At the Ketanji Brown Jackson Hearings.
Some more details regarding the inappropriate behavior.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
42 comments:
I heard Bob Woodward this morning quote Graham Greene to the effect that "Remember, the other side also has a case." That's something I try hard to do, not always successfully. In general, I do believe the other side does have a case, and that's particularly true of Republicans. For most of my life, I have not viewed the conflict of the Democrats and Republicans as one between good and evil. I don't believe God is on my side, and I am pretty sure he isn't on the other side. I find it interesting that my view on that isn't shared, not at least at the highest levels of the other party. I hope and even to some extent believe that those views are held by a small minority who have managed to wrestle control from the mainstream of the party, but I am beginning to wonder about that.
--Hiram
Well modern extremist politicians do seem to live to make a mountain out of a mole hill to rally up the base and their personnel celebrity.
It's the stupidity I find remarkable. Why would anyone think it's a good idea to overturn an election? Twice, in this century, individuals became president who actually lost the popular vote, and in each case, it would never have occurred to me to contest the results of that election. For one thing, I couldn't imagine how a president who was chosen in defiance of the constitution could possibly govern effectively.
What would have happened if Ginni and Trump had succeeded in their plans on January 6th to overturn the election? What would have happened on January 21st? Did Ginni et al. expect the American people to accept that outcome? If not, what form would the rejection have taken?
--Hiram
The fact that Democrats can't turn this Ginni Thomas story into at least half the furor as the Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton tarmac meeting is evidence that they are not up to the task of standing up to this current incarnation of the Republican Party.
I guess I am not sure what the Ginny uproar is about...
Then I was never concerned about the Clinton Lynch meeting either.
Both sides are crazy.
The immediate problem is that Justice Thomas did not recuse himself from a case directly involving his wife. His position on that is very hard to justify.
--Hiram
I have no idea if it really matters. I mean Thomas is so far Right that does anyone really think he can be swayed further?
These folks seem to agree with you.
In Texas, with the Supreme Court has approved bounties on pregnant women. It matters.
--Hiram
What does that have to do with his wife's crazy politics?
If the Justice is not recusing himself appropriately, it further weakens the Court's legitimacy and increases the odds that Democrats move towards court packing.
I just don't see how his wife having an opinion and taking action requires recusal.
It is not like he did anything... Or did he?
The case in question involved whether the 1/6 committee could have access to certain communications, some of which turned out to be from Ginni Thomas and demonstrated her involvement in the events of that day. That is a case he should have recused from, under the typical norms of recusal that the justices have followed in the past. And as such, he should recuse from any future 1/6-related cases as well.
Here is a question I have been asking.
If a member of the Supreme Court participates in the deciding of a case where recusal was required, is the ruling in the case binding?
--Hiram
"If a member of the Supreme Court participates in the deciding of a case where recusal was required, is the ruling in the case binding?"
That's the problem. There's no formal rule on recusal for the Supreme Court, unlike lower courts. The justices are on the "honor system" when it comes to these issues, with the only recourse being impeachment.
That is what I am curious about though.
Are a wife's comments and actions reason for recusal in lower courts?
Here's a link to the code that applies:
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
I would cite these passages:
"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
"Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;" (did Justice Thomas really have no knowledge of his wife's involvement in these events? doubtful.)
"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;"
"He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: ... (iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;"
What case is this regarding? This records case?
It looks Kavanaugh and Thomas were against releasing the ex-President's records
Or is this just a hypothetical... He should recuse himself if .... ???
"It looks Kavanaugh and Thomas were against releasing the ex-President's records"
Kavanaugh had concerns, but ultimately it was 8-1 with Thomas as the only dissenter.
Certainly a judge or justice should recuse himself if a family member has an interest in the litigation. Thomas was hearing a case involving whether communications from his wife should be released. That isn't a close one.
I am more skeptical about requiring disclosures from family members who aren't as close. I didn't think Hunter's laptop was of much interest. I don't think who Trump's kids rent rooms to, is of that much public interest. I don't care much about when people are out of office. I don't care at all when people are retired. I think Hunter felt freer to operate because he thought his dad was retired. That he came back was a surprise and he shouldn't be blamed in hindsight.
Far more shocking is what people don't address at all. When in office, people shouldn't own or trade stocks. That is a direct abuse, but no one seems to care, so I won't either.
--Hiram
It will be interesting to see what he does if another case arises...
Now that we all know his wife was directly involved.
I know it may be racist, but it seems to me that he is truly a case against quota hiring. I mean has he ever given any sign of being a competent thinking Justice?
Perhaps in the sense that Justice Alito makes the case for quota hiring. White people have not served the court well.
--Hiram
And Thomas does better than the White people?
He didn't decide Korematsu. He didn't decide Dred Scot. He was only one vote in Gore v. Bush. Quotas might have kept the justices who decided those cases from the court. Maybe it's worth a shot.
--Hiram
I would prefer the best Justice win...
Of course "best" is often subjective to the goals of the beholder.
We have had an amazingly undistinguished court for a couple of decades now. Another reason why, I believe, Supreme Court rulings should not have a binding effect on the other two branches of government.
--Hiram
I assume a court that agrees with you would be a "Distinguished Court"?
More a court that issues rulings with which I neither agree nor disagree. I would not provide a president with a list of nominees who agree with my positions, certainly not my political positions.
--Hiram
You do have a challenge stating what you actually believe in...
I am always curious what that is...
The Supreme Court should certainly not involve itself in health care policy. That for me, is when I lost what remaining respect for the Court. How could an originalist possibly believe that the founding fathers were setting 21st century in 1787? I pride myself on an ability or at least a willingness to make an effort to see things from the other guy's perspective, but that one is simply beyond me.
A question I often ask is, "If you were writing a constitution for America, would you be an originalist? Would you want to set health care policy for your remote descendants who will face challenges you couldn't foresee today?
--Hiram
One of the things about originalism is that it seems to skip over the question of what the origins are. The constitution has been amended repeatedly over the last two hundred years. The authors of the Civil War amendments who essentially discarded the constitution they knew which had been drafted 80 years earlier for them are just as entitled to the benefits of "originalism" such as they are as the folks of 1787.
--Hiram
I think you are missing the point...
Since all policies involve taxation, wealth transfer, citizens, state government, and federal government, SCOTUS is needed to resolve differences of opinion.
And since the Constitution is a living document with a Method for updating it. If you do not like it... Get it amended...
What did those folks in 1787 think about income taxes?
In any event, I just don't know what if anything, was said about 21st century tax policy back in 1787. I do know that they system of government they invented which recognized slavery led to a Civil War and the discarding of their concept of government. Maybe the man originalists should look to is Abraham Lincoln, someone who wasn't exactly a fan of the original document.
--Hiram
In terms of amendment, I can tell you, I can't think of a single thing the constitution says about 21st century health care policy that I would like to change. However, if the constitution says that every policy decision made by the other two branches of government need to be signed off on by the courts, I am all for changing that. Just direct me to where the constitution specifically provides that.
--Hiram
It does not need to.. Since citizens and both parties can bring their concerns to the SCOTUS.
No point having courts look over things we agree on.
And again, you are purposefully denying that the court cases have not been about healthcare for the most part. They have been about taxes, laws, authorities, etc.
And that's the problem. They want the Supreme Court to legislate their views into law, after the legislature itself refused to adopting them.
The court can't deal in abstracts. Those cases were about health care.
--Hiram
Yours is an interesting opinion.
How would you recommended resolving differences without a SCOTUS?
Well, we do have elections.
In a democracy, the wisdom of turning the resolution of policy conflicts to unelected officials with lifetime appointments does elude me. We have nine individuals on the Supreme Court, none of whom were ever elected to anything. None of them, as a matter of fact, has ever run for office. Do we really appreciate how crazy that system is?
--Hiram
Not really... Judges are supposed to be apolitical... That is why it used to take 60 Senate votes to pick one.
What you seem to want are Referees who are voted in by the team members? Really?
And allowed short tenure so they financially benefit from the rulings?
Judges are supposed to be apolitical.
Possibly, but they can't be when they were chosen from lists compiled by politicians. When you go to a party caucus, and you are asked to endorse a candidate, do you choose the best possible person for the job. Or do you choose someone from your own party? I just can't recall the last time my party endorsed the candidate for the other party for the state legislature.
--Hiram
That's why the 60 vote requirement was important.
Unfortunately that is gone. :-(
Post a Comment