(03-30-2022 10:00 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This is the same issue as trying to tar an attorney with a client his firm represents.

As for conflict of interest issues -- that is realistically extended to all direct relationships (spouses, siblings, parents, children).

The issue here is that the presumption by the left is that Ginny could/did improperly influence her husband -- induced a bias.

In this vein, Sotomayor's husband is actually a patent lawyer --- and a number of ground breaking patent decisions have been made under Sotomayor's tenure. With the same logic, the case should be made that Sotomayor should not make any decisions in the patent realm.

No one with a level head would say that. And even though those of us who think Sotomayor is by far the worst Justice in terms of legal acumen in 60 years or so and simply votes in lockstep with her ingrained political bent wouldnt make that leap. All assume that Sonia the crappy Justice can make a decision on the matters without coercion or influence of her hubby.

Or, take a hard look at Pelosi's husband.

And Ginny Thomas *is* a highly political individual. I would hope that the same default that a Justice can not be subject to a spouse's agenda would be applied to Thomas and his spouse. But, honestly, I dont think the progressives can pass on that vein -- I have yet to see nothing that they would not do in the pursuit of unbridled power so I am not surprised that that same view can be engendered towards a perceived political opponent.

Do you think the Red Team would be making hay over this if the tables were turned?

Would that make it Ok for the Blue Team?

Seems we are back to fingerpointing, but instead of 'they did it first", we are chanting "They would have done it first in some hypothetical alternate reality".

Just, as usual, a general statement that both sides are ridiculous and hypocritical but most here seem to believe that it is a one-way street.

The Blue Team thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant! LOL.

That was not my point, and I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that. Blue Team will - did! - argue the "woman behind the man" crap when it is politically expedient to do so, was the point I was making. I'll avoid metaphor and hyperbole in my posts in response to yours in the future.

I think they are making a simple conflict of interest argument so I didn't understand how it became a case of sexism. Sort of over-the-top and akin to how many liberals are way too quick to call something racist.