Scalia and Thomas sucked Koch before making landmark campaign finance decision

[Ben]

[url="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0121-court-conflict-20110120,0,2463815.story"]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0121-court-conflict-20110120,0,2463815.story[/url]

[quote]
latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0121-court-conflict-20110120,0,2463815.story


[b]latimes.com[/b]

[b]2 Supreme Court judges had conflict of interest in campaign finance case, group says[/b]

[b]Watchdog group Common Cause says Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas had a conflict of interest in the case, which permitted corporations to directly fund campaign ads. It says if the Justice Department finds a conflict, it should ask the court to reconsider its ruling in the landmark case.[/b]
By Tom Hamburger, Washington Bureau

1:58 PM PST, January 20, 2011

[color=#888888][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2][center]
[/center][/size][/font][/color]WASHINGTON — A government watchdog group alleges that two of the Supreme Court's most conservative members had a conflict of interest when they considered a controversial case last year that permitted corporate funds to be used directly in political campaigns.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are the subject of an unusual letter delivered Wednesday by Common Cause asking the U.S. Justice Department to look into whether the jurists should have disqualified themselves from hearing the campaign finance case if they had attended a private meeting sponsored by Charles and David Koch, billionaire philanthropists who fund conservatives causes. A Supreme Court spokesperson said late Thursday that the two justices did not participate in the Koch brothers' private meetings, though Thomas "dropped by."

If it believes there is a conflict, the Justice Department, as a party to the case, should ask the court to reconsider its decision, Common Cause said.

The landmark case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, was decided a year ago this week. It permitted corporate and union funds to be spent directly on election advertising, a practice that had previously been restricted. The Kochs have been significant donors to independent-expenditure campaigns, which increased dramatically after the Citizens United decision.

The letter is based in part on references to Scalia and Thomas made in an invitation to an upcoming meeting this month of elite conservative leaders sponsored by the Kochs. The invitation, first obtained by the liberal blog Think Progress, names the two justices among luminaries who have attended the closed Koch meetings at unspecified dates in the past.

Representatives of the Kochs declined repeated requests for comment. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Decisions about recusal from individual cases are up to each individual justice.

Some legal scholars dismiss the complaint as unlikely to succeed. But others said raising the issue could engender useful public scrutiny and debate about judicial independence.

Steven Gillers, a legal ethics specialist at New York University, said the Koch brothers' use of Scalia and Thomas' name for their upcoming meeting was "troubling."

"I believe the nation has a right to know exactly what role if any the Justices played in the Koch gatherings, including the content of any remarks they made and whether Citizens United was a subject of any gathering they attended," Gillers said. "The answers can help determine whether they were able to sit in the case and, if not, whether the result should be overturned.

In the invitation letter to a meeting later this month in Palm Springs, Calif., sent on Koch Industries stationary, Charles G. Koch encourages attendance, saying that "twice a year our network meets to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it."

Supreme Court spokesperson Kathy Arberg said that Justices Thomas and Scalia had traveled to Indian Wells, California to address a Federalist Society dinner sponsored by Charles and Elizabeth Koch but did not actively participate in the separate Koch strategy and policy meetings. Justice Scalia spoke about international law at the January 2007 meeting of the quasi-academic Federalist Society and did not attend the separate political and strategy meeting hosted by the Kochs, she said. Justice Thomas spoke to the Federalists at the same location in January 2008 about his recently published book. Thomas then dropped by one of the separate Koch meeting sessions. "It was a brief drop by," Arberg said. "He was not a participant."

It is common for members of the federal judiciary to attend events where legal and political issues are discussed. But the law prohibits them from taking part in cases where their impartiality might reasonable be questioned. In their letter to Holder, Common Cause executives say that such a conflict appears to exist.

Copyright © 2011, Tribune Interactive


[/quote]

[Jamie_B]

Oh please let this be true to we can throw their asses off the bench. Especially that asshole Scalia.

[Squirrlnutz]

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/20/scalia-thomas-koch-doj/

[John~Galt]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1295643036' post='963707']
Oh please let this be true to we can throw their asses off the bench. Especially that asshole Scalia.
[/quote]

Wow. So it is okay to spout that kind of rhetoric if you lean left of center?

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='John~Galt' timestamp='1295724689' post='963887']
Wow. So it is okay to spout that kind of [b]rhetoric[/b] if you lean left of center?
[/quote]

I just wish people would learn what that word really means...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='John~Galt' timestamp='1295724689' post='963887']
Wow. So it is okay to spout that kind of rhetoric if you lean left of center?
[/quote]


What rhetoric?

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1295726395' post='963894']
What rhetoric?
[/quote]

My point...

[|Elflocko|]

And it keeps getting better; Thomas is [url="http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/22/thomas-disclosure/"]Firmly in the pocket of the Tea Party[/url].

On top of being a fucking liar...

[John~Galt]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1295725044' post='963890']
I just wish people would learn what that word really means...
[/quote]

My use of the word rhetoric was shall we say sardonic. There is also a difference between the common pop culture use of rhetoric and the academic definition. I used it in the former sense.

My wife has a PHD in rhetoric so I am pretty sure my use of it in either sense is quite appropriate.

If you want to argue parts of speech I am out. I find it rather boring.

If you guys want to discuss the stunning hypocrisy of the vitriolic rants one finds on a daily basis in these threads I am in.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='John~Galt' timestamp='1296234691' post='966373']
My use of the word rhetoric was shall we say sardonic. There is also a difference between the common pop culture use of rhetoric and the academic definition. I used it in the former sense.

My wife has a PHD in rhetoric so I am pretty sure my use of it in either sense is quite appropriate.

If you want to argue parts of speech I am out. I find it rather boring.

If you guys want to discuss the stunning hypocrisy of the vitriolic rants one finds on a daily basis in these threads I am in.
[/quote]


Can't wait for you to share your definition of hypocrisy as your definition of rhetoric appears to be any opinion with which you disagree.

Something tells me they'll be strikingly similar...

[John~Galt]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1296238835' post='966401']
Can't wait for you to share your definition of hypocrisy as your definition of rhetoric appears to be any opinion with which you disagree.

Something tells me they'll be strikingly similar...
[/quote]

Are we planning to jerk ourselves off over english primers or are we going to talk about the issues?

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='John~Galt' timestamp='1296524162' post='967082']
Are we planning to jerk ourselves off over english primers or are we going to talk about the issues?
[/quote]

Sure, just as soon as you actually talk or make a point about the issue instead of tossing non-sequitur red herrings.

A justice of the SCOTUS blatantly falsified his income records. What's your take?

[Squirrlnutz]

Bump

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/newVR/index.php?q=node/13

To sum, Thomas attended Kock fundraisers, falsified income data about his wife, and received $100,000 from Citizens United prior to ruling in their favor in the face of 150 years of SCOTUS decisions against corporations on 14th amendment cases...and the lead story on every national news morning show is a picture of a penis in someone's underwear.

What a travesty.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1307159592' post='995950']
Bump

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/newVR/index.php?q=node/13

To sum, Thomas attended Kock fundraisers, falsified income data about his wife, and received $100,000 from Citizens United prior to ruling in their favor in the face of 150 years of SCOTUS decisions against corporations on 14th amendment cases...and the lead story on every national news morning show is a picture of a penis in someone's underwear.

What a travesty.
[/quote]

Oh, but Atlas Shrugged Goddammit!

ATLAS SHRUGGED!!!!!!!111OKJWLJFPOIWJT[OPWEJGFPOKWEJOFKWEJ'[WJEFIJ

Fuckyou you left-wing commie bastard!!!!!!





Sigh....

[Xombie]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1296238835' post='966401']
Can't wait for you to share your definition of hypocrisy as your definition of rhetoric appears to be any opinion with which you disagree.

Something tells me they'll be strikingly similar...
[/quote]

Well, off the top of my head, the California judge, who happens to be gay, ruled in favor of gay marriage. Conservatives are saber-rattling over that one, if the articles I have read are to be believed.


Sorry! Hit the wrong post to reply to, my apologies!

[Xombie]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' timestamp='1307159592' post='995950']
Bump

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/newVR/index.php?q=node/13

To sum, Thomas attended Kock fundraisers, falsified income data about his wife, and received $100,000 from Citizens United prior to ruling in their favor in the face of 150 years of SCOTUS decisions against corporations on 14th amendment cases...and the lead story on every national news morning show is a picture of a penis in someone's underwear.

What a travesty.
[/quote]

What is the procedure for judicial impeachment and the general weight of crimes/negligences/questionable actions necessary to start such procedures? I was always under the impression SCJs are pretty much there as long as they want to be, barring them doing something obviously egregious.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1307163344' post='995961']
Well, off the top of my head, the California judge, who happens to be gay, ruled in favor of gay marriage. Conservatives are saber-rattling over that one, if the articles I have read are to be believed.


Sorry! Hit the wrong post to reply to, my apologies!
[/quote]


AWWWW, did Ayn Rand taking Social Security and government healthcare bum you out?

Here, have a cookie...

[Xombie]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1307163920' post='995965']
AWWWW, did Ayn Rand taking Social Security and government healthcare bum you out?

Here, have a cookie...
[/quote]


First of all, I hope you find some Sherpas to guide you up the northern face of whatever molehill you are trying to make into a mountain. Secondly, I was replying, in an honest fashion, to the fact there is viable, debatable perceived hypocrisy in judicial circles when it comes to party line bias. Thirdly, grow up.

[Jamie_B]

Thomas needs to go.

[Jamie_B]

Can a judge be impeeched, yes.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1307166171' post='995969']
First of all, I hope you find some Sherpas to guide you up the northern face of whatever molehill you are trying to make into a mountain. Secondly, I was replying, in an honest fashion, to the fact there is viable, debatable perceived hypocrisy in judicial circles when it comes to party line bias. Thirdly, grow up.
[/quote]

Yep, that last and ill-advised beer made me [b]completely[/b] misinterpret your statement so my apologies and snarky comment redacted. It just miffs me that the mainstream media completely sweeps under the rug the fact that a justice on the SCOTUS is a liar, crook, and depending on the legal status of that document he lied on, a perjurer. Not surprised, mind you, just miffed...