XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
From: kiltmac@gmail.com
On 5/29/2013 2:14 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote in
> news:Kxopt.7866$OS5.970@newsfe24.iad:
>
>> On 5/29/2013 9:25 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>> "Tom McDonald" wrote in message
>>> news:_bnpt.15217$uT3.13086@newsfe20.iad...
>>>> On 5/29/2013 7:36 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>> "Tom McDonald" wrote in message
>>>>> news:%bept.42659$9X5.15117@newsfe31.iad...
>>>>>> On 5/28/2013 9:53 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hlwdjsd2-08852C.17293125052013@news.giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article , "SaPeIsMa"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:hlwdjsd2-E96C05.22033024052013@news.giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> , Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's possible that Cindy Thomas (IRS supervisor) was
>>>>>>>>>>>> following instructions she received from her bosses in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> White House.
>>>>>>>>> Read > >> this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read one report indicating that some liberal democrat
>>>>>>>>> members of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress that were upset about tea party group's influence
>>>>>>>>>>>> told Obama
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> his top aides that they should send the IRS after the tea
>>>>>>>>>>>> party groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That leads me to believe that it is possible that the IRS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> supervisors
>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>> as Cindy Thomas were following orders passed down from
>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> bosses > >> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> White House.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why would she obey illegal orders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because she's a good little ideological drone ?
>>>>>>>>>> Because she doesn't have the brass to refuse ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And remember that the President has no power over
>>>>>>>>>>> non-politically-appointed workers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The President has all kinds of power, both direct and
>>>>>>>>>> indirect. Hell, the promise that she would be taken care of
>>>>>>>>>> and protected if things
>>>>>>>>>> blow up would be good enough...
>>>>>>>>>> One woman got to become a US Supreme Court Justice for all
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>> she > did
>>>>>>>>>> to help push through Obamacare.
>>>>>>>>>> And she didn't even have the decency to recuse herself when
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> case > came
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> the Supreme Court.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I worked for a state agency before I retired. I worked with
>>>>>>>>> some employees
>>>>>>>>> just like Cindy Thomas. They would do whatever the boss told
>>>>>>>>> them to do
>>>>>>>>> (even if it was a violation of the rules). They knew that was
>>>>>>>>> the best way
>>>>>>>>> to get promotions. They were correct. Many of them got the
>>>>>>>>> promotions
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> were seeking since the top bosses knew they would obey their
>>>>>>>>> orders even
>>>>>>>>> if the orders were in violation of the rules or laws. We called
>>>>>>>>> them ass
>>>>>>>>> kissers and lap dogs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It worked out for the lady that Obama appointed to the supreme
>>>>>>>>> court.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What? What the fuck are you talking about?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really are this ignorant ??
>>>>>>> Let me repeat the clues for the clueless
>>>>>>> ++ One woman got to become a US Supreme Court Justice
>>>>>>> ++ for all the work she did to help push through Obamacare.
>>>>>>> ++ And she didn't even have the decency to recuse herself
>>>>>>> ++ when the case came to the Supreme Court.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll give you another clue, because you are so stump-ignorant
>>>>>>> Her name starts with a "K"..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are pissing and moaning about something Scalia and Thomas
>>>>>> do? ?> > > Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you babbling about now ?
>>>>> What are you claiming that Scalia and Thomas do ?
>>>>
>>>> They didn't recuse themselves from cases in which they had a
>>>> conflict of interest. I thought that was fairly clear. Apparently
>>>> you need things spoon-fed you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What cases where those ?
>>> You're making the claims, YOU PROVE your claim
>>
>> Start with Bush v Gore.
>
> Huh? What did they push through prior to Bush v Gore that was apropos to
> the case?
>
> Here, I will leave you room in which to place your answer.
>
> ==>
>
From Wikipedia:
"On the eve of the election Sandra Day O'Connor had made a public
statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her.
Clarence Thomas's wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign
that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less
at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man
would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia's son was
working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the
Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as
Solictor-General."
Whether these rise to the actual level of conflict of interest legally,
in my opinion (note--*my opinion*) they certainly amount to the
*appearance* of impropriety. The Supreme Court justices are supposed to
hold themselves to the highest possible standard of conduct. That they
don't always do so is true. It is true that both Democratic and
Republican (and probably Whig) justices have fallen short of that
standard. But that doesn't mean the standard doesn't exist.
I will say that the article, and some others I read, do state the
opinion that many did claim *no* conflict of interest with these
Justices. I beg to differ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Accusation_of_partisan
hip_or_conflict_of_interest
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/o8o88ow
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
