the same with Thomas. What more can you tell me about their personal gain.
Up to this point, you haven't told me enough for me to see a conflict of
interest.
Much better with Scalia. I am not sure how fire-arms thing applies. Did this
happen before the decision and she was let off after? If the timing is that
this happened during the Supreme Court decision, then this to me is a clear
case of Scalia should have recused himself. How did this information become
public? Did Scalia anounce it?
Andy
-----Original Message-----
>1.. Are you saying that Rehnquist should have recused himself because his
>daughter would be fired if Bush didn't win? Or did he make his decision
>because his daughter would get a big promotion? In other words, how would a
>decision one way or another effect her career? Has she gotten promotions
>because of the decision? Was she a sub-par employee who kept her job? Or
was
>she a good performer whose career would be unaffected by the decision?
No he and his family stood to have a direct benefit from his decision.
Therefore he should have recused himself. That is basic judicial ethics.
>2. Same thought process on Thomas. Did a decision one way or another
change
>his wife's career? Or was she a temporary staffer whose position ended the
>same in either case?
Again, direct benefit from his decision.
I guess that following ethics is only a democratic thing. Republicans get
an automatic buy.
>3. Lastly Scalia, outside of her actual on the job performance after she
got
>the job, which really has no bearing on the discussion(unless she kept her
job
>with sub-par performance). Who hired her and how is HUD related to the
>Florida vote? Who was president when she was being interviewed and who was
>president when she was hired?
Carrying firearms into federal offices without a special permit is illegal
and a federal offense. Yet she was never charged with it.
She was appointed to the transition team first with the understanding that
she would be given that position after the transition. Before the election
she was also on the Bush election team.
>So yes, please go on, but please provide some rational as to why it was a
>conflict.
Judicial ethical guideline and rules clearly state that if a justice, or a
relative has a perceived or direct benefit from a decision that the justice
is involved in he must recuse himself. The Supreme Court has ruled more
than once that these rules apply to all judges and magistrates. In other
words, (and for the 3rd time in this note) they violated their own rules
for personal gain.
larry
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
