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.
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 public’s suspicion of ulterior motives as “only to those cannot think very clearly” is the arrogance that makes the public write off our institutions as “to hell with them all, they’re all corrupt.”
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 don’t 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.
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 public’s suspicion of ulterior motives as “only to those cannot think very clearly” is the arrogance that makes the public write off our institutions as “to hell with them all, they’re all corrupt.”
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 don’t 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.