Clarence Thomas Entered an Elite Circle and Opened a Door to the Court

PostmodernProphet said:
stops to consider.....okay, now that that is over, prove he's done something illegal.......
Click to expand...

The lawyer who once again does not understand a legal concept and needs it explained to him.

It is NOT about proving illegality. It is extreme inappropriateness via a concept of law (you know that thing you say you do) that says Judges are to avoid even the 'appearance of conflict'.

Read the below excerpts specifically written to ensure every single Federal judge does not break the law nor the ethics of the bench. Understand that the Supreme Court put themselves above that out of an initial position that they were above needing to be dictated to over ethics or law. They put themselves above the law.

And a result when you read the below think about how much it Thomas and Alito broke that would have got them sanctioned and kicked off the bench in any other Federal bench.


... A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. ...

...A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct....

... An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. ..

...A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

...

(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

...

(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or

(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;...


cite
Click to expand...

You republicunts would have lost your minds already if this was the Dem justices found suckling at Dem activist billionaires teets.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
So you are saying that Thomas would have ruled differently if not for his friends?

Which cases in particular was he going to side with the liberals on?
Click to expand...

That is a stupid question which has NOTHING to do with ethics of recusal.


- Hey Judge you should recuse yourself from this case as that guy killed your brother and you should not preside over his claim of self defense, murder case

- Judge : Trial ends with judge finding him guilty. Look at my other rulings and tell me if you think, given this case there would have been any chance i rule differently even if it was not my brother killed.


No. The reason to recuse to NOT recuse is not because you might have ruled the same way regardless. It is to ensure everyone in the trial and the public have confidence your 'conflict' played no part in your decision.

Your argument that 'I am confident that he would ruled the same regardless... prove me wrong' simply is not supposed to play any part in ethical recusal considerations.
 
QP! said:
The lawyer who once again does not understand a legal concept and needs it explained to him.

It is NOT about proving illegality. It is extreme inappropriateness via a concept of law (you know that thing you say you do) that says Judges are to avoid even the 'appearance of conflict'.

Read the below excerpts specifically written to ensure every single Federal judge does not break the law nor the ethics of the bench. Understand that the Supreme Court put themselves above that out of an initial position that they were above needing to be dictated to over ethics or law. They put themselves above the law.

And a result when you read the below think about how much it Thomas and Alito broke that would have got them sanctioned and kicked off the bench in any other Federal bench.




You republicunts would have lost your minds already if this was the Dem justices found suckling at Dem activist billionaires teets.
Click to expand...

I think you libturds are just jealous that Republicans have friends and you don't.

tenor.gif
 
QP! said:
That is a stupid question which has NOTHING to do with ethics of recusal.
Click to expand...

lets be honest......your political bias is what has nothing to do with the ethics of refusal......."he knew a guy" is not a reasonable basis for recussal......
 
BidenPresident said:
The exclusive Horatio Alger Association brought the justice access to wealthy members and unreported V.I.P. treatment. He, in turn, offered another kind of access.

Prominent among his Horatio Alger friends has been David Sokol, the onetime heir apparent to Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway. Mr. Sokol describes the justice and his wife as “close personal friends,” and in 2015, the Sokols hosted the Thomases for a visit to their sprawling Montana ranch. The Sokols have also hosted the Thomases at their waterfront mansion in Florida.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/09/us/clarence-thomas-horatio-alger-association.html

Before you say, prove he did something illegal, consider who he associates with on a personal level. This forms his idea of who he thinks are affected by his court decisions.
Click to expand...



:gives: Hunter left his blow in the white house, AND he evidently bought "the big guy" an unauthorized cell phone!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...unter-political-biographer-claims/ar-AA1d3cjf
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lets be honest......your political bias is what has nothing to do with the ethics of refusal......."he knew a guy" is not a reasonable basis for recussal......
Click to expand...


'he knew a guy" would get every other judge at every level, and every politician and pretty much 100% of corporate board and corporate executives, fired, sued and maybe put in jail.

And yet you say it is not even reasonable for recusal, when even those two SC justices now are saying they will not do it hat way anymore with a shrug of 'how were we supposed to know...'.

Imagine that. Justices in the SC whose entire job is to be the top interpreter of rules and ethics and other such issues for OTHERS, suggest they just did not know if they should have been reporting this stuff, despite reporting in earlier in their SC careers when it was smaller amounts from parties that would not have been seen as corrupting as these uber right activist billionaires are, with actual business before the court.

You are a pathetic example of the legal system if you think this is just 'he knew a guy...' and thus not enough to report it.
 
Clarence Thomas is an insufferable Uncle Tom asshole,
and I will NEVER forgive Joe Biden for not blocking his appointment
when Biden was Majority Leader of the Senate.

Moscow Mitch is detestable, true enough,
but doing his despicable deeds,
he was a much smarter Majority Leader than Biden ever was.

The present repugnant SCOTUS is absolute proof of that.
 
QP! said:
'he knew a guy" would get every other judge at every level, and every politician and pretty much 100% of corporate board and corporate executives, fired, sued and maybe put in jail.
Click to expand...
don't be silly......hardly anyone would believe your lies....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
don't be silly......hardly anyone would believe your lies....
Click to expand...

Even the Justices caught taking these massively expensive gifts from right wing billionaires are not trying to defend it now and saying 'oh...was that bad? I did not know but i will change my practice now'.

FLOL at you still defending it.


Defending a billionaire right wing activist with business in the courts, funding Thomas mother life costs, by gifting her a house to live in and fixing it up. By gifting his grandson all his education costs while Thomas scream about 'merit for everyone else'.

Pathetic.
 
QP! said:
Even the Justices caught taking these massively expensive gifts from right wing billionaires are not trying to defend it now and saying 'oh...was that bad? I did not know but i will change my practice now'.

FLOL at you still defending it.


Defending a billionaire right wing activist with business in the courts, funding Thomas mother life costs, by gifting her a house to live in and fixing it up. By gifting his grandson all his education costs while Thomas scream about 'merit for everyone else'.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

show me evidence anyone is paying attention to your drivel........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top