Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself from hearing cases on conservative issues?

[kermit]

It is a case if you are trying to say he can't hear a case because he has a financial interest. His financial interest would be to keep the law alive.

Maybe, but the fact is that's he's not impartial.

 

[Notamonkey]

It is a case if you are trying to say he can't hear a case because he has a financial interest. His financial interest would be to keep the law alive.

Well, there you go, the nanny staters have nothing to worry about, Thomas will vote in favor of this massive monster they care health care reform!

 

[jamesrwright3]

Maybe, but the fact is that's he's not impartial.

No one is impartial-not even the liberal members of the Court.
Do you think he would have been in favor of Obamacare considering his judicial philosophy?

 

[kermit]

No one is impartial-not even the liberal members of the Court.

Having finacial interest is more than merely having an opinion.

Do you think he would have been in favor of Obamacare considering his judicial philosophy?

How he would rule is beside the point.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Having finacial interest is more than merely having an opinion.


How he would rule is beside the point.

Then all justices with a liberal viewpoint should also recuse themselves. Maybe the whole court should recuse itself and refuse to hear the case because someone may have a bias.

 

[Notamonkey]

Having finacial interest is more than merely having an opinion.


How he would rule is beside the point.

If he was liberal all, we would hear is crickets churping. The left is getting desperate.

 

[kermit]

If he was liberal all, we would hear is crickets churping. The left is getting desperate.

I can't speak for other's, but I wouldn't be silent.

Why is it that you can other's aren't arguing that he doesn't have a financial conflict of interest, but rather are attacking the motivations of those bringing the conflict of interest to light?

 

[Spirko]

Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself from hearing cases on conservative issues?

No.

Should Sonia Sotomayor recuse herself from hearing cases on issues regarding minorities, since she is involved in several minority focused special interest groups and once said, regarding her fitness to hear cases before the court, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"? (Savage, Charlie. "A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record." New York Times 14 May 2009. Print.)

 

[lux et lex]

If you or your immediate family has an interest (read: money) in a case, then you should recuse yourself. Liberal, Conservative, Independent, whatever, it doesn't matter.

 

[DaisyDay]

No.

Should Sonia Sotomayor recuse herself from hearing cases on issues regarding minorities, since she is involved in several minority focused special interest groups and once said, regarding her fitness to hear cases before the court, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"? (Savage, Charlie. "A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record." New York Times 14 May 2009. Print.)

If the special interest minority groups she was involved with were a party to a case, then, of course, she should recuse herself - even if she didn't get mucho moola from being their lobbyist.

The title was overly broad (space limitations). The OP is about issues his wife is financially involved in. Do you still say no?

 

[Spirko]

If the special interest minority groups she was involved with were a party to a case, then, of course, she should recuse herself - even if she didn't get mucho moola from being their lobbyist.

The title was overly broad (space limitations). The OP is about issues his wife is financially involved in. Do you still say no?

Yes, I still say no.

However, there are some cases where his wife should probably recuse herself.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes, I still say no.

However, there are some cases where his wife should probably recuse herself.

Why do you think Sotomayer should follow the law but not Thomas?

 

[Spirko]

Why do you think Sotomayer should follow the law but not Thomas?

I think they should both follow the law. I don't recall saying that Thomas shouldn't follow the law.

 

[Gawron]

Case in point:

Posted by Kermit:

“So you question the motivations of everyone…?”

So, responding to aisey Day telling her I am sorry she feels as she does equals questioning the motivations of everyone here. And it is an attack.

To recap. I did not question the motivations of everyone here. If a member here also ran a website entitled "Impeach that fat evil conservative Thomas dot com" I would question their motivations. But to my knowledge aisey isn't running such a website.

I stated that the actual motivation of those trying to discredit Thomas with this is to get him off of the court. Again, I didn't think I had to differentiate between organized groups across the country dedicated to just this goal and a few posters on this website voicing their opinion. But then, the minimalist argument reigns here.

I posted a link to a group asking for help to “get Thomas off of the bench”. I also stated that most of the comments I found concerning Thomas as it relates to this issue I could not post here as they would violate forum rules. I did not attack or single out anyone here in those post.

But whatever, think what you want.

 

[kermit]

So, responding to aisey Day telling her I am sorry she feels as she does equals questioning the motivations of everyone here. And it is an attack.

To recap. I did not question the motivations of everyone here. If a member here also ran a website entitled "Impeach that fat evil conservative Thomas dot com" I would question their motivations. But to my knowledge aisey isn't running such a website.

I was referring to this post (http://www.christianforums.com/t7535308-4/#post56769626) which was no about anyone in particular so it must have been about everyone who wants Thomas to recuse himself.

 

[Gawron]

I was not and have not been talking about Thomas recusing himself, I was and am talking about those who want to use this story to get him off of the bench.

I posted what you linked to right after I had searched around the web for commentary on this story. I found 10 different organized groups demanding the impeachment of Thomas based on this story. Not demanding he recuse himself on the rare chance some case comes up before the court his wife might have some small connection to, but IMPEACHMENT from the court.

Why do you think these people want Thomas impeached? Because they are so concerned about the law? Please...

 

[kermit]

I was not and have not been talking about Thomas recusing himself, I was and am talking about those who want to use this story to get him off of the bench.

I posted what you linked to right after I had searched around the web for commentary on this story.

You need to work on your posting skills. You were apparently referring to some other group, but never actually said what that group is. How was anyone outside your head supposed to know?

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Kermit:

"You need to work on your posting skills"

Below is my post number eleven quoted exactly. Please read it and tell me what is so hard to understand about what I said.

Quote:

People have been trying to get Thomas off of the Supreme Court since before he even got on.

Lets get Clarence Thomas off the bench (and then some)!

Quote:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Falsified 20 Years Of Financial Disclosure Forms Help Us Hold Him Accountable–Sign Our Letters To Congress And The Department Of Justice

Source: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02...and-then-some/

If successful, this would allow Obama to appoint the replacement, thus flipping the court. Thats what this is about.

 

[kermit]

Posted by Kermit:

"You need to work on your posting skills"

Below is my post number eleven quoted exactly. Please read it and tell me what is so hard to understand about what I said.

Quote:

People have been trying to get Thomas off of the Supreme Court since before he even got on.

Lets get Clarence Thomas off the bench (and then some)!

Quote:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Falsified 20 Years Of Financial Disclosure Forms Help Us Hold Him Accountable–Sign Our Letters To Congress And The Department Of Justice

Source: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02...and-then-some/

If successful, this would allow Obama to appoint the replacement, thus flipping the court. Thats what this is about.

That's not the post in question.

This one is:

None of this is about the law, or justice, or conflict of interest. As stated before, all this is about is trying to destroy Thomas and get him off of the court, thus allowing Obama to appoint his replacement and flip the court. All the high-minded rhetoric is just a smoke screen.

Now while undoubtedly some are doing just that, but by saying "none of this" you are saying that no objection to Thomas' conflict of interest is honest.