A Republican Judge

[IBCoupe]

Z, I'd echo C-Kwik's comments. Denying a quorum might have been the most responsible thing they could have done for their constituency. Unless you're among them, I don't know that you've got a leg to stand on with that criticism.

Aud, the call for recusal for Thomas that says his wife is the reason why he should recuse himself, isn't legitimate. Our judicial code of ethics doesn't don't hold judges accountable for the actions or connections of their spouses or any other family member at any level.

Now, the demands for his impeachment for his behavior before Citizens United is more interesting, but not likely to go anywhere right now.

[audtatious]

Aud, the call for recusal for Thomas that says his wife is the reason why he should recuse himself, isn't legitimate. Our judicial code of ethics doesn't don't hold judges accountable for the actions or connections of their spouses or any other family member at any level.

And I'm echoing a Dem response to this whole issue. I'm actually not accusing the judge of doing what she did because of liberal leanings, just throwing accusations based on family.

Regardless, we rarely hold judges accountable for their judicial actions at all.

[IBCoupe]

I realize that. And I'm calling both of you wrong, even if your wrongness is tongue-in-cheek.

[szh]

Z, I'd echo C-Kwik's comments. Denying a quorum might have been the most responsible thing they could have done for their constituency. Unless you're among them, I don't know that you've got a leg to stand on with that criticism.

I am standing on both legs here and criticising the situation just fine, IMHO.

Elected officials need to live up to a higher standard, period.

In deliberately denying a quorum for a vote, they took it upon themselves to try to force a minority favored outcome.

Sorry, that is fundamentally and ethically wrong in my book.

A vote is a vote is a vote is a vote. As an elected representative, they must vote on bills that come before them. Or more accurately, they must not deliberately not vote when they can indeed do so ... clearly, legitimate circumstances could cause them to miss a particular vote.

If the outcome is not to a politicians liking, their recourse is to re-introduce new bills to try and effect a change.

Anything else is Wrong. With a capital "W".

And, by the way, this has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican - I would say the same exact thing if the missing representatives had been Republican.

Aud, the call for recusal for Thomas that says his wife is the reason why he should recuse himself, isn't legitimate. Our judicial code of ethics doesn't don't hold judges accountable for the actions or connections of their spouses or any other family member at any level.

Perhaps it does not. But I have seen instances where immediate (and I emphasize, "immediate" ... meaning child, spouse or parent only) family members can and do have influence. And instances where judges recused themselves for even less obviously conflicting reasons because their actions could be deemed to be not impartial.

This is clearly such a situation - the judge must recuse herself from these particular proceedings and decisions. The issue is way too charged for it to be dealt with in any other way ...

By the way, i don't really care whether she is a Republican or Democrat appointed judge. Or whatever her own political leanings are. That is irrelevant!

Z

[szh]

... since he's a Pakistani living in Northern California.

Heck, I am just an ignorant furriner!

Z

[szh]

Maybe Obama should declare the Governor of Wisconsin a "despot" and classify the runaway Democrats as "rebels".

And since the despot is hurting his people (all those people in the unions without collective bargaining rights - a fundamental right of Democracy, gasp!), he can then call in USAF air strikes to take out the Wisconsin National Guard and "force" the people of Wisconsin to make the Governor resign!

Then Democracy, and the Will of the Majority, will have been instilled in Wisconsin, they can elect a new Governor and the politicians can get back to their job of making new laws ... uh ... wait ... what?

Sigh ...

Z

Ahha! I wasn't the only one thinking this way:





Z

[AZhitman]

... since he's a Pakistani living in Northern California.

Heck, I am just an ignorant furriner!

Z

I'm amazed that your H1-B visa came with a copy of Google Translate. You must have a good immigration attorney.

Side note: There's a real difference between doing something that's "technically legal" and "having a strong moral compass". That's the argument you're having, and it's quite possibly irreconcilable.

[audtatious]

I realize that. And I'm calling both of you wrong, even if your wrongness is tongue-in-cheek.

I accept that the tongue-in-cheek response is almost most definitely kinda sorta not absolutely correct.

[audtatious]

This is clearly such a situation - the judge must recuse herself from these particular proceedings and decisions. The issue is way too charged for it to be dealt with in any other way ...

I agree with this. While I'm not intentionally saying she IS doing it because of personal/family reasons there is the opportunity of influence which is not acceptable. Rulings should be based upon set law and not interpreted law.

[IBCoupe]

Z, the rules of the Wisconsin Senate allow for the denial of quorum. The Wisconsin Constitution didn't need to allow for that, but it did. There was nothing unrepresentative about what they did, and the fact of the matter is there are other procedural rules available beyond voting.

There's nothing wrong about it. Maybe you feel that they abused the rules or that they did it for the wrong reasons, but to suggest that the only recourse available to a minority is to vote or propose counter-legislation is simply asinine. There are instances in every level of government, in every age, of procedural protections against the overreaching of majorities.

As for the Judge: that other Judges have chosen to recuse themselves is their prerogative. It is not an ethical requirement. To suggest that this Judge's ability to interpret the Senate rules is impaired because her adult son once was or currently is a member of a related but uninvolved third party is also asinine.

[audtatious]

As for the Judge: that other Judges have chosen to recuse themselves is their prerogative. It is not an ethical requirement. To suggest that this Judge's ability to interpret the Senate rules is impaired because her adult son once was or currently is a member of a related but uninvolved third party is also asinine.

If this wasn't about unions...say...abortions...And the judge had a son who had been involved in a large anti-abortion group. Do you think the same accusations would be flying from the Dems?

[IBCoupe]

I don't know, but the accusations, were they flying, would be just as asinine.

In fact, I'd say there's more legitimacy to the toothless calls for recusal for Justice Thomas. At least there, the income from his wife in question could theoretically be pooled with his. Still goes nowhere, but it makes more sense than what's being advocated here as a "conflict of interest."

[audtatious]

Yeah, well, it's neither here nor there and flinging crap back at others gets old after awhile. At least in this case. We can wait and fling more after the next step has been taken.

Time to go find something else in the world that I can simply throw up as bad due to liberal policy "just for the sake of it".

[telcoman]

How is that a conflict of interest?[/quote]

THIS should be good.

Hey Howie: You forgot to say something stupid about Z being from "the boonies", since he's a Pakistani living in Northern California.[/quote]

Since you brought up Pakistan it is not on my list of places to visit.

Many from Pakistan here in the US drive cabs, own small businesses and are very nice and polite people
Too bad they come from such a fvcked up place

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/16/2 ... stian.html

Our founding fathers knew well the problems of religion which is why we have separation of church and state. I will never understand why the right wing wack jobs, tea party aholes, etc keep bringing it up?
We don't discuss it here nor should it be in any part of our government, politics, sports, public schools, etc

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Show me Separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

I'll wait.

[IBCoupe]

Really? Are you seriously asking this question, or just being coy?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

"Separation of Church and State" describes a principle clearly embodied in the First Amendment. It's not a direct quote. Tell me you knew this.

[audtatious]

That's a general interpretation of the Establishment clause. Nobody is establishing anything.

Again, show me where it says "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution

I know, you will be an a** about how ridiculous I am. It's your common response. Knock yourself out

[szh]

In both of your uses: "asinine? no! Ethically the right thing to do? yes!"

As I have mentioned a number of times above, it is not a legality issue that I am talking about. My ethical compass is working just fine, and it is that which is making me say and believe the things I say above.

And, as I also said, I guess we just have to agree to disagree ...

Z

[szh]

Since you brought up Pakistan it is not on my list of places to visit.

Your loss.

Many from Pakistan here in the US drive cabs, own small businesses and are very nice and polite people
Too bad they come from such a fvcked up place

It is really too bad that you believe everything the media has to say - it is in their interest to only show the extreme situations. A mind that is closed is such a terrible thing to see wasted!

Yeah, there is good and bad in any country, but generalizations are so easy to make when you don't have a clue, do you? On either side, by the way!

For you, the Pakistanis here may be polite cab drivers. Over there, the Americans are considered ruthless killers. For many of the rural Pakistanis, all they see is the rain of cruise missiles and pilotless drones that have killed so many innocent civilians - more than were killed in 9/11. And these have continued even after your favorite, Obama, took office, by the way.

The crime and murder rate in the US, particularly in Washington DC, is given so much media attention there that I am occasionally asked when visiting, whether I consider it safe to go out at night in the US.

Such a f*** up place, indeed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-XI19Wy_rk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwHQ9LiMekU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etb8w29_ ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51LiUJfL ... re=related

Please do stay away from Pakistan, telcoman! That country can do without bigots like you.

Z

[telcoman]

Really? Are you seriously asking this question, or just being coy?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

"Separation of Church and State" describes a principle clearly embodied in the First Amendment. It's not a direct quote. Tell me you knew this.

I think we're dealing with another birther here.
They may have a chemical imbalance in their brains?
If it is a preexisting condition they are in deep $hit if the affordable health care bill someow gets overturned.

[IBCoupe]

That's a general interpretation of the Establishment clause. Nobody is establishing anything.

Again, show me where it says "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution

I know, you will be an a** about how ridiculous I am. It's your common response. Knock yourself out

Are you kidding me, ***hole? Read the part after the quote. What part didn't you get that made you repeat the same dumbass question I already answered?

There's nothing in the Constitution that says "Separation of Powers," either, or even "Individual Rights." Know why nobody's asking where they are? 'Cause the rest of us realize that's not the point of the phrases. They're labels for ideas that must necessarily exist for the words to make sense, not direct quotes. That's what I told you the first time.

[audtatious]

EDIT: nevermind, not worth my effort.

[IBCoupe]

Great. Could you avoid doing stupid crap like that in the future?

[audtatious]

Sure, by putting you on my ignore list. That way I don't answer stupid with more of the same.

[IBCoupe]

Get to it, skippy.

[audtatious]

I would if it wasn't removed. That's OK, i can take the high road. Dealing with kids is something I've had to do for over 25 years now.

[IBCoupe]

Missed a turn on your way to that high road, did ya?

[mattblancarte]

I can't even fathom how combining church and state would be a good thing...

Proponents of the idea will stumble over their own flawed logic once given the chance to explain themselves.

I sincerely appreciate each and every individual who fights to keep religion out of lawmaking.

[AZhitman]

Many from Pakistan here in the US drive cabs, own small businesses and are very nice and polite people
Too bad they come from such a fvcked up place

Yep.

You're an uneducated racist bigot.

"Drive cabs"? WTF.

"Own small businesses"? Yeah. Lots of them own BIG businesses, or hold executive-level positions in them. I work with a bunch of Pakistanis that have 10x the education of you OR me.

""Nice and polite"? As opposed to what? Does that surprise you, when a "brown person" is civilized? I'm sure it does, from inside your White retirement community.

"A f***ed up place"? Like New Jersey?

At least you didn't call them "Okies".

[mattblancarte]

I work with a bunch of Pakistanis that have 10x the education of you OR me.

I've been working with a programmer from Pakistan for two years, and he is now 20 years old. He's f*** brilliant, and really is a big part of my business. Pakistan is a cool place from everything he's told me, and he is a really normal guy.

The internet makes the world a very small place and we're all much more similar than we'd expect.