4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

trying to figue out why you think him being a lawyer is important to his role as a SCOTUS justice..

---

Because you remember he told us the Governor of Texas was going to ban TikTok ... and when it continues to not be banned he sort of hid in the special needs tent.

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

I believe Justice Thomas is licensed in Missouri. Unless he violated a Missouri code of ethics, I am not sure how the ABA comes into play.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. 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. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

---

Thomas accpeted over $500,000 in vacation and travel gifts from Harlan Crow. Crow purchased Thomas' mother's home and let her remain there. Don't have a double standard. You and I both would be complaining if Sotomayor had accepted just one of the gifts toThomas, or her family. If we surrender the moral high ground to Democrats, we'll never get it back.

---

What case did Harlan have before the court?

Is it so hard for you to believe that the Crows and the Thomases might be friends? For that matter, who WOULD you allow Thomas to be friends with? News flash: there are not a lot of billionaires. Air is pretty thin up there. They usually do socialize with people who have a lot less money, and often pick up a preponderant share of the tab. And when they give away gifts, sometimes it's more than cheesecake.

A man buys the home of a friend and allows that friend's elderly mother to remain in it with a life estate? I know two examples of that right here in McLennan County. The investor gets a good deal; the old lady gets some money to live on. Win/win.

Do you have a life? (or just an axe to grind against a black judge married to a successful white woman)

---

The board of the lobby organization that he sits on had interests in the outcome of cases before the court. Friendship is one thing. Payment is another. Payment of gifts to federal judges and justices is something that they should not accept, even from friends. You can try all you want to spin this into a racial attack, which says something about your thought process and prejudices. Who he is married to doesn't excuse his behavior. Alito isn't married to a person of a different race, and the same code of ethics should apply to him, or Sotomayor.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. 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. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

---

Thomas accpeted over $500,000 in vacation and travel gifts from Harlan Crow. Crow purchased Thomas' mother's home and let her remain there. Don't have a double standard. You and I both would be complaining if Sotomayor had accepted just one of the gifts toThomas, or her family. If we surrender the moral high ground to Democrats, we'll never get it back.

---

What case did Harlan have before the court?

Is it so hard for you to believe that the Crows and the Thomases might be friends? For that matter, who WOULD you allow Thomas to be friends with? News flash: there are not a lot of billionaires. Air is pretty thin up there. They usually do socialize with people who have a lot less money, and often pick up a preponderant share of the tab. And when they give away gifts, sometimes it's more than cheesecake.

A man buys the home of a friend and allows that friend's elderly mother to remain in it with a life estate? I know two examples of that right here in McLennan County. The investor gets a good deal; the old lady gets some money to live on. Win/win.

Do you have a life? (or just an axe to grind against a black judge married to a successful white woman)

---

The board of the lobby organization that he sits on had interests in the outcome of cases before the court. Friendship is one thing. Payment is another. Payment of gifts to federal judges and justices is something that they should not accept, even from friends. You can try all you want to spin this into a racial attack, which says something about your thought process and prejudices. Who he is married to doesn't excuse his behavior. Alito isn't married to a person of a different race, and the same code of ethics should apply to him, or Sotomayor.

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

"Scientist" is really angry a young black man got help to get a good education.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. 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. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

---

Thomas accpeted over $500,000 in vacation and travel gifts from Harlan Crow. Crow purchased Thomas' mother's home and let her remain there. Don't have a double standard. You and I both would be complaining if Sotomayor had accepted just one of the gifts toThomas, or her family. If we surrender the moral high ground to Democrats, we'll never get it back.

---

What case did Harlan have before the court?

Is it so hard for you to believe that the Crows and the Thomases might be friends? For that matter, who WOULD you allow Thomas to be friends with? News flash: there are not a lot of billionaires. Air is pretty thin up there. They usually do socialize with people who have a lot less money, and often pick up a preponderant share of the tab. And when they give away gifts, sometimes it's more than cheesecake.

A man buys the home of a friend and allows that friend's elderly mother to remain in it with a life estate? I know two examples of that right here in McLennan County. The investor gets a good deal; the old lady gets some money to live on. Win/win.

Do you have a life? (or just an axe to grind against a black judge married to a successful white woman)

---

The board of the lobby organization that he sits on had interests in the outcome of cases before the court. Friendship is one thing. Payment is another. Payment of gifts to federal judges and justices is something that they should not accept, even from friends. You can try all you want to spin this into a racial attack, which says something about your thought process and prejudices. Who he is married to doesn't excuse his behavior. Alito isn't married to a person of a different race, and the same code of ethics should apply to him, or Sotomayor.

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. 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. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

---

Thomas accpeted over $500,000 in vacation and travel gifts from Harlan Crow. Crow purchased Thomas' mother's home and let her remain there. Don't have a double standard. You and I both would be complaining if Sotomayor had accepted just one of the gifts toThomas, or her family. If we surrender the moral high ground to Democrats, we'll never get it back.

---

What case did Harlan have before the court?

Is it so hard for you to believe that the Crows and the Thomases might be friends? For that matter, who WOULD you allow Thomas to be friends with? News flash: there are not a lot of billionaires. Air is pretty thin up there. They usually do socialize with people who have a lot less money, and often pick up a preponderant share of the tab. And when they give away gifts, sometimes it's more than cheesecake.

A man buys the home of a friend and allows that friend's elderly mother to remain in it with a life estate? I know two examples of that right here in McLennan County. The investor gets a good deal; the old lady gets some money to live on. Win/win.

Do you have a life? (or just an axe to grind against a black judge married to a successful white woman)

---

The board of the lobby organization that he sits on had interests in the outcome of cases before the court. Friendship is one thing. Payment is another. Payment of gifts to federal judges and justices is something that they should not accept, even from friends. You can try all you want to spin this into a racial attack, which says something about your thought process and prejudices. Who he is married to doesn't excuse his behavior. Alito isn't married to a person of a different race, and the same code of ethics should apply to him, or Sotomayor.

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. 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. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

---

Thomas accpeted over $500,000 in vacation and travel gifts from Harlan Crow. Crow purchased Thomas' mother's home and let her remain there. Don't have a double standard. You and I both would be complaining if Sotomayor had accepted just one of the gifts toThomas, or her family. If we surrender the moral high ground to Democrats, we'll never get it back.

---

What case did Harlan have before the court?

Is it so hard for you to believe that the Crows and the Thomases might be friends? For that matter, who WOULD you allow Thomas to be friends with? News flash: there are not a lot of billionaires. Air is pretty thin up there. They usually do socialize with people who have a lot less money, and often pick up a preponderant share of the tab. And when they give away gifts, sometimes it's more than cheesecake.

A man buys the home of a friend and allows that friend's elderly mother to remain in it with a life estate? I know two examples of that right here in McLennan County. The investor gets a good deal; the old lady gets some money to live on. Win/win.

Do you have a life? (or just an axe to grind against a black judge married to a successful white woman)

---

The board of the lobby organization that he sits on had interests in the outcome of cases before the court. Friendship is one thing. Payment is another. Payment of gifts to federal judges and justices is something that they should not accept, even from friends. You can try all you want to spin this into a racial attack, which says something about your thought process and prejudices. Who he is married to doesn't excuse his behavior. Alito isn't married to a person of a different race, and the same code of ethics should apply to him, or Sotomayor.

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

T said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The alleged gift to the nephew was, per legal advice sought by Thomas, NOT a gift to Clarence or Ginni Thomas but rather a gift to the nephew.

The alleged gift to GInni was, per statement of the person you cited, a payment to Ginni's lobbying firm for services rendered in lobbying.

So you are 0-for-2

---

No, you just don't believe ethics should be applicable to those you perceive aligned with you. Both of the transactions you cited violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

---

Thomas has affirmative defense for not reporting support made to his nephew - he asked for legal guidance on whether it should be reported or not. Has any other Federal Judge reported support given to a nephew....say, a scholarship to a university? I mean, after all, universities are covered by federal law and do sue/get sued from time to time. More importantly, CCUSJ does not say that the spouse of a judge cannot be employed, or cannot be employed in a career which might involve politics, or cannot be employed as a lobbyist. So you are simply making stuff up to levy a smear.

The only ethical violation occurring here is your allegation.

---

Snicker. Look at who he claims he consulted with. Come on. His conduct flies in the face of the spirit of the CCUSJ. At the very least he should have consulted the CCUSJ for guidance.

Here are some specifics, and which should apply, including to his spouse and his relative that he took into his home to raise.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. 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. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge's spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 4. A. …a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office…

Canon 4. D.(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge's family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A "member of the judge's family" means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family.

Canon 4. H.(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge's household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge's family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge's family.

---

you have yet to define clearly how he violated any of them.

---

Receipt of gifts, and payments.

---

Judge Thomas did not receive the gift you allege. His nephew did.

Judge Thomas did not receive the payment you allege. His wife's business did, for services rendered.

So back to the cold hard facts: there is only person mentioned in this thread to run afoul of ethics, and that person is not named Thomas..

---

Thomas accpeted over $500,000 in vacation and travel gifts from Harlan Crow. Crow purchased Thomas' mother's home and let her remain there. Don't have a double standard. You and I both would be complaining if Sotomayor had accepted just one of the gifts toThomas, or her family. If we surrender the moral high ground to Democrats, we'll never get it back.

---

What case did Harlan have before the court?

Is it so hard for you to believe that the Crows and the Thomases might be friends? For that matter, who WOULD you allow Thomas to be friends with? News flash: there are not a lot of billionaires. Air is pretty thin up there. They usually do socialize with people who have a lot less money, and often pick up a preponderant share of the tab. And when they give away gifts, sometimes it's more than cheesecake.

A man buys the home of a friend and allows that friend's elderly mother to remain in it with a life estate? I know two examples of that right here in McLennan County. The investor gets a good deal; the old lady gets some money to live on. Win/win.

Do you have a life? (or just an axe to grind against a black judge married to a successful white woman)

---

The board of the lobby organization that he sits on had interests in the outcome of cases before the court. Friendship is one thing. Payment is another. Payment of gifts to federal judges and justices is something that they should not accept, even from friends. You can try all you want to spin this into a racial attack, which says something about your thought process and prejudices. Who he is married to doesn't excuse his behavior. Alito isn't married to a person of a different race, and the same code of ethics should apply to him, or Sotomayor.

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

What is worse, the appearance of impropriety or the appearance of racism?

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

Do the rules for congressmen apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the rules for federal judges apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the ABA rules apply to SCOTUS justices?

Remember that you dont have to have a lawyer or have passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice..

Is what they did ethical? Different arguement but so far you havent won based on the arguement presented..

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

In other news, the new pitch clock rules are not being enforced on SC Justices and public urination laws are not being applied to pets.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

Do the rules for congressmen apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the rules for federal judges apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the ABA rules apply to SCOTUS justices?

Remember that you dont have to have a lawyer or have passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice..

Is what they did ethical? Different arguement but so far you havent won based on the arguement presented..

---

So what you're saying is, if the rules don't apply, they shouldn't be held to any ethical standards. You're advocating for a court without ethics. That's the issue. Do we have a court without ethical standards? Also at issue is whether the rules that govern federal judges apply or should apply to justices. They're in the same branch. If congress' laws can be enforced against federal judges, then they should be enforceable against justices. If not, then new laws should be passed specifically for justices.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

Do the rules for congressmen apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the rules for federal judges apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the ABA rules apply to SCOTUS justices?

Remember that you dont have to have a lawyer or have passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice..

Is what they did ethical? Different arguement but so far you havent won based on the arguement presented..

---

So what you're saying is, if the rules don't apply, they shouldn't be held to any ethical standards. You're advocating for a court without ethics. That's the issue. Do we have a court without ethical standards? Also at issue is whether the rules that govern federal judges apply or should apply to justices. They're in the same branch. If congress' laws can be enforced against federal judges, then they should be enforceable against justices. If not, then new laws should be passed specifically for justices.

---

so mamy different things going on here..

I will circle back, and go thru your list and answer each piece.

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

Do the rules for congressmen apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the rules for federal judges apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the ABA rules apply to SCOTUS justices?

Remember that you dont have to have a lawyer or have passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice..

Is what they did ethical? Different arguement but so far you havent won based on the arguement presented..

---

Also at issue is whether the rules that govern federal judges apply or should apply to justices. They're in the same branch. If congress' laws can be enforced against federal judges, then they should be enforceable against justices. If not, then new laws should be passed specifically for justices.

---

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. U.S. Const. art. III

Next topic,

TexasScientist said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

Do the rules for congressmen apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the rules for federal judges apply to SCOTUS justices? Do the ABA rules apply to SCOTUS justices?

Remember that you dont have to have a lawyer or have passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice..

Is what they did ethical? Different arguement but so far you havent won based on the arguement presented..

---

So what you're saying is, if the rules don't apply, they shouldn't be held to any ethical standards. You're advocating for a court without ethics. That's the issue. Do we have a court without ethical standards? Also at issue is whether the rules that govern federal judges apply or should apply to justices. They're in the same branch. If congress' laws can be enforced against federal judges, then they should be enforceable against justices. If not, then new laws should be passed specifically for justices.

---

S_T__R___ E_____ T________C____________H

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

I believe Justice Thomas is licensed in Missouri. Unless he violated a Missouri code of ethics, I am not sure how the ABA comes into play.

---

Appearance of impropriety. It's a thing.

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

trying to figue out why you think him being a lawyer is important to his role as a SCOTUS justice..

---

I really hope you figure it out.

quash said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

I believe Justice Thomas is licensed in Missouri. Unless he violated a Missouri code of ethics, I am not sure how the ABA comes into play.

---

Appearance of impropriety. It's a thing.

---

Sure is. Like Brown sitting on a case involving her alma mater on an issue from which she, by her own words, personally benefited.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

I believe Justice Thomas is licensed in Missouri. Unless he violated a Missouri code of ethics, I am not sure how the ABA comes into play.

---

Appearance of impropriety. It's a thing.

---

Sure is. Like Brown sitting on a case involving her alma mater on an issue from which she, by her own words, personally benefited.

---

A good example.

There were two cases. She recused herself from that one

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

I believe Justice Thomas is licensed in Missouri. Unless he violated a Missouri code of ethics, I am not sure how the ABA comes into play.

---

Appearance of impropriety. It's a thing.

---

Great. Now try and enforce it against a Supreme Court Justice.

Therein lies the game and why this thread is garbage.

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

I believe Justice Thomas is licensed in Missouri. Unless he violated a Missouri code of ethics, I am not sure how the ABA comes into play.

---

Appearance of impropriety. It's a thing.

---

Great. Now try and enforce it against a Supreme Court Justice.

Therein lies the game and why this thread is garbage.

---

I never, not once, suggested it be enforced against him. Nice try.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

I believe Justice Thomas is licensed in Missouri. Unless he violated a Missouri code of ethics, I am not sure how the ABA comes into play.

---

Appearance of impropriety. It's a thing.

---

Great. Now try and enforce it against a Supreme Court Justice.

Therein lies the game and why this thread is garbage.

---

I never, not once, suggested it be enforced against him. Nice try.

---

I never said nor implied that you did.

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

trying to figue out why you think him being a lawyer is important to his role as a SCOTUS justice..

---

I really hope you figure it out.

---

please link to section of the constitution that states being an active lawyer with ABA membership is a requirement..

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Getting to the actual point, what evidence is there that this influenced his decision-making in his jurisprudence? Is there any? Did Crowe have business before the court?

There isn't an ethical code or law against having friends, even friends that help you and your family out.

---

Actually there is an ethical policy in play: avoid the appearance of impropriety.ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 9 and caption to Disciplinary Rule (DR) 9-101,

---

yes, now let congress do its job and make a decision on impeachment after investigation if they so choose to do one.. if they dont, i guess they felt it didnt rise to the level that some of yall believe it is..

---

Stay in your lane.

I never said this was impeachable, I merely cited the standard.

You get lost in the weeds every time I cite legal standards.

---

is what you cited applicable to the issue at hand?

---

Yes

---

go on..

---

You asked a simple question. If a simple answer is insufficient ask a new question.

---

ok, How is it applicable?

---

As a standard for ethical behavior.

Pretty sure I made that clear already.

---

so not applicable to a SCOTUS Justice as the ABA has stated many times in their wish for SCOTUS to adopt these rules but had not at the time if the supposed transgression.

You are attempting to hold somebody to an ethical standard that is not applicable. You dont even have to be a lawyer who passed the bar to be a SCOTUS justice.

This is no different than if I said you were a bad person because you weren't a practicing Catholic or you are an infidel because you dont follow Islam. Your applying your standard of ethics as a lawyer to Thomas which the ABA has said is not applicable..

---

Trying to figure how an ethical guideline for a lawyer doesn't apply to a lawyer...

---

trying to figue out why you think him being a lawyer is important to his role as a SCOTUS justice..

---

I really hope you figure it out.

---

please link to section of the constitution that states being an active lawyer with ABA membership is a requirement..

---

It's not. If it were it would be in Art 3. But keep getting worked up about it.

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TexasS said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What lobby?
What case?
What gift?
To whom?

Payments were made to a lobbyist, and payments were made to a nephew, all of them completely legal and above-board.

---

Read the article. Then read other articles.

Maybe legal, You don't know that yet. Definitley not above board.

---

I have. Nothing more than unsupportable allegations. Like all of your posts....definitely not above board.

---

When you sit on the board of groups like Club for Growth, and they support political positions before the court, through amicas briefs and other ways, and give gifts to a sitting justice, that creates the appearance of impropriety. Thay violates the code of judical conduct - violation of a bedrock in conservative values. It has to be a two way street. If our side does something wrong, we need to recognize, and address it.

---

"our side." You are so funny.

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

---

If I believe the speed limit should be 55mph, is everyone exceeding 55 wrong.

It's always been my view that people should work within the laws and regs as they are written. If I don't like the way they are written I can lobby for changes, run for office or both.

Why is this hard got you?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

---

Which cases? Which cases currently before the court do you see a conflict of interest, for which judge?

None of the examples you have given today have cast a shadow on the standard.

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So all I have to do is send money to a charitable cause dear to Justice, like, you know, a pro-Life organization a Gun Control oranization, and an Open Borders organization, etc......, then start filing amicus briefs.

Thank you for showing us how to corrupt all three liberal judges without them even knowing it.

Why didn't I think of this sooner?

---

False equivalency, and misdirestion. You're willfully ignoring the substantial amount of money that was gifted and spent for Thomas's personal benefit. Congressmen have gone to jail for accpeting golf trips to Ireland. Congressmen have been charged for less. Our SC justices should be held to as high, or higher standards as senators and representatives. What you're excusing is corruption, because it is our guy.

---

Not false equivalency at all. Just application of the standard you are arguing.

Kagan voted on ACA after having spearheaded the policy for the Obama Admin for years. Did she recuse herself? Nope.

Every justice owns a residence, so do they all have to recuse themselves from cases involving personally owned real estate? Nope.

They all own cars, so they have to recuse themselves from cases involving transportation or regulation of manufacturing or use of cars? Nope.

Taking a trip with a wealthy friend, who may or may not from time to time express an opinion on an issue that may at some time land before the court is not now, nor ever will be, a recusable standard. "Oops....my golfing buddy filed an amicus brief on that...I'm out, guys...."

Geez, you are so fundamentally unserious.

---

No, you're trivializing and trying to ceate false equivalency. A federal judge cannot accept the gifts that Thomas did. Neither can a cogressman.

---

You are trying to spin away from your own desperately frivolous allegations. You would definitely have a case if there were cash payments to Judge Thomas, but there weren't. Receipt of a scholarship by a distant relative is a terribly weak case for conflict of interest. You might have a point if Crow had a case before the court. But he didn't. So then you tried to spin Ginni Thomas's lobbying career as something nefarious, as though anyone who ever put her on retainer would force him to recuse from any case they might have before the court. Then, what that allegation foundered, you further deflated your argument by globalizing it....that anyone who had ever filed an Amicus brief before the court might be a potential conflict of interest.

There is nothing nefarious about a SCOTUS justice and a billionaire taking a vacation together. They are part of a very small circle of wealthy an influential people. I mean, geez. Kagan served in the executive branch with a lot of other appointees, who have built careers in the clerisy. Will she have to recuse herself from every case in which anyone who served in the Obama admin files an amicus brief.

Grampa always said if you give a monkey enough rope, he'll climb high enough for everyone to his ass. that spectacle occurred long ago. Just curious to see how high you are willing to go

---

Nonsense. If Chuck Schumer's wife took tens of thousands of dollars from the Democratic party's biggest lobbyists with instructions to keep it quiet, you'd be livid. They don't have to receive cash for it to be unethical. They just have to receive something of value. Taking a vacation together is irrelevant. It's who paid for whose vacation and the value of that vacation. Congressman Bob Ney (Ohio) went to prison for accepting a golf trip to Ireland paid for by Jack Abram off. It's the same ethical issue.

---

.....not if Mrs. Schumer was one of the Democrat Party's biggest lobbyists. You are making a misogynistic argument. Women can and do have careers of their own, even when they are married to powerful men.

Flying on a private jet owned by someone who does not have a case before the court is not an ethical issue for anyone.

---

It's the fact that there are or will be cases before the court that she has an interest in. And, it's not misogynistic, because I'd feel the same way if he were married to a man.

The better question is why don't you believe the SC justices should be held to the same minimal ethical standards that federal judges, and members of congress are held?

---

Which cases? Which cases currently before the court do you see a conflict of interest, for which judge?

None of the examples you have given today have cast a shadow on the standard.

---

What standard? There is none.

There doesn't have to be any current cases. It's about the appearance of impropriety. " Crow has long been an influential figure in pro-business conservative politics. He has given millions to efforts to move the law and the judiciary to the right and serves on the boards of think tanks that publish scholarship advancing conservative legal theories." (Posted article)