Huh. I must have missed something. As a lawyer who practiced constitutional law for 35 years and taught it at a law school I always found Thomas's opinions well-reasoned even when I disagreed with them. And having rich friends who are generous to you is neither criminal nor unethical unless you allow such generosity to influence your legal opinions. There is no evidence of that at all, and I'm in a position to know that no one on the Court or who actually knows Thomas believes that for a second. Perhaps you can explain "stain."
1. Taking bribes wins the gold medal for judicial bad conduct.
2. Appearing to take bribes even when you haven't wins silver.
3. See Nos. 1 and 2.
I happen to agree with some of Clarence Thomas's opinions and disagree with others, so I'm not judging his judicial ability. Everyone is going to agree and disagree with any judge, no matter who that judge might be.
But his gift-taking smells as bad as perch in a Dumpster. "Having rich friends who are generous to you is neither criminal nor unethical unless you allow such generosity to influence your legal opinions." That is not what the public believes about judges who accept vast amounts of money from "friends." The public is right--the optics are poisonous to public trust, and justices work for us, not the other way around.
Your statement may be technically true--I'm not a lawyer--but accepting as many gifts and trips as he has from Harlan Crow and others is ghastly for someone on the single highest court on the land. Same with Samuel Alito; such gifting should be forbidden. Why? Because this court must not only BE wise and ethical, it must be seen as wise and ethical. Taking dough from rich "friends" sends precisely the opposite message.
SCOTUS positions are unelected and lifetime. Their rulings cannot be challenged. They are as close to royals as America gets. Because of that, justices need a strong ethics code that disallows taking gifts from anyone other than immediately family, and even then only up to X amount, with every single gift value-assessed and reported.
If a SCOTI can't abide by that ethical conduct, then he or she can decline a spot on that bench. They need to choose what's more important to them: a Supreme Court position or the ability to take money from friends. With all the lawyers in this land who'd kill for that job, we can afford to be insist on the former.
Taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and "forgetting" to report them? The public considers that bribery, regardless of what statutes say. If the President of the United States cannot legally accept gifts, neither should anyone on the Supreme Court.
Accepting gifts from someone who has business before the Court in exchange for allowing your legal opinion in his case to be influenced is unethical and illegal.
Accepting gifts from a friend who has business before the Court can, depending on the facts and circumstances, create the appearance of impropriety even if such gifts are not intended to and do not in fact influence any opinion.
Accepting gifts from a friend who has no business before the Court whatsoever is not improper at all no matter how generous the friend or lavish the gifts. It is the appearance of impropriety only to those who cannot think very clearly.
My thinking is exceptionally clear, counselor. Any justice who accepts gifts as large as Clarence Thomas did should remain in private practice, not on the Supreme Court.
To think otherwise is to be blind as to how much accepting those gifts tarnishes the image of SCOTUS as being an impartial arbiter of facts.
Perhaps your own thinking is muddied by being part of that institution for most of your life. Gift-taking of such magnitude looks bad to the public, period, which is why presidents are forbidden to accept them.
To dismiss the publicтАЩs suspicion of ulterior motives as тАЬonly to those cannot think very clearlyтАЭ is the arrogance that makes the public write off our institutions as тАЬto hell with them all, theyтАЩre all corrupt.тАЭ
The notion that a judge should be prohibited from benefiting from the generosity of a close friend when neither such friend nor his generosity has any reasonable or discernable connection with the judge's duties is grounded not in reason but in envy. I also believe you are mistaken about the rules for US Presidents, at least as they pertain to domestic gifts.
By arrogant I donтАЩt mean you personally. You seem quite thoughtful to me given our conversation. But the public is less and less trusting of SCOTUS, and wide-open gift-taking makes it worse. The practice should end now.
Unless a private company has been found guilty of discrimination in race or gender hiring practices, or has federal contracts with DEI clauses built into them, government can't dictate who private companies hire and can't mandate DEI training.
It appears that your company swallowed the DEI Kool-Aid all on its own, and it is regurgitating that poison onto you. My condolences, and I'm serious--you shouldn't have to sit through that stuff when there's real work to be done.
Shane, you are a fool. I think I was very specific. There is no DEI at my company (my company, no Kook-aid]. My mistake for [satirically] responding to your rediculous post. Racial-based hiring is wrong, even if you have DEI contracts. Please. No more replies. I won't make the mistake again.
No, Rich, I'm not a fool. If you want a more intelligent exchange, then say what you mean clearly so I don't misread it. Your "satire" was anything but, so I assumed you wanted a serious reply, which is how this exchange went into the Dumpster.
I didn't say a thing about private sector hiring. The issue was "politicians choosing appointments based on race, sex, and sexuality."
I might agree with you that Barrett is doing a good job. Thomas, though, is an stain on the court that no amount of Comet can scrub away.
Huh. I must have missed something. As a lawyer who practiced constitutional law for 35 years and taught it at a law school I always found Thomas's opinions well-reasoned even when I disagreed with them. And having rich friends who are generous to you is neither criminal nor unethical unless you allow such generosity to influence your legal opinions. There is no evidence of that at all, and I'm in a position to know that no one on the Court or who actually knows Thomas believes that for a second. Perhaps you can explain "stain."
I'm happy to "stain" myself:
1. Taking bribes wins the gold medal for judicial bad conduct.
2. Appearing to take bribes even when you haven't wins silver.
3. See Nos. 1 and 2.
I happen to agree with some of Clarence Thomas's opinions and disagree with others, so I'm not judging his judicial ability. Everyone is going to agree and disagree with any judge, no matter who that judge might be.
But his gift-taking smells as bad as perch in a Dumpster. "Having rich friends who are generous to you is neither criminal nor unethical unless you allow such generosity to influence your legal opinions." That is not what the public believes about judges who accept vast amounts of money from "friends." The public is right--the optics are poisonous to public trust, and justices work for us, not the other way around.
Your statement may be technically true--I'm not a lawyer--but accepting as many gifts and trips as he has from Harlan Crow and others is ghastly for someone on the single highest court on the land. Same with Samuel Alito; such gifting should be forbidden. Why? Because this court must not only BE wise and ethical, it must be seen as wise and ethical. Taking dough from rich "friends" sends precisely the opposite message.
SCOTUS positions are unelected and lifetime. Their rulings cannot be challenged. They are as close to royals as America gets. Because of that, justices need a strong ethics code that disallows taking gifts from anyone other than immediately family, and even then only up to X amount, with every single gift value-assessed and reported.
If a SCOTI can't abide by that ethical conduct, then he or she can decline a spot on that bench. They need to choose what's more important to them: a Supreme Court position or the ability to take money from friends. With all the lawyers in this land who'd kill for that job, we can afford to be insist on the former.
Taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and "forgetting" to report them? The public considers that bribery, regardless of what statutes say. If the President of the United States cannot legally accept gifts, neither should anyone on the Supreme Court.
Accepting gifts from someone who has business before the Court in exchange for allowing your legal opinion in his case to be influenced is unethical and illegal.
Accepting gifts from a friend who has business before the Court can, depending on the facts and circumstances, create the appearance of impropriety even if such gifts are not intended to and do not in fact influence any opinion.
Accepting gifts from a friend who has no business before the Court whatsoever is not improper at all no matter how generous the friend or lavish the gifts. It is the appearance of impropriety only to those who cannot think very clearly.
My thinking is exceptionally clear, counselor. Any justice who accepts gifts as large as Clarence Thomas did should remain in private practice, not on the Supreme Court.
To think otherwise is to be blind as to how much accepting those gifts tarnishes the image of SCOTUS as being an impartial arbiter of facts.
Perhaps your own thinking is muddied by being part of that institution for most of your life. Gift-taking of such magnitude looks bad to the public, period, which is why presidents are forbidden to accept them.
To dismiss the publicтАЩs suspicion of ulterior motives as тАЬonly to those cannot think very clearlyтАЭ is the arrogance that makes the public write off our institutions as тАЬto hell with them all, theyтАЩre all corrupt.тАЭ
The notion that a judge should be prohibited from benefiting from the generosity of a close friend when neither such friend nor his generosity has any reasonable or discernable connection with the judge's duties is grounded not in reason but in envy. I also believe you are mistaken about the rules for US Presidents, at least as they pertain to domestic gifts.
Envy. Of course. Why didn't I think of that? There couldn't possibly be an ethical concern over this level of gift-giving to the Supremes.
By arrogant I donтАЩt mean you personally. You seem quite thoughtful to me given our conversation. But the public is less and less trusting of SCOTUS, and wide-open gift-taking makes it worse. The practice should end now.
Is there a difference? A different standard for racial-based hiring in government vs the private sector?
Unless a private company has been found guilty of discrimination in race or gender hiring practices, or has federal contracts with DEI clauses built into them, government can't dictate who private companies hire and can't mandate DEI training.
It appears that your company swallowed the DEI Kool-Aid all on its own, and it is regurgitating that poison onto you. My condolences, and I'm serious--you shouldn't have to sit through that stuff when there's real work to be done.
Well, it's my company and there is no Kool-Aid is sight. You clearly miss the point. Mine AND yours.
Moving on to more intelligent banter.
Intelligent? It's YOUR company. Why on Earth are you making your employees and yourself do the DEI dance?
Shane, you are a fool. I think I was very specific. There is no DEI at my company (my company, no Kook-aid]. My mistake for [satirically] responding to your rediculous post. Racial-based hiring is wrong, even if you have DEI contracts. Please. No more replies. I won't make the mistake again.
No, Rich, I'm not a fool. If you want a more intelligent exchange, then say what you mean clearly so I don't misread it. Your "satire" was anything but, so I assumed you wanted a serious reply, which is how this exchange went into the Dumpster.
Don't worry, though, I won't bug you any more.
Take care. Now, I have Kool-aide to mix.
LOL! We were having two conversations about two separate things and neither of us was aware. I'm sorry that happened, truly.
I'm doubly delighted you don't have to mess with DEI. It's one of the worst things to come down the pike in generations of workplaces.