5 ms·

Did you not read the article? Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have “an interest that could

Did you not read the article? Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” How can you argue this isn't applicable?

mypalmike 5y ago
They clearly did not read the article. None of the top level posters defending Thomas did. There's really no point in engaging with such bad faith "arguments".
tablespoon 5y ago
>> Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” > How can you argue this isn't applicable? It really hinges on how exactly "interest" is defined, and if it's so broad to cover a desire to see/advocacy for certain political outcomes. Should a liberal judge recuse themselves from all abortion cases because their spouse made a donation to Planned Parenthood or wrote letters to their representatives advocating against some anti-abortion law that may come before the court?
- markoman 5y ago
  How does making donations to a charitable activity constitute an interest? On the other hand, Mrs. Thomas was coordinating with POTUS's Chief of Staff Meadows in illegal activity (a coup attempt) that her husband may likely have to decide on later. Further, her activity has the appearance that she was funneling legal advice (or legal coordination) from her husband and to Meadows. These acts (of hers) call for her husband's recusal at a minimum, but SCOTUS justices conveniently aren't ethically accountable to anyone and so it is enforceable only by impeachment. However, impeachment of a judge won't require a 2/3's majority.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > How does making donations to a charitable activity constitute an interest? Planned Parenthood isn't just a charity, it's also a political organization advocating for certain controversial policies. Donating to it signals an interest in seeing its political goals achieved. My original draft had NARAL instead of Planned Parenthood, but I thought the latter would be more recognizable and make the point clearer.
duxup 5y ago
I read the article. Everyone probably has someone who is interested in the presidential election.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Clarence's potential interest here could be in preventing Ginni's communications from being public. It's not about politics and it's not about the election in its ordinary course, is it? It's about the specific interactions between her communications urging the overthrow of the election based on at the very least a bonkers premise, and his decision to vote against WH communications being turned over. It's a reasonably narrow conflict of interest to infer.

mypalmike 5y ago

They clearly did not read the article. None of the top level posters defending Thomas did. There's really no point in engaging with such bad faith "arguments".

tablespoon 5y ago

>> Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” > How can you argue this isn't applicable? It really hinges on how exactly "interest" is defined, and if it's so broad to cover a desire to see/advocacy for certain political outcomes. Should a liberal judge recuse themselves from all abortion cases because their spouse made a donation to Planned Parenthood or wrote letters to their representatives advocating against some anti-abortion law that may come before the court?

markoman 5y ago
How does making donations to a charitable activity constitute an interest? On the other hand, Mrs. Thomas was coordinating with POTUS's Chief of Staff Meadows in illegal activity (a coup attempt) that her husband may likely have to decide on later. Further, her activity has the appearance that she was funneling legal advice (or legal coordination) from her husband and to Meadows. These acts (of hers) call for her husband's recusal at a minimum, but SCOTUS justices conveniently aren't ethically accountable to anyone and so it is enforceable only by impeachment. However, impeachment of a judge won't require a 2/3's majority.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > How does making donations to a charitable activity constitute an interest? Planned Parenthood isn't just a charity, it's also a political organization advocating for certain controversial policies. Donating to it signals an interest in seeing its political goals achieved. My original draft had NARAL instead of Planned Parenthood, but I thought the latter would be more recognizable and make the point clearer.

duxup 5y ago

I read the article. Everyone probably has someone who is interested in the presidential election.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
Clarence's potential interest here could be in preventing Ginni's communications from being public. It's not about politics and it's not about the election in its ordinary course, is it? It's about the specific interactions between her communications urging the overthrow of the election based on at the very least a bonkers premise, and his decision to vote against WH communications being turned over. It's a reasonably narrow conflict of interest to infer.