Conflict of Interest?

@jimm619 said
It works on ''The Honor System.''
Justice Thomas, honor system.........?
The Court should be above reproach

“ The Court should be above reproach”

As an outsider I would say that’s a fantasy you guys tell yourselves. SCOTUS appointees are clearly and blatantly political and always have been.
They ‘interpret’ the constitution through the prism of their own political leanings. The fact that a right wig justice is married to a right wing wife is hardly a shock horror revelation. Perhaps she is more politically active than most but her friends would have been his friends even if he had never met or married her.
SCOTUS is partisan by design.

@shavixmir said
I’m looking for the Dutch word for recuse.
In Holland a judge can be “wraked”, which means he’s substituted (on roughly the same grounds as recusing).

But when I look up wraak, I get the word substituted. When I look up the word recuse, it doesn’t seem to translate to Dutch.

It’s doing my head in. Or is recuse (in legal terms) exactly the same as substitute?

In my ...[text shortened]... flict of interests, and I couldn’t think of the Dutch word for recuse.

Pretty strange altogether…

who gives a fk? do you know how to stay on topic?

@mott-the-hoople said
which case are you referring to?

Had you read the link you would have found the following (verbatim) quote:

Thomas sits on the advisory board of a group opposing affirmative action that filed a Supreme Court amicus brief in cases the justices recently agreed to take up.

So Judge Thomas is sitting over a case brought by an organisation in which is wife is playing a major role.

That should be enough for him to excusse himself from the case, don't you think?

@shavixmir said
I’m looking for the Dutch word for recuse.
In Holland a judge can be “wraked”, which means he’s substituted (on roughly the same grounds as recusing).

But when I look up wraak, I get the word substituted. When I look up the word recuse, it doesn’t seem to translate to Dutch.

It’s doing my head in. Or is recuse (in legal terms) exactly the same as substitute?

In my ...[text shortened]... flict of interests, and I couldn’t think of the Dutch word for recuse.

Pretty strange altogether…

recuse
rĭ-kyoo͞z′
transitive verb

1-To disqualify or seek to disqualify (a judge or juror) from participation in the decision in a case, as for personal prejudice against a party or for personal interest in the outcome.
2-To refuse or reject, as a judge; to challenge that the judge shall not try the cause.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik

@jimm619 said
recuse
rĭ-kyoo͞z′
transitive verb

1-To disqualify or seek to disqualify (a judge or juror) from participation in the decision in a case, as for personal prejudice against a party or for personal interest in the outcome.
2-To refuse or reject, as a judge; to challenge that the judge shall not try the cause.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik

Ya, I know what the word means….

🙂

@mott-the-hoople said
who gives a fk? do you know how to stay on topic?

You obviously don’t.

@jimm619 said
recuse
rĭ-kyoo͞z′
transitive verb

1-To disqualify or seek to disqualify (a judge or juror) from participation in the decision in a case, as for personal prejudice against a party or for personal interest in the outcome.
2-To refuse or reject, as a judge; to challenge that the judge shall not try the cause.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik

Seems it's a legal word........
I didn't know that.

@ponderable said
Had you read the link you would have found the following (verbatim) quote:

Thomas sits on the advisory board of a group opposing affirmative action that filed a Supreme Court amicus brief in cases the justices recently agreed to take up.

So Judge Thomas is sitting over a case brought by an organisation in which is wife is playing a major role.

That should be enough for him to excusse himself from the case, don't you think?

So you are squeaking about something that hasnt even happened.

I think liberal justices should recuse themselves from every case because of their views.

The law is the law, just rule on the law.

@mott-the-hoople said
So you are squeaking about something that hasnt even happened.

I think liberal justices should recuse themselves from every case because of their views.

The law is the law, just rule on the law.

(sigh)........MUTT,
Ya' gotta' read the link///
If you're asking these questions,
it's obvious that you haven't 😛

@jimm619 said
(sigh)........MUTT,
Ya' gotta' read the link///
If you're asking these questions,
it's obvious that you haven't 😛

There is nothing in your link claiming justice Thomas has done anything wrong.

Your lib media is causing you to make a fool of yourself

@mott-the-hoople said
There is nothing in your link claiming justice Thomas has done anything wrong.

Your lib media is causing you to make a fool of yourself

Pay attention, MUTT...........Read AND absorb......
NEVER DID I ASSERT THAT JUSTICE THOMAS HAS DONE
..........ANYTHING WRONG....Did I?...You did not see that.
I merely stated that a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
shouldn't even arouse ANY SUSPICION of Conflict
and should hold themselves ABOVE REPROACH......
...I have met many smart people in my life..........you ain't one of 'em 😛

@ponderable said
Had you read the link you would have found the following (verbatim) quote:

Thomas sits on the advisory board of a group opposing affirmative action that filed a Supreme Court amicus brief in cases the justices recently agreed to take up.

So Judge Thomas is sitting over a case brought by an organisation in which is wife is playing a major role.

That should be enough for him to excusse himself from the case, don't you think?

YES

@mott-the-hoople said
There is nothing in your link claiming justice Thomas has done anything wrong.

Your lib media is causing you to make a fool of yourself

You manage to make a fool
of yourself with no help at all