I’ll settle, just as I did for Limbaugh. Salud!
1 Like
For my knee replacement recovery I did every other day physical therapy. On the opposite day it was my indoor road bike. My surgery was 11 years ago and that knee is way better than my naturally equipped left knee.
3 Likes
I see only an imaginary conflict of interest or appearance of same, in what you write. I remain unconvinced. Nothing will come of this and deservedly so.
As I learned from reading Catch 22, complaining actually makes it go slower.
1 Like
I see nothing unethical in what you suggest may have happened. It’s the lawyer on the case which sways the opinion under your scenario. No room for any agency of either the case itself or the client in what Roberts or anyone else does after the head has been hunted. If one these lawyers, when and if they get to the Supreme Court, loses then is it then ethical? It would certainly not have the appearance of a conflict of interest. How does a law firm’s hiring decision present an ethical issue for a court?
When it is or appears to.be a bribe to induce a Justuce to rule a certain way by loning his pockets via his wife.
And that’s the basic point you’re missing. Federal ethics rules apply regardless of whether there’s an actual conflict of interest present. Just the appearance counts as a violation.
Yes, concur that nothing will happen, but that’s shameful, because it says that the Supremes are above the rules which they help enforce against every other fed.
The people at the top should be modeling the behaviors they expect and demand from everyone else, not flaunting that they can do whatever they like.
1 Like
Except that it doesn’t appear that any bribe was made and no briber has been identified and no timeline on when or how this bribe was supposed to have worked is known. His wife, at least at this point of the lack of evidence in this speculation, ran a legal business and was legally paid for services rendered. Which decision have you identified was a victim to this long game bribery scheme? How would it appear improper if one her “heads” lost a case? Wouldn’t that disprove any appearance of impropriety?
Did the Court rule for WilmerHale’s favor in each of its cases? Were the cases decided correctly? If there are any facts which would tend to prove this supposition that the wife’s legal business transactions create any appearance of impropriety, please tell me.
No.
How simple minded do you think we are? At that level bribery would not be conducted by handing over a bag of cash in return for a signed contract.
The essence of bribery is that someone takes an action they would not otherwise taken because they personally receive a benefit.
If a Justice decides a case because his wife gets a million bucks that’s bribery. That the cover story is that she got the money for finding someone a job – an otherwise legal action – is irrelevant if the first can be shown. The problem is proof and the danger is the appearance even If --as I said – they are in fact doing nothing wrong.
1 Like
Create the appearance of impropriety? They paid $700k to the spouse of a Justice for something they could have done on their own for free. As to whether or not it affected their rulings in any way, even a slightly more favorable recitation of the facts, I really don’t know and it is impossible to tell. I do not have a set of cases identical but for the payment of $700k to the wife of a Justice.
Hence the whole avoidance of the appearance of impropriety thing.
1 Like
Not simple-minded at all. If you can’t find, but only imagine the bribery, it didn’t fall in the forest. I would say you are hopeful of finding something, therefore, it must being creating an appearance for you by connecting dots because the first cannot be shown. Absence of proof just becomes proof of an appearance of impropriety of an otherwise legal action because you can imagine it could be. The dots may be there, but I see no factual connections. I never said anything about a signed contract. You imagined that as well.
The appearance is there. It could be cured by Mrs. Robert’s taking a job with a flat salary.
Why are you posing as exceedingly literally minded?
The whole thing about appearances is that lawyers are supposed to avoid situations where it is clear that bad behavior could occur but where it would be difficult to prove whether it did or not.
You appear to ascribe to the Republican view that unless a crime was caught on video tape it did not occur.
2 Likes
I just do not see any reasonable appearance of impropriety of any sort in the facts as portrayed. You draw broad conclusions from very little evidence as witnessed by your last comment. You have a vivid imagination. Use it well.
Maybe you should clean your glasses and try again… 
3 Likes
If an air force contracting officer’s spouse dabbles in the stock market and buys lockheed martin stock, and at some point later, entirely independently of the spouse and with no consideration of their holdings, just based on the contract proffers in front of them, the air force contractor awards a contract to lockheed martin, they’re losing their job.
It Doesn’t Matter if they didn’t do anything wrong, the fact that they possibly could benefit from it and could be influenced by that is enough.
Yes, the supremes exempt themselves from silly things like ethics rules. Doesn’t make what they’re doing any more acceptable.
5 Likes
Yes, I’m aware of all this but her use of classic anti-Semitic tropes, followed by protestations of being unaware of them is weak sauce. I well understand the difference between Judaism and Zionism.
Helen Thomas would be run out of town today, but I thought she was great.
Omar is low-hanging fruit for the reasons you mention, but I still see her as a right-up-to-the-line anti-Semite. I think the Squad members are generally useless agitators so I don’t waste time worrying about them. Omar’s other ethics issues are also troubling.
1 Like
Why could McCarthy simply kick Swalwell & Schiff off their committees but needed vote of full house to kick Omar off ForeignAffairs committee?
Well then, we have a disagreement.
1 Like