The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@parados,

It's a sad cur who can't accept a compliment.

I've not argued that simply because Walker was gay, and in a same sex relationship that he intended to be married to his partner. My argument has been based on what is apparently an erroneous belief that Walker did actually reveal an intent to marry his partner.

You were the first person to offer evidence that my belief was erroneous. All the other arguments were based on silly anologies posited by people who seemingly shared my erroneous belief.

For the record Parados, I don't believe you are a judge or even possessed of the wisdom of the worst of that group. The question I asked you was not an attempt to argue that Walker should have recused himself. That you think it was is simply further evidence of how tenuous is your grasp of rationality.

Let me repeat myself, and remind you that you are not a judge ruling on this matter. You can have all sorts of opinions on this subject.

If you insist that an opinion of "Parados" on A2K can be prejudicial in a legal matter, let me rephrase my question:

If a gay judge did intend to marry his same sex partner, should he have recused himself from a case which might decide whether or not such a marriage was legal.

If you would like to call this judge Smith or Jones, please do.

It's a simple question, and there's nothing tricky about it.

Answer it or don't, I truly couldn't care less whether or not you do.

Considering your utter contempt for any and all conservative opinions, it is quite rich that you might fault me for believing that liberals are arguing a position for which they have no evidence.

If a conservative judge can render an unsupported ruling, surely a liberal judge can as well. Unlike you, I don't assume liberal judges ( or even conservative ones) are infallible.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

If the belief that the gay judge intended to get married is presumed, then you are right, but the argument was made, erroneously it turns out, that this intent was expressed by the judge.

I accepted a reference in this thread that Walker had explicitly expressed a prior intent to marry his gay lover to be true. My bad I suppose.

The point is that if this was the case ( that Walker acknowledged that he had prior intent to marry his lover), then Walker should have recused himself. It wasn't until Parados entered the fray that anyone disagreeing with me suggested that my understanding of what Walker did or did not admit was erroneous.

If I am really the ideological bull you and Parados consider me, why would I not have simply continued to argue Walker should have recused himself? Once educated on the actual facts, I acknowledged that my opinion was wrong. Perhaps you and Parados would like me to cut off the fingers that typed the erroneous opinion, but I respectfully decline to do so.

It was a simple thing to challenge that Walker actually admitted to his intent to marry his lover (After all, if Parados was able to do it, how difficult could it be?)' and yet until Parados did so, no one was arguing the point, they were simply making silly anologies.

Let me educate you: I do not have moral concerns about homosexuality or homosexual marriages. I never expressed disagreement with Walker's ruling. I argued that he should have recused himself.

This is the central point of this discussion. The people who agreed with his decision insisted (until Parados) on asserting he need not have recused himself even if he had acknowledged his intent to marry his lover. Interestingly enough, now Parados refuses to answer my question about his opinion on recusal if Walker had made such a clear acknowledgment. What that tells me is that because he agreed with Walker's decision, he would never be prepared to argue that anything might render it null.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

The cows already dead. Quit beating it.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Good Lord can you people actually argue against what I have stated rather than making something up that makes your argument easier?

I never argued that Walker ruled in favor of gays simply because he is gay.

Never.

I argued that if he stood to personally benefit from his ruling (as demonstrated by an expressed prior intent to marry his gay lover), then he should have recused himself.

I didn't assume that he desired/intended to marry his long time partner (despite the fact that this is a pretty logical assumption, I believed that he had explicitly expressed such a desire/intention. It certainly appears that my belief was wrong. If it was, that my opinion that he should have recused himself was also wrong.

Personally, I think he did allow his personal interests to influence his decision, but my personal belief has no bearing on the matter of recusal, anymore that yours does on matters impacting Justice Thomas. If there is no evidence that he had prior intent to marry his partner, then assumptions, logical or otherwise, are immaterial.

Is this really so difficult to understand?

As for Thomas, I notice that you have adopted the language usage of the obviously anti-Thomas author of the article you linked: "It was an expensive bust."

I consider any piece of sculpture that costs $15,000 to be "expensive," but that is immaterial.

The question is whether or not it is likely (even remotely so) that AEI could buy a Thomas ruling with a $15,000 bust of Lincoln.

I've already opined that Thomas should not have accepted the bust.

Other than the fact that investigations cost us a lot of money, I don't have a problem with the idea of investigating the AEI gift. I think it would be a waste of money though, because I don't believe, for one moment, that any unbiased investigation would determine that bribery was involved.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You'd like that wouldn't you?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I didn't follow all this stuff about Walker that closely and missed the part where you thought (mistakenly) that Walker stated he had intentions of marrying his partner. I also missed where you admitted you were wrong.

As far as Thomas Clarence goes, I never said the bust was a bribe. What I said was it showed a conflict of interest on Clarence's part concerning the AEI matter because obviously they had a favorable prior relationship or else he would not have received a gift from them.

Quote:

Then, this week, the New York Times broke the story of Thomas' close friendship and mutual back-scratching with a politically active real estate magnate Harlan Crow. Crow, the Times reported, "has done many favors for the justice and his wife, Virginia, helping finance a Savannah library project dedicated to Justice Thomas, presenting him with a Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass [valued at over $19,000] and reportedly providing $500,000 for Ms. Thomas to start a Tea Party-related group." He also, the Times discovered, has been trying to hide his role as the main benefactor behind a multi-million dollar museum in Georgia that is a pet project of the Justice. In addition, the Times story raised concerns about whether some of Justice Thomas's travel was underwritten by Mr. Crow and whether such support was accurately disclosed in the Justice's notoriously inaccurate financial disclosures.

Crow isn't just a friend of Thomas who happens to be rich. He's active in political causes, and has "served on the boards of two conservative organizations involved in filing supporting briefs in cases before the Supreme Court" including one, the American Enterprise Institute, that gave Justice Thomas a $15,000 bust of Lincoln.

source

Quote:

The New York Times provided a great journalistic service in its detailed report of the friendship between Justice Clarence Thomas and Texas real estate magnate and conservative-cause funder Harlan Crow. Particularly the discussion of Crow's funding of the conservative cause of Thomas's wife, Ginny, to the tune of $500,000.

Think Progress has done great follow up, particularly with Ian Millhiser's story on the American Enterprise Institute and its perfect record in litigation before Thomas. Crow was on the board of the AEI when it gave Thomas a $15,000 gift, and in at least three cases in which the AEI filed briefs in Supreme Court cases, Thomas ruled with the AEI.

Turns out it's not just AEI, and Millhiser is once again on the case. Turns out Crow has also served on the board of the Center for Community Interest, another right-wing outfit.

Westlaw’s database of Supreme Court briefs reveals eight briefs filed by CCI in eight different Supreme Court cases, and Justice Thomas voted for CCI’s preferred outcome in every single one of these cases:

City of Chicago v. Morales: The lower court struck down a law “making it illegal for members of criminal gangs to loiter and fail to obey an order to disperse.” CCI asked the Court to reverse that decision, and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent saying that he would reverse.
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott: The lower court struck down a parole board’s warrantless search of a parolee’s residence. CCI asked the Court to reverse that decision, and Justice Thomas wrote the 5-4 decision reversing.
Dickerson v. U.S.: The lower court upheld a statute cutting at the core of accused defendant’s Miranda rights. CCI asked the Court to affirm this decision. Justice Thomas joined a dissent which would have affirmed.
U.S. v. Knights: The lower court struck down the warrantless search of a probationer’s residence. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing.
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker: The lower court ruled in favor of public housing tenants who were evicted because their resident family members or caregivers violated drug laws. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing.
Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe: The lower court struck down a law requiring public disclosure of registered sex offenders. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a decision reversing.
U.S. v. American Library Ass’n, Inc.: The lower court struck down a federal law requiring many public libraries to use filtering software that prevents web browsers from showing some pornographic material. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined a plurality opinion reversing.
Devenpeck v. Alford: The lower court held an arrest unconstitutional. CCI asked the Court to reverse. Justice Thomas joined an opinion reversing.

As Millhiser says, "there is no direct evidence that Crow lavished gifts on Thomas in order to switch his vote in any of these cases." Nonetheless, Thomas's failure to recuse himself from the cases in which Crow had an interest, in light of the men's friendship and the gifts and contributions, calls Thomas's integrity into question. It calls the integrity of the SCOTUS into question in turn. It's not just Thomas who's pushed ethical boundaries. One of the primary problems for the institution in these cases is that the Judicial Conference Code of Conduct that all other federal judges must abide by doesn't apply to Supreme Court Justices.

source

The sources and articles are clearly biased and liberal, however all the facts have links and can be verified.

1 Reply

The Democrat Party is parallax

Quote:

I think it’s commendable for the Hollywood film industry to give us this wonderful object lesson as the election season heats up. Just remember --- Barack Obama is Parallax.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

If a gay judge did intend to marry his same sex partner, should he have recused himself from a case which might decide whether or not such a marriage was legal.

As a hypothetical it makes as much sense as asking whether a judge that intends to commit murder should recuse himself for a trial of a murderer.
The answer is always the same. Unless you have evidence that shows that any intention on their part biases their decision there is no validity to asking they recuse themselves.

Quote:

If a conservative judge can render an unsupported ruling, surely a liberal judge can as well. Unlike you, I don't assume liberal judges ( or even conservative ones) are infallible.

I have never said that liberal judges are infallible. I have never said that conservative judges are always fallible. Judges are people. People are fallible no matter what their political leaning.

Quote:

Considering your utter contempt for any and all conservative opinions,

I don't have contempt for all conservative opinions. I have contempt for opinions where people can't make a reasonable, logical case for why they have that opinion whether they be liberal or conservative. In this case the ruling is out there. Arguing about the decision without knowing what was in the decision is hardly reasonable or logical. I have the same contempt for those on the left that argue that Bush brought down the towers or any of a number of other uninformed opinions.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Yet another piece of insightful commentary. Thanks so much for not wasting any brain cells on selection for relevancy cockhead.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I know you don't give a shite for anyone's opinions on this issue; you are either confused or don't understand about human bias. You claim not to be a bigot, but your posts says otherwise.

All humans have bias; they should all recuse themselves according to your logic.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Hey dickhead, did you have something you wanted to say?

Please tell us why you think PrezBO deserves 4 more years.
Don't forget to use the words 'racist' & 'nazi', and make sure you apply fear tactics liberally.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The question is whether or not it is likely (even remotely so) that AEI could buy a Thomas ruling with a $15,000 bust of Lincoln.

You don't have to buy someone who agrees to do your bidding for free.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The question is whether or not it is likely (even remotely so) that AEI could buy a Thomas ruling with a $15,000 bust of Lincoln.

You don't have to buy someone who agrees to do your bidding for free.

Cycloptichorn

Has anyone explained this to Obama?

0 Replies

The Des Moines Register is scheduled to release its first poll of how Repubs are leaning tonight at 10 pm ET. The poll was taken earlier in the week and the paper has managed to keep the results secret.
I have Romney at #1 followed by Bachmann at #2 and Pawlenty in 3rd.
It is still 2 months away for the GOP's straw poll and the Iowa caucus in the 1st Qtr of 2012.
Romney has indicated that he will not campaign actively in Iowa, concentrating instead on the primary in New Hampshire. He may have to change his strategy if he is shown to be strong in Iowa tonight.
Bachmann, who was raised in Iowa, got a bounce with her performance in the recent debate, will officially announce her candidacy on Monday. A good showing tonight could help her down
the road.
For Pawlenty, he probably has to win the caucus to remain viable. A less than 3rd place finish tonight probably wouldn't be fatal - attributable to lack of name recognition early in the campaign.
The Ames (IA) straw poll in August is a legalized shake-down organized by the state GOP. The party auctions off where on the "ballot" candidates' names will be listed (for as high, reportedly, as $30K). Busloads of supporters come into town to hoot and holler.
Everyone in the race hates the concept but few dare opt out of the midsummer ritual. It could be different this year.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

What happened to Palin's 2d place?

1 Reply

The Register's poll showed Romney and Bachmann finishing in a virtual tie (23% and 22%). Cain was 3rd at 10%. The others were in single digits. I don't know, Tak, why Palin was not one of the choices.
I don't think the top 2 were any surprise; Romney doesn't intend to campaign in heavily conservative Iowa while for Bachmann the state is her backyard in terms of geography and ideology.
There are a couple of interesting sidebars. While Romney was the 2nd choice of 10%, Bachmann was the 2nd choice amongst 18%.
In my mind the most significant thing is that Bachmann is viewed unfavorably by just 12% of the Iowa likely voting Republicans. Cain is at 17%. By contrast, Gingrich is viewed unfavorably by 43%. It has to be of concern to Romney comes in at 38%. That is more than double what he comes in at nationally.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I'm not sure why Gingrich is wasting everybody's time with his hat still in the ring. Politics creates strange bed-fellows.

Palin's quick disappearance from the polls is somewhat surprising - from #2 down to zero.

0 Replies

There were a couple articles in today's Chicago Tribune about Rick Perry's involvement as Governor of Texas in two different capital murder cases/execution(s).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-perry-execution-20110625,0,4971679.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-perry-execution-3-20110625,0,7883869.story

I'll let you read them if you're interested, but there's no way (imo) that these cases don't become big news should he get in the race for President.

The bottom line is "In Willingham [first case/article resulting in an execution], it was bad science that convicted him. In this case, [second article, execution date pending] it's all the scientists on board saying it's impossible (that he did it)," Rytting said.

1 Reply

@JPB,

I know Rick Perry like the dog poo on the bottom of my shoe.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Look, there is a difference between having a personal interest in the ruling and having a relationship with one of the defendants.

Investigating the acceptance of the bust only makes sense if the investigation has to do with bribery.

The gift didn't create a personal interest in the rulings for Thomas, unless you believe he was afraid that if he ruled against AEI, they would take the bust back.

You, like Parados are mixing up concepts.

It's not a question of bias, it's a question of benefit.

We all have certain biases and while we expect judges to control theirs, it's ridiculous to think they absolutely can.

A judge with one leg has a better understanding of the trials of the disabled and, logically, has an associated bias, but he need not, as a result, recuse himself from every case involving disability.

If he were suing his landlord for failing to accommodate his disability and the case before him might impact that suit, he would have to recuse himself.

Similarly if he hold a million dollars of Microsoft stock and is ruling on a case, the result of which, will severly lower or increase the value of that stock, he should recuse himself.

Again, if he owns no Microsoft stock but does invest in stock and might one day buy Microsoft stock, he need not recuse himself.

A gay judge who may one day seek to marry his partner need not recuse himself from a ruling on gay marriage. A gay judge who has every intention and desire to do so must recuse himself.

If you can detach yourself from your belief that Walker's ruling was correct, you might be able to see the issue more clearly.

Whether or not Walker should have recused himself has an impact on his ruling, but it doesn't say anything about the validity of the legal principles he invoked in his ruling.

Put yourself in the shoes of those who oppossed his ruling. Perhaps you cannot grant them the same degree of intellectual sincerity you grant yourself and the proponents of gay marriage, but for the purposes of this discussion, please try.

They believe the law is as clear on this issue as do you CI, Cyclo, and Parados. This doesn't mean that their position should win the day, but it should get a fair hearing.

If we assume Walker should have but did not recuse himself, the remedy isn't for his ruling to be overturned and all other avenues of appeal shut down forever.

It would mean a rehearing which, obviously, could have the same result...or not.

Y'all are so adamant in what you believe to be the unassailable legal foundation for gay marriages. Is a gay jurist the only one who can see what you see?

Not a reason for the opponents to get a second shot, but your reaction to this challenge seems akin to the football team that runs off the field so that a controversial call can't be reviewed.

3 Replies

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know