• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

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

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by DaisyDay, Feb 12, 2011.

  1. kermit

    kermit Legend

    +777
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Maybe, but the fact is that's he's not impartial.
     
  2. Notamonkey

    Notamonkey Member

    +51
    Nazarene
    Married
    US-Republican
    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!:p
     
  3. jamesrwright3

    jamesrwright3 Guest

    +0
    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?
     
  4. kermit

    kermit Legend

    +777
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Having finacial interest is more than merely having an opinion.

    How he would rule is beside the point.
     
  5. jamesrwright3

    jamesrwright3 Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  6. Notamonkey

    Notamonkey Member

    +51
    Nazarene
    Married
    US-Republican
    If he was liberal all, we would hear is crickets churping. The left is getting desperate.
     
  7. kermit

    kermit Legend

    +777
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    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?
     
  8. Spirko

    Spirko Guest

    +0
    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.)
     
  9. lux et lex

    lux et lex light and law

    +159
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  10. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +10,008
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    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?
     
  11. Spirko

    Spirko Guest

    +0
    Yes, I still say no.

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

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +10,008
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    Why do you think Sotomayer should follow the law but not Thomas?
     
  13. Spirko

    Spirko Guest

    +0
    I think they should both follow the law. I don't recall saying that Thomas shouldn't follow the law.
     
  14. Gawron

    Gawron Well-Known Member

    +341
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  15. kermit

    kermit Legend

    +777
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  16. Gawron

    Gawron Well-Known Member

    +341
    Christian
    Married
    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...
     
  17. kermit

    kermit Legend

    +777
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    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?
     
  18. Gawron

    Gawron Well-Known Member

    +341
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  19. kermit

    kermit Legend

    +777
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    That's not the post in question.

    This one is:
    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.
     
Loading...