(05-09-2023 02:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 02:31 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 02:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 02:18 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-09-2023 01:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It has been implied by some here that the current requirements are best ignored.

I didn't notice where that was implied, and by whom.

A general idea of "Why would CT need to disclose that? If there's no evidence of CT's decision making being influenced why would he be compelled to do so?".

Are you generalizing to both disclosures that are and aren't required? Did anyone actually suggest that a current requirement should be ignored?

Yes. I believe that when I pointed out that he failed to report certain things that were required there was a "so what" response. Can't remember if it was Ham or OO. It's back there somewhere. I don't have time to search.

I went back and read over those posts. Nobody was saying it's ok for Thomas to ignore reporting requirements, they were saying that the specific instances were inconsequential.

But that gets back to the purpose of the reporting requirements, which is not to test how well justices and congressmen follow the rules. If that was the purpose, they'd all fail.