Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: A crucial victory won. Now to change the system (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As long as money = speech (0+ / 0-)

    no good will come.
    ‘We’ now have a Supreme Court justice (Kagan) who will have to recuse herself (or be disqualified due to the fact that her impartiality could be reasonably questioned) if Citizen’s United is ever challenged (because she argued the case as solicitor general.
    The more you know, the less hope there is.

    •  I dont think it works that way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson

      She would have to recuse herself from specific cases she worked on. But I dont think she would have to recuse herself from any future cases.  

      For example, she recused herself from the government's case against the AZ immigration law because she worked on it as SG, but she could hear a future case against the law. That's my understanding at least.

      •  You'll have to watch the movie. (0+ / 0-)

        The standard is; if impartiality can be reasonably questioned. She’ll recuse herself if CU is ever challenged (i.e. in the cards). One would have to think BO is a complete moron to believe he couldn’t see an impartiality/conflict-of-interests problem down the road with Kagan concerning CU.

    •  Scalia never recused himself in a ton of cases (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, cany, jan4insight

      where there was a clear conflict of interest.  I believe Thomas has acted the same way.

      •  bingo; Thomas refused to recuse on several (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jan4insight, Miggles

        cases where his wife's activities constituted conflict of interest.  However it is a nice grift, being a justice married to a lobbyist, since she can rack in the bucks where you are ethically barred.  Guess if they had any kids, the kids would be lobbyists as well.

        Maybe reform should also extending ethical requirements to include immediate family activities as well as elected and appointed officials

      •  Different rules for conservatives. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Liberals have to be more vigilant (due to an establishment that gives conservatives preferential treatment). Most people will have to see the CU situation play out for themselves (as if there hasn’t been a very predictable pattern of conservative interests getting their way on everything while ‘liberals’ seem to never miss an opportunity to provide the assist (while pretending to miss an opportunity).
        In the same way that we must win elections by landslides, we can’t tolerate ‘our’ leaders providing wiggle-room for conservative interests to get their way, because there is a very predictable pattern of conservative interests getting their way when the wiggle-room is provided.

    •  or corporations = people nt (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site