Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Hang on, Gary!
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will pony up a sawbuck
For each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/17/2011 12:29:05 PM PST by justsaynomore
Wow. Obviously I wasn’t aware of the details of the statute. You’re right. It’s both or neither. Then we’re back to square one, with one man (Kennedy) deciding the outcome.
Then we must win the presidency and the senate. Our way of life should not be dependent on the whims of one man.
BREAKING NEWS: Perry says “Me too, and I will get my team to formulate a response that I can read later.”
Mrs. Clarence Thomas is not Clarence Thomas.
A wife does not have to have the same opinion as his wife. He has never said his opinion on this issue. He does not have to recuse.
She is knee-deep in it though- she has to.
There is going to be WAY MORE call from the left for Thomas to recuse than they will be before Kagan
” I am not sure how she is establishing some sort of new precedence. “ <<<’
I believe it is because she is a lawyer, and I think her guest was also. Together they seemed infomed on the standard for conflict of interest. Me? Haven’t a clue. Just surprised Cain seemed unaware of the Thomas’ question.
This is why I won’t be surprised if Cain goes silent as both sides will want this issue to go away. Mutual destruction is not a gain.
” There is going to be WAY MORE call from the left for Thomas to recuse than they will be before Kagan. “ <<<
You make my point. Cain as a candidate may have opened up a can of worms, by his lack of awareness on the Thomas question. Either it will get very noisy now, or Cain will go silent on this, fast. Both sides will want this to go away.
I agree, RitaOK could be from the DUmmies.
Check out the link for yourself at poster, #59.
Thomas and Kagan are at issue. Cain has stoked the conversation, seemingly unaware that Thomas is at just as much risk. He will be seen going silent fast. As will any other candidate jumping on this band wagon against Kagan.
You too missed the link at “#59?
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
All I see is that Thomas should recuse himself if and when she is called as a “material” witness (iv).
(iii)? What is her “substantially affected interest” (AKA-harm/gain standing)?
I wouldn’t go that far given time-in-service on FR but RitaOK is certainly pushing the emotional side as opposed to facts.
Mrs. Thomas is the head of Liberty Consulting, an organization that has been lobbying against Obamacare. If the court strikes is down then her organization could benefit from it.
You’re the one who needs a clue!
The situation with the Thomas’s is the norm in the Capitol. If everyone in government recused themselves because of what their spouses do for living, no one in Washington could ever vote.
Ok, Herman how about a bounty on illegals?
One vote here!
In what way would Mrs. Thomas benefit? On a “regressive” extension, if ObamaCare is struck down, in what way would the Mrs. Thomas directly benefit?...credibility does not carry a monetary benefit unless proven post facto. Keep in mind, too, that she is not the organization, in principal. She is essentially a worker drone.
If my comments regarding EPA legislation benefits my employer, am I directly responsible for the benefit to my comapny that employs me to interpret and comment? Not until I am called as a “material witness”.
Same for Mrs. Thomas. If she receives a direct bonus/pay raise for her work in getting ObamaCare struck down, then yes she benfits. If she receives an annual bonus from the organization according to her merit in moving the group forward, is that really directly tied to the SCOTUS decision?
Oooops. My mistake. She, in fact, IS a principal in the organization.
I wait for more elucidation.
I have no doubt that Justice Thomas, if he is in any way connected with the case, will recuse himself. Kagan would would not necessarily do so. Good for Mr. Cain. He is our great dragon fighter! God be with him.
Is there any evidence that Justice Thomas is swayed by his wifes political activity?
Thanks, but sorry, I can’t stand Gingriches ten minute answers to simple qwuestions. my time is much to precious ot me. Just say no to Newt!
let me repeat, Mrs. Thomas heads an organization that lobbies against Obamacare. The Supreme Court striking down the legislation would be a major victory for her group and would enhance its influence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.