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.
Should a judge be able to decide whether it is lawful for her to have her own job? Yes, or no? Should a judge be able to preside over her own murder charges? Yes, or no?
Once again you are arguing from authority: the judges say it so it must be right.
I’m saying that if Roberts or other judges have no problem with a judge presiding over her own murder charges it would be an absolute indication that either Roberts is brain-dead or somehow compromised. And a judge refusing to recuse herself when the Constitutionality of her own position is at stake is as close to that level of ethics breach as we’re ever gonna get. If Roberts is OK with that, it should tell the whole world that Roberts is severely compromised.
And now we know who Scalia’s implied hold-out is.
The bigger question for us all at this point should be: what are Obama’s handlers holding over John Roberts, and what communications did they make to hold it over him?
And this IS a matter of national security, because if Roberts is compromised, Obama’s handlers themselves will determine EVERY DECISION that SCOTUS makes. They will have effectively taken over the entire judiciary, just as they effectively took over the whole media through their threats - which had to have been something other than FCC harassment, since the media heads reporting the threats would result in Obama not having control over the FCC which would make the threats vain.
We’ve seen the rule of law totally destroyed, and people are wondering how it could happen. I think the answer is right in front of our faces if we only have the honesty to stare it in the eyeballs.
Barack Obama was born of Marxists; mentored by a communist writer and activist during his formative years; spent his college days hanging around Marxist professors and activists; worked as a radical community organizer, using the radical tactics of the communist, Alinsky; attended a radical church; was introduced to Chicago politics by a communist in the home of two communists; and now lends his political skill to the international goals of radical activists. He had radicals on his campaign, and has them in his administration. The simple fact is, since the age of 12, the people closest to Obama have been active, radical Marxists, and dues-paying members of the Communist Party USA.
http://theobamafile.com/index_next_personal.html
Watch this video, does he understand the meaning of Christmas better than he does the meaning of Ramadan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g850SfA2f4w