(03-30-2022 09:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-30-2022 09:31 AM)RiceLad15 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.

To the bold, that seems overly broad and not similar in a very relevant way. It seems more apt to ask whether Sotomayor should recuse herself from a case where her husband had been directly involved.

It's not as if Ginni was just postulating on Twitter or running a campaign with no direct communication with the White House. It seems more than fair to ask whether there is a conflict of interest here.

Actually some of the decisions had direct impacts on the issues that his firm was dealing with. Not named parties, but shared issues they had at the time.

So no, it is not overly broad.

You just said she should recuse herself from ANY parent issues, but then followed that up by noting her husband was somewhat involved in SOME of the parent issues.

So yeah, your first statement was overly broad. It doesn’t seem inappropriate to ask if she should have recused herself from cases that involved work that her husband also worked on.

I’m not arguing that Thomas absolutely should or must refuse himself. I’m arguing that you and other posters are misrepresenting the issue at hand, and that the question of conflict of interest is not outlandish.