“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,”

The lack of logic in this is astounding.

 

Is your position that if I accept something from someone I must agree with their political views? I care little why judges/politicians make the decisions they do, I care what decisions they make. The 'why' is almost impossible to prove anyhow. I can think of very few cases were I would demand a judge recuse themselves.

 

Which is why at even the appearance of impartiality they should recuse themselves.

It's odd that you chose this issue to take a totally different position than the United States constitution.

Also this explanation is probably worse than your first one. You don't care why judges make the decisions they do, on what those decisions are?

That's lunacy. You don't care what the facts are in the case only if they make a decision that you thought would be the right one before any facts are heard. If every fact that comes out in the case is contrary to your position the only thing that matters to you is that the judge still makes a decision that you like. It doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented because it doesn't matter if the judge even looks at the evidence at all. The only thing that matters is what decision they make.

Talk about un-American extremism.

 

Is FranchiseBlade running the BBS' biggest con by posting as tallanvor & his various other personas? That's about all I can figure at this point.

 

No, my position is that if you make an astoundingly absurd statement, I want to clarify whether you really believe that.

 

The answer to your question was kinda obvious so I didn't bother, but fine, here is your question:

It may or may not have an influence (obviously) and I will probably never know barring some leaked email saying 'I passed piece of legislation X because company Y got me a prostitute and/or Nintendo' in which case the politician should be impeached (obviously).

I would say it certainly looks bad in the public eye to be accepting gifts in such a manner and for that reason a politician/judge shouldn't do it.


Trying to debate/guess why some judge/politician did what they did is futile. Simple example, people in this thread claiming Supreme Court judges who could afford to eat any meal they want are somehow swayed by a dinner. I would say 'I doubt it' , others would say 'absolutely' and neither could prove anything.

 

Public service is a self sacrifice, held to a higher standard.

Or should be; that's one of the reasons the federal system is set up with royal perks; to compensate for the lack of earning power found in the private sector.
(goes to soldiers, teachers, firemen and policemen too)

 

"Feted" is a bit more than a rubber chicken dinner and this was by litigants who will argue the case.

As for Kagan she wasn't involved with the formulation of the health care law as solicitor general she was kept informed about it and possible legal questions around it. Also her former office, which she just left a few months ago, will be arguing the case before the USSC. I would put this in the similar situation of why Congress and many government offices require some time before an official can work as lobbyists. This is an area where some distance would better for the sake of impartiality.

 

So if a judge was found being bribed by a litigant you wouldn't think that was a big deal since the 'why' they made a decision is impossible to prove?

 

Sometimes some posters show they are so far outside the American mainstream and hold views that are so unreasonable it isn't worth discussion anymore.

 

Really? Can you specify the fete distinction? Is it based on liqueur selection? (well vs. premium)?

It's not even remotely a similar situation at all, which is why there is no law against it.

First, your analogy fails because the lobbyist rule is there to ostensibly prevent private money from corrupting the legislative process (bribery, more or less) - that is simply inapplicable in the case of somebody moving from DOJ to the federal bench.

Second, enforcing a version of "some distance" would mean you'd bascially have to be retired from the practice of law for several years before joining the bench - that's not only patentlyl absurd, but it does nothing "for the sake of impartiality".

 

Feted - transitive verb
1: to honor or commemorate with a fete
2: to pay high honor to

I'm surprised that you don't see a problem with a litigant having a party to honor justices that they will be trying a case before shortly as a problem. Really that doesn't seem much different than Tallnovr's position.

So you don't think that someone trying a case where the office they worked for recently is a litigant there not being a problem with impartiality? I mean if a lawyer who worked for the NFL was appointed to a court with a case regarding the NFL coming before it you don't think the judge should recuse him or her self?

Where do you think judges should recuse themselves since you don't think that having litigants giving parties for them is a conflict of interest or having just come from being employed at a litigant's office.

 

I don't have a problem with it because I have this magic thing called context. If you want to get into the problem of the federalist society brethren and their lameass parties where they smoke cigars and wet dream about repealing the 14th amendment, that's fine, but don't act like a bunch of crown & cokes for HC reform is the quid pro quo..it's just silly.

?

Not at all. In fact this happens all the time.

You seem to be confusing the difference between being a judge and being a juror. I'm not going to bother to explain them, but an uniformed ignorant "unprejudiced" judge is not what you want making legal conclusions in 99.9% of instances. Thrown in the fact that this is an <i>appellate</i> judgeship and your rule is even more ridiculous.

Not sure, but the standard for conflict of interest is (and should be) well north of what you are proposing. Probably having some actual quid pro quo, rather than "was kept informed about it and possible legal questions around it"

HOnestly - think of how silly that sounds when you say it: This person "was kept informed about [the case] and possible legal questions around [the case]" - good god, I would hope so.

But if they didn't start to do this til the day before oral argument, they'd be more "justice-y"?

Unlikely.

 

define 'found of being bribed'. Does that mean you found out the judge accepted a dinner from some law firm? or does it mean:

either way I have already answered your question earlier.

You are making the same mistake Major makes, you assume if someone accepted a gift then they must be being bribed. This is silly and the Thomas/Scalia example proves it. Two super rich dudes political opinions are swayed by some dinner? please.

 

So apparently you and tallanvor agree on this that a litigant celebrating a judge isn't a conflict of interest. That is not a slight on either of you just surprising.

Well first off when we are speaking about the USSC there is no jury and in this particular thread we are talking about the USSC. Besides that I find it surprising that you as a lawyer seem to be discounting affect a judge has on a trial.

To take part of tallanvor's argument how do prove quid pro quo? I mean if a litigant gives an award to a judge and that judge later rules in that litigant's favor are you just going to accept that no quid pro quo is there?

Short of telepathy its very rare to prove quid pro quo which is why we need to be very careful about even the appearance of it. Both of you and tallanvor's position though would make it much more possible for quid pro quo to happen through a variety of ways to curry favor and / or influence.

What is silly about it? Do you think discussing a possible legal defense for a case that Kagan eventually hears isn't a conflict of interest? To borrow an analogy that would be like an assistant coach who has sat in on team strategy meetings becoming the referee for the next game.

 

So if a litigant gave a $1,000 to a judge and then just said its a gift and the judge already makes a bunch of money you would be OK with that?
The most frequently used defense for charges of bribery is that it was just a gift. Apparently you and are fine with that defense.

 

Depends on the gift. Straight cash seems like an odd gift (in fact I wouldn't call it a gift). An invite to a dinner/event thing sounds fairly normal. Happens to me all the time. Can't recall anytime I have given a friend money as a gift or vice versa.

You should invert your logic rj. So any small/normal gesture (a dinner/event invite) a judge receives from anyone who might have any relation to his work is considered a bribe?

What I said previously was that I don't care about these things because I have no desire to speculate about the motive of any ruling (I will almost never get confirmation one way or the other). I care about the ruling itself since that is what ultimately affects me. I take similar attitudes with legislation. I don't care so much why Obama gave money to Solyndra, I care that he subsidized some energy company which I disagreed with (I will try not to derail the thread).

What if it is a gift? A dinner invite to some big event sounds like a normal gift to me. Are you gonna go down the road of denying a judge the right to accept a dinner/event invite from anyone he/she has ever had occupational dealings with in the past or may have dealings with in the future? From your posts I assume you perceive all of these as bribes.

Just out of curiosity, is it the opinion of the liberals on the board that the law firm that sponsored the dinner should be charged with bribery? If you believe Thomas/Scalia accepted a bribe then the answer must be yes I would think.

Also if this law firm wanted to bribe some judges, Scalia/Thomas would be the wrong choices. Their vote is dependable.

 

As a thought exercise, would this really be so bad as to hold judges to this standard? Or at least those who serve on the SC? They are some of the very most powerful people in the United States; since we all know that it is unlikely a constitutional amendment will ever be passed again in any of our lifetimes, their rulings are absolute and unimpeachable. If we truly want those who are uncorruptible, shouldn't we be looking for those willing to live up to such a standard? Additionally, it would likely shorten judicial careers, allowing for more turnover and less entrenchment of opinion.

I realize this is wholly unrealistic, but I like to think of it as priests and nuns opting for celibacy as they enter the Church; they truly feel there is a higher calling and are willing to make such a sacrifice.

 

Hell, it all boils down to Kennedy anyway. Current makeup:

Breyer
Sotomayor
Ginsburg
Kagan




Kennedy


Roberts
Alito
Scalia
Thomas

 

Ummm....yeah it's the USSC and there is no jury.

Why? Because there are no witnesses, and there are generally no facts to find (other than the original jurisdiction cases - of which there's about 1 every 10 years when a state sues another state). It's an appellate court. Of course they're going to encounter questions of law before they decide cases. How else would they decide cases?

Did giddyup steal your user id? you are just digging a hole of embarrassment and continuing to dig. There are very few factual grounds for imposing your proposed system, lots of potential harm, yet you continue to not be able to identify anything and stubbornly repeat the same arguments over and over again without having much background in the subject. See above.

It's actually really not that hard. There's a little thing called materiality.