Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Viritica]

Because SCOTUS didn't decide what the butthurt Dems wanted them to decide, obviously.

you need to stop with the politics and think about whether or not it is a good idea to pass this bill. ethics cuts all ways.

Answer his question. Why does a conflict of interest not apply to SCOTUS? And on what grounds would these two justices be impeached?

[Gauthier]

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/03/ ... calia.html

The smell of butthurt Democrats is in the air.

And this law insures that if the Supreme Court ever tips the other way you and the rest of the Republican Party don't have to whine about "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" every 24 hours.

[Viritica]

you need to stop with the politics and think about whether or not it is a good idea to pass this bill. ethics cuts all ways.

But Democrats did it, so it's <insert strawman here>.

No. It's Democrats being butthurt over SCOTUS not deciding what they wanted them to decide.

[Greed and Death]

That is why I suspect she is not even running, she pretty much exited politics, when she left the Sec of State position.

it makes no sense to normal people like us. she is a top level politician and I don't think she can resist the challenge. unless something bad happens to her she is going to run

My experience has been more along the lines of the last thing you want to say in a job interview is I have spent the last 6 months looking for a job. It is why Lawyers always have volunteer gigs, that way if they get laid off 6 months later when they interview they have more to talk about then sitting at home emailing resumes out.

Elections are almost like like extended interviews, and having recent meaningful accomplishments are important. What has Hillary done since she left the Sec. of State ? From what I can tell she has consulted for Goldman Sachs and a few other top end Wall Street firms. That should be a big target for any up and commer in the Democratic primary.

[Death Metal]

But Democrats did it, so it's <insert strawman here>.

No. It's Democrats being butthurt over SCOTUS not deciding what they wanted them to decide.

In other words

But Democrats did it, so it's <insert strawman here>.

[Ashmoria]

you need to stop with the politics and think about whether or not it is a good idea to pass this bill. ethics cuts all ways.

Answer his question. Why does a conflict of interest not apply to SCOTUS? And on what grounds would these two justices be impeached?

oh I don't think they would be impeached. if the bill is passed and stands up in court (I have no idea about that) then, for example, justice Thomas' wife would have to quite her job as a tea party leader--she may have already done that. either she would do that or, what *I* would do, they get a divorce and continue to live as man and wife sticking it in the eye of the opposition.

[Viritica]

The smell of butthurt Democrats is in the air.

And this law insures that if the Supreme Court ever tips the other way you and the rest of the Republican Party don't have to whine about "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" every 24 hours.

Cause SCOTUS can't have a conflict of interest.

Cuz butthurt Democrats.

[Viritica]

No. It's Democrats being butthurt over SCOTUS not deciding what they wanted them to decide.

In other words

But Democrats did it, so it's <insert strawman here>.

No. Because it's a retarded bill because apparently SCOTUS can't have a conflict of interest.

[Viritica]

Answer his question. Why does a conflict of interest not apply to SCOTUS? And on what grounds would these two justices be impeached?

oh I don't think they would be impeached. if the bill is passed and stands up in court (I have no idea about that) then, for example, justice Thomas' wife would have to quite her job as a tea party leader--she may have already done that. either she would do that or, what *I* would do, they get a divorce and continue to live as man and wife sticking it in the eye of the opposition.

So, basically they just have to pretend like they don't have political views of their own?

[Gauthier]

And this law insures that if the Supreme Court ever tips the other way you and the rest of the Republican Party don't have to whine about "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" every 24 hours.

Cause SCOTUS can't have a conflict of interest.

Cuz butthurt Democrats.

I didn't hear you bitching when Kagan recused herself because conflict of interest.

How selective.

[Viritica]

Cause SCOTUS can't have a conflict of interest.

Cuz butthurt Democrats.

I didn't hear you bitching when Kagan recused herself because conflict of interest.

How selective.

It's her decision. If she wants to personally hold herself to that standard then so be it.

[Death Metal]

And this law insures that if the Supreme Court ever tips the other way you and the rest of the Republican Party don't have to whine about "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" every 24 hours.

Cause SCOTUS can't have a conflict of interest.

Cuz butthurt Democrats.

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! THE MEAN OLD DEMOCRATS WANT TRANSPARENCY! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"- All of your arguments against this.

[Greed and Death]

Answer his question. Why does a conflict of interest not apply to SCOTUS? And on what grounds would these two justices be impeached?

oh I don't think they would be impeached. if the bill is passed and stands up in court (I have no idea about that) then, for example, justice Thomas' wife would have to quite her job as a tea party leader--she may have already done that. either she would do that or, what *I* would do, they get a divorce and continue to live as man and wife sticking it in the eye of the opposition.

And that brings me to the point. What is the point of the bill if you are just going to have to impeach them anyways? Justices hold their offices during good behavior, if it comes down to impeachment of a justice it should be easy for congress to find "bad behavior".

[Viritica]

Cause SCOTUS can't have a conflict of interest.

Cuz butthurt Democrats.

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! THE MEAN OLD DEMOCRATS WANT TRANSPARENCY! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"- All of your arguments against this.

"WAAAAHHHHHHH! THE MEAN OLD JUSTICES DIDN'T DECIDE WHAT WE WANTED THEM TO DECIDE! WAAAHHHHH!" - All of your arguments for this

[SFfQ5DeY7v]

otw5ZAvrfmLcmql
CQtbpeOJjrpAldyE02g7
VbFBZjgOEe9rngy760uf
QNs0zBuIb21HkcCVPycd
5latfq65mz5cuaNB6z52
Orfrs8JZaIJR6. uIb21HkcCVPycd
5latfq65mz5cuaNB6z52
Orfrs8JZaIJR6s2VfGvY
uzc5sbNwYIr1J4gXFphB
1piKOjlNWtCS?

OJjrpAldyE02g7
VbFBZjgOEe9rngy760uf
QNs0zBuIb21HkcCVPycd
5latfq65mz5cuaNB6z52
Orfrs8JZaIJ. OJckZotw5ZAvrfmLcmql
CQtbpeOJjrpAldyE02g7
VbFBZjgOEe9rngy760uf
QNs0zBuIb21HkcCVPycd
5latfq65mz5cuaNB6z52tA"io

[Death Metal]

oh I don't think they would be impeached. if the bill is passed and stands up in court (I have no idea about that) then, for example, justice Thomas' wife would have to quite her job as a tea party leader--she may have already done that. either she would do that or, what *I* would do, they get a divorce and continue to live as man and wife sticking it in the eye of the opposition.

And that brings me to the point. What is the point of the bill if you are just going to have to impeach them anyways? Justices hold their offices during good behavior, if it comes down to impeachment of a justice it should be easy for congress to find "bad behavior".

Except, you know, they wouldn't be able to impeach them. Ex post facto.

[Death Metal]

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! THE MEAN OLD DEMOCRATS WANT TRANSPARENCY! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"- All of your arguments against this.

"WAAAAHHHHHHH! THE MEAN OLD JUSTICES DIDN'T DECIDE WHAT WE WANTED THEM TO DECIDE! WAAAHHHHH!" "Viritica are you going to actually argue or keep whining about how unfair it is and make straw arguments"- All of your arguments for this

Fixed for reality.

Hobby Lobby decision has absolutely nothing to do with this, nor would it be grounds for an overturning of the decision because again, ex post facto.

[Gauthier]

"WAAAAHHHHHHH! THE MEAN OLD JUSTICES DIDN'T DECIDE WHAT WE WANTED THEM TO DECIDE! WAAAHHHHH!" "Viritica are you going to actually argue or keep whining about how unfair it is and make straw arguments"- All of your arguments for this

Fixed for reality.

Hobby Lobby decision has absolutely nothing to do with this, nor would it be grounds for an overturning of the decision because again, ex post facto.

Let's pretend Clarence Thomas's lobbyist wife didn't publically wave around that she had influence over overturning Obamacare.

[Greed and Death]

And that brings me to the point. What is the point of the bill if you are just going to have to impeach them anyways? Justices hold their offices during good behavior, if it comes down to impeachment of a justice it should be easy for congress to find "bad behavior".

Except, you know, they wouldn't be able to impeach them. Ex post facto.

Unlike the President who must be convicted of a felony or high misdemeanor to be removed from office, justices can be convicted of bad behavior and be removed from office.

Such impeachments have included drunkenness, political bias, incorrect rulings, and other similarly mundane things. If your side has the guts to impeach a justice it would have been done in 2009.

[Death Metal]

Let's pretend Clarence Thomas's lobbyist wife didn't publically wave around that she had influence over overturning Obamacare.

And because it was, at the time, legit, that's not grounds for overturning the decision.

What this bill does do it make it grounds for impeachment and overturning for future cases. Which is not only reasonable, but long overdue.

[Gauthier]

Such impeachments have included drunkenness, political bias, incorrect rulings, and other similarly mundane things. If your side has the guts to impeach a justice it would have been done in 2009.

And if they did it your side would be bitching about "Judicial Activism" and "Court Packing" amongst other things.

[Viritica]

"WAAAAHHHHHHH! THE MEAN OLD JUSTICES DIDN'T DECIDE WHAT WE WANTED THEM TO DECIDE! WAAAHHHHH!" "Viritica are you going to actually argue or keep whining about how unfair it is and make straw arguments"- All of your arguments for this

Fixed for reality.

Hobby Lobby decision has absolutely nothing to do with this, nor would it be grounds for an overturning of the decision because again, ex post facto.

I'm not strawmanning anything. The Dems are butthurt and somehow figure that SCOTUS isn't allowed to have a conflict of interest.

[Gauthier]

Let's pretend Clarence Thomas's lobbyist wife didn't publically wave around that she had influence over overturning Obamacare.

And because it was, at the time, legit, that's not grounds for overturning the decision.

What this bill does do it make it grounds for impeachment and overturning for future cases. Which is not only reasonable, but long overdue.

Of course. But so far people are whining like there's completely no reason for the law in the first place. I just mentioned one particular incident that came to mind.

[Death Metal]

Except, you know, they wouldn't be able to impeach them. Ex post facto.

Unlike the President who must be convicted of a felony or high misdemeanor to be removed from office, justices can be convicted of bad behavior and be removed from office.

Such impeachments have included drunkenness, political bias, incorrect rulings, and other similarly mundane things.

Yes, but those rules were already in place before the offenses were made.

Huge difference.

[Greed and Death]

Unlike the President who must be convicted of a felony or high misdemeanor to be removed from office, justices can be convicted of bad behavior and be removed from office.

Such impeachments have included drunkenness, political bias, incorrect rulings, and other similarly mundane things.

Yes, but those rules were already in place before the offenses were made.

Huge difference.

No the rule is bad behavior.
Bad Behavior is what ever congress defines it as during an impeachment.