news-worthy, which is why more information would be needed. If an investigation found that the payment was directly related to Ginni Thomas providing privileged information about the court or advising her husband, we’d be in a situation that would likely require Thomas’ removal from the court. However, that’s a hop, skip and a jump from point A to point B.
 
You don't view the wife of a sitting Supreme Court Justice so active in conservative politics, bring home money from said conservative consulting firm a conflict of interest?

I don't begrudge her her associations.
However I would think transparency leading to recusal in order.
Odd we have to wait on an expose from Mayer to shine that light.
 
57Brave said:
You don't view the wife of a sitting Supreme Court Justice so active in conservative politics, bring home money from said conservative consulting firm a conflict of interest?

I don't begrudge her her associations.
However I would think transparency leading to recusal in order.
Odd we have to wait on an expose from Mayer to shine that light.
Click to expand...

The short answer is that yes, it sounds like a conflict of interest in a general sense. Not sure it is legally, though. It sounds like the kind of thing that probably should be illegal, but I don’t believe it is.
 
As a general principle, I don't think people should be held responsible for the activities of adult family members. In some cases, they may be implicated in those activities. That's a different matter.

The issue of recusal is also a different matter. I think judges and other people charged with making decisions on behalf of the public interest should lean over backwards and avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
There's also the issue that she believed the military had overthrown the government to install Trump as dictator.......and she enthusiastically supported it.
 
cajunrevenge said:
There's also the issue that she believed the military had overthrown the government to install Trump as dictator.......and she enthusiastically supported it.
Click to expand...
She is an elderly private citizen prone to conspiracy theories and other forms of delusional thinking. We should do the compassionate thing and leave her alone.

Her beliefs are really nothing compared to people in the prime of their lives believing in things like ivermectin and that the people of Canada live under some form of tyranny.

We even have a poster who refers to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression. Against that Gini isnt so bat**** crazy.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
She is an elderly private citizen prone to conspiracy theories and other forms of delusional thinking. We should do the compassionate thing and leave her alone.

Her beliefs are really nothing compared to people in the prime of their lives believing in things like ivermectin and that the people of Canada live under some form of tyranny.
Click to expand...

Members of the EU seem to believe your boy in Canada is pretty bad.
 
thethe said:
I know you mean no offense but hard to take it otherwise.

As you know pretty much every big allegation stance I’ve taken has pretty much come to pass.
Click to expand...

Yup for sure

thethe said:
Risk based. Statistically it made sense to put the effort to ban china then as europe grew to ban Europe.

Million things we could have done better. Mainly allowing patients access to viable treatment.

Ultimately, the US will take a substantial loss [50k deaths approx] but the mitigation put into place was effective.

Just wish NY did a better job self policing. Then we would be in a much better spot as a country.
Click to expand...
 
zitothebrave said:
you must not have been paying attention to anything politicians have been doing for the last 20 years or so. Especially the right. They're all about gotcha ****. By answering as a legal expert would, she cannot be asked to be recused. By saying she won't define it because she's not an expert, that's exactly what happens in high profile cases across the country. For example, a cop cannot say that the DNA matches, an expert would have to say it either in court or with a legal document presented to the court as evidence. COunterint it would take an expert, not just someone saying "That's not how DNA works, I read an article online saying...."

You can choose to believe in the right wing troll side of the internet, we know it's where you go to live. What she said is what a lawyer would say or advise their client to say while underoath.
Click to expand...

LOL! This is about as ridiculous as your Austrian German comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top