Contentless post. A question is “crank nonsense”.
Sotomayor and Kagan violated judicial ethics when they refused to recuse themselves from a case in which their own positions and salaries were at issue. That’s a huge ethics breach that should result in them being disbarred, if it was any other court. This isn’t piddles.
And you won’t even venture a guess as to why they committed those ethics breaches when there was supposedly no danger whatsoever that the case would be heard even without them acting as foxes guarding the henhouse. I guess they just violate ethics for the fun of it, huh? If so, that makes them just as criminal as if they violated ethics to cover their own huge posteriors - since they KNOW Obama is not eligible.
Unfortunately for them, their refusal to recuse themselves is one fig leaf that only shows their posteriors are too big to be covered. The whole rest is sticking out in full view. The emperor and his communist judges are even worse than naked - they have one fig leaf, proving that even they know they are naked.
Sotomayor and Kagan violated judicial ethics when they refused to recuse themselves from a case in which their own positions and salaries were at issue. That’s a huge ethics breach that should result in them being disbarred, if it was any other court."It resulted in so such thing when it was another court. In the course of the appeal of Purpura v Sebelius to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the plaintiffs moved for the recusal of Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, on the same grounds. After Judge Greenaway denied the motion, the plaintiffs moved for an En Bank Court to recall and vacate the denial. They got a response from the Court sitting En Bank: denied again. No dissent.
Chief Justice of United States John G. Roberts recently wrote about recusal and his associate justices' ethics. As reported in the Wall Street Journal:
"I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted," the chief justice wrote. "They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process."John G. Roberts was not an Obama nominee. Far from it.
butterdezillion wrote:
And you won’t even venture a guess as to why they committed those ethics breaches when there was supposedly no danger whatsoever that the case would be heard even without them acting as foxes guarding the henhouse.I told you: because it's crank nonsense. If you want me to "venture a guess", I'd say that the birther petitions don't get past the first level of filtering by the law clerks, so the justices never discuss them. The conference materials are closed so we can't know for sure. The Chief Justice would know, and he says his associate justices "are jurists of exceptional integrity" worthy of his trust to determine when recusal is warranted.
butterdezillion wrote:
Unfortunately for them, their refusal to recuse themselves is one fig leaf that only shows their posteriors are too big to be covered.No, butterdezillion, your smears are of no significance to the justices. You've defamed and lied about judges and other government officers over and over and over. It's what you do. You're underlying theory is crank nonsense, so it always loses, and when it does you espouse yet more crank nonsense to fold more honorable public servants into the evil conspiracy in your head.