(05-08-2023 01:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-08-2023 12:28 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What do you think about the scenario where a member of the US Army assigns contracts to private military contractors. A certain business has been awarded a $200m contract annually for the past decade. What if the CEO of that company bought that officer a $5m home. "Hey... he's my friend and that what rich guys do for their friends." He continues to be awarded that same, juicy contract for the next 10 years. Are you OK with that home purchase? Zero evidence that it influenced the officer.

The company clearly has a vested interest, and the CEO a vested PERSONAL interest in being awarded the contract. You have presented no such situation.

This was never meant to be an apples:apples comparison. I was trying to gauge just how little you believe in conflict of interest policies.

Quote:If Thomas had been paid 1/3 of say, $1mm for those 3 lots when the market only supported $100k, or had Gorsuch been paid $5mm for a property worth only $1.5mm, THEN you'd have something similar...

Or much more similar, if Crow had a juicy 10 yr contract to provide abortions and Roe been upheld because Thomas 'surprisingly' voted to support Roe... THEN we'd be comparing apples:apples.

The 10yr $200mm/yr juicy contract would be part of the evidence that you don't have here.... the 'quid' to the $5mm home purchase 'quo.' You don't have that here. Anywhere.

I'm going to ignore your feigned confusion.

Quote:I just want justices to openly disclose stuff that most would agree that they absolutely should.

Who are these 'most'?

And again, why? It sounds to me like you just think that public service should deny you any right to privacy.

SC justices shouldn't have the right to privacy when it comes to obvious issues of influence, etc. IMO. That doesn't mean ANY right to privacy. You are making a massive stretch there.

Quote:

Quote:Nosey neighbors are very popular... so are gossipers and conspiracy theorists...

That's not a basis for the denial of rights to of all people, a Supreme court justice.

Again as I said, all of these rules also apply to everyone in Congress.

Quote:Of course they should recuse themselves in specific cases where they or a family member have an obvious interest but I never suggested what you are describing here.

Wait... so now they have to recuse themselves if they have a family member who supports one or the other side??

No. They should recuse themselves if there is an obvious conflict. Not a general "Well... this conservative group sent me on a trip so I have to recuse myself from any conservative filing." Total strawman.

Quote:

Quote:Lol...

Yes. Agree with LOL.

Quote:Good thing women don't support women's rights or minorities, minority rights. Those issues I'm sure never come up in ANYONE's homes.

What I described is presicely what you are suggesting here.... so yes you have. You're doing it now

Disagree.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:The premise of 'against the grain' I would agree with... so where is the evidence of that? You highlighted my 'absolutely no evidence' comment... but you don't address this.

I said there is no evidence. Short of getting inside these justices' heads there will be ZERO evidence even if they were being significantly influenced by these relationships.

I'll type slower.

You said 'where he reviews a case and (against the grain) decides that he is going to decide...'

If you have no evidence that he has EVER decided anything 'against the grain' then there is no reason to believe that laws regarding disclosure... which he has apparetnly not been as forthocoming as you would like... have had ABSOLUTELY NO impact on his behavior.

Neither one of us knows if there has been any impact.

Quote:So your belief that these laws discourage actions is not grounded in any fact at all.... because he isn't disclosing all that you want... he isn't following what YOU think these laws are saying to do... yet there is STILL no evidence of those actions you're trying to discourage.

There would never be evidence even if he was being influenced.

Quote:What I'm saying is that just as in your 'what if' that you started this response with.... what is the quid and what is the quo (I know that's not what they're called, I just think its funny)... You 've alleged that Thomas gets benefit out of his relationship with Crow... just as I do from some of my friends... as does your spouse (I'm sure) as she does for you... That's why people are friends and spouses...

but where is the exchange of money for power? Where is the 'sale' of the vote'? I can probably show you DOZENS of examples from every member of Congress for decades.... and Sotomayor is walking a very fine line... but where is the 'exchange' in either Thomas or Gorsuch's events? Where is the decision 'against the grain'??

You seem to ignore my previous post today.

Quote:Why would you bother to 'buy' a conservative vote from a conservative person??

To keep them doing what you want them to do.