Skip to main content

View Diary: Clarence Thomas's conflict of interest on Affordable Care Act (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Rec'd for sanity. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WillR, VClib, nextstep

    We've been hearing about this for over a year now, and every time it comes up, somebody posts the realities of the situation...

    And they are roundly ignored, because we can't seem, for all that we claim to be the "reality-based community," to let go of the "we've got that son-of-a-bitch this time" outrage-fest.

    Justice Thomas is on solid legal ground here. Even though we all know that his mind is already made up, we've got nothin'.


    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Tue May 31, 2011 at 07:22:49 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. Being a political ideologue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, nextstep

      on either side does not require recusal.

       Being married to a political ideologue does not require recusal.

      Being married to someone who makes his or her living as a political ideologue does not require recusal.  

      It's only a direct financial, or family, tie to a party in a case that generally requires recusal.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (120)
  • Community (56)
  • Elections (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Media (22)
  • Law (21)
  • Environment (21)
  • Culture (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Economy (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Bernie Sanders (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Health Care (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site