Go back
Conflict of Interest?

Conflict of Interest?

Debates

jimm619

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
251103
Clock
08 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

The Court should always appear to be 'above the fray.'
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ginni-clarence-thomas-draw-questions-101100345.html

vivify
rain

Joined
08 Mar 11
Moves
12456
Clock
08 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

It is a conflict of interest but Justices can recuse themselves and have before. Thomas should do the same.

jimm619

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
251103
Clock
08 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify said
It is a conflict of interest but Justices can recuse themselves and have before. Thomas should do the same.
It works on ''The Honor System.''
Justice Thomas, honor system.........?
The Court should be above reproach

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147482
Clock
08 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@jimm619 said
It works on ''The Honor System.''
Justice Thomas, honor system.........?
The Court should be above reproach
which case are you referring to?

jimm619

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
251103
Clock
08 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@mott-the-hoople said
which case are you referring to?
You're supposed to
read the link............

Contenchess
Contentious

Joined
01 Sep 21
Moves
14125
Clock
08 Feb 22

Just like democrat politicians hiring and over paying family members for services...

All politicians do this crap.

In this case...his wife should not be involved like she is but you can't stop people from working and living just because of who their spouse is...

This type of behavior won't stop by either side so it's a Nothing Burger 🙄

Contenchess
Contentious

Joined
01 Sep 21
Moves
14125
Clock
08 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

Anyone on the Supreme Court should not have any spouse working for any side...

Just my opinion.

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147482
Clock
08 Feb 22
1 edit

@jimm619 said
You're supposed to
read the link............
I read the link, I didnt see anything about a case where Thomas had ruled wrongly.

Mott The Hoople

Joined
05 Nov 06
Moves
147482
Clock
08 Feb 22
1 edit

@contenchess said
Anyone on the Supreme Court should not have any spouse working for any side...

Just my opinion.
why limit this to just a spouse? why limit this to just a judge?

Outside influence appears at every position. Why do we have conservative and liberal justices? Arent judges supposed to rule according to the law?

To me this is nothing more than a lib media outlet making much ado about the normal.

j

Joined
18 Jan 05
Moves
11601
Clock
08 Feb 22

@jimm619 said
The Court should always appear to be 'above the fray.'
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ginni-clarence-thomas-draw-questions-101100345.html
I agree, a judge should not have a wife with a strong opinion, he should divorce her immediately.
As you say, the court should "appear" to be above the fray.

jimm619

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
251103
Clock
09 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@contenchess said
Just like democrat politicians hiring and over paying family members for services...

All politicians do this crap.

In this case...his wife should not be involved like she is but you can't stop people from working and living just because of who their spouse is...

This type of behavior won't stop by either side so it's a Nothing Burger 🙄
''WHATABOUT THE OTHER GUYS.
Will you get off this ''whataboutism.''

jimm619

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
251103
Clock
09 Feb 22

@jimmac said
I agree, a judge should not have a wife with a strong opinion, he should divorce her immediately.
As you say, the court should "appear" to be above the fray.
The standard practice, and the 'honorable,'
action is, of course, recusal, when even
an appearance of conflicted interest is present.

shavixmir
Lord

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
89770
Clock
09 Feb 22
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify said
It is a conflict of interest but Justices can recuse themselves and have before. Thomas should do the same.
I’m looking for the Dutch word for recuse.
In Holland a judge can be “wraked”, which means he’s substituted (on roughly the same grounds as recusing).

But when I look up wraak, I get the word substituted. When I look up the word recuse, it doesn’t seem to translate to Dutch.

It’s doing my head in. Or is recuse (in legal terms) exactly the same as substitute?

In my role at work, I withdrew from a topic because of a conflict of interests, and I couldn’t think of the Dutch word for recuse.

Pretty strange altogether…

AThousandYoung
1st Dan TKD Kukkiwon

tinyurl.com/2te6yzdu

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26755
Clock
09 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@shavixmir said
I’m looking for the Dutch word for recuse.
In Holland a judge can be “wraked”, which means he’s substituted (on roughly the same grounds as recusing).

But when I look up wraak, I get the word substituted. When I look up the word recuse, it doesn’t seem to translate to Dutch.

It’s doing my head in. Or is recuse (in legal terms) exactly the same as substitute?

In my ...[text shortened]... flict of interests, and I couldn’t think of the Dutch word for recuse.

Pretty strange altogether…
verwerpen?

https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english-to-dutch/law-general/4485605-recuse.html

shavixmir
Lord

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
89770
Clock
09 Feb 22
Vote Up
Vote Down

@athousandyoung said
verwerpen?

https://www.proz.com/kudoz/english-to-dutch/law-general/4485605-recuse.html
Verwerpen is getting rid of a subject.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.