Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm sorry, I couldn't see your response, my hypocrisy warning light was flashing too brightly whenever it came on screen.This must be some of that judicial activism the right was talking about.
Your criticism would have had validity if you complained about judicial activism regarding things that the left loved as well. I know you are mad that the USSC didn't strike down the Patriot Act, and I am not happy with parts of it either, but... them's the breaks when you play this game. Now you have equality between corporations and unions with Citizens United too. And now that the political tide is reversing... you have the gall to complain?
How about that 'wise latina' Sotomayor who tried to codify anti-white racism into law with the New Haven fire fighter case? Did you protest that?
I'll give you a break on the judicial activism of the 1930's that overlooked all the New Deal reforms because you probably weren't around them, nor was I.
State Bar of Georgia - Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct
One more example. Notice, no discussion in re Jurisdiction.
OF COURSE there's no discussion of jurisdiction. You're a leftist, so you have no clue what it means. You think it's spiffy to decide US legal cases based on laws from other countries. So NATURALLY, you think talking about West Virginia and Georgia are examples of . . . I don't know what, exactly, because I'm not a leftist, but they're by God examples, right?
God forbid you should take your ignorant leftist ass (I know that's redundant) out and find me something that actually RELATES to the US Supreme Court upon which to hang your bitching and moaning.
And by the way, dumb shit, don't send me any more private essays about "Why I Think You're Stupid". Only a leftist would be brain-damaged enough to think someone who has just neg-repped you for being dumber than dirt would care what you think about them.
Laugh all you want, using Jurisdiciton in the context you have is incorrect and is evidence you are one more RW hack without integrity or even average intelligence.
Document Viewer
See in particular Cannon 2, clause B, in re Outside Influence.
OF COURSE there's no discussion of jurisdiction. You're a leftist, so you have no clue what it means. You think it's spiffy to decide US legal cases based on laws from other countries. So NATURALLY, you think talking about West Virginia and Georgia are examples of . . . I don't know what, exactly, because I'm not a leftist, but they're by God examples, right?
God forbid you should take your ignorant leftist ass (I know that's redundant) out and find me something that actually RELATES to the US Supreme Court upon which to hang your bitching and moaning.
And by the way, dumb shit, don't send me any more private essays about "Why I Think You're Stupid". Only a leftist would be brain-damaged enough to think someone who has just neg-repped you for being dumber than dirt would care what you think about them.
Laugh all you want, using Jurisdiciton in the context you have is incorrect and is evidence you are one more RW hack without integrity or even average intelligence.
Document Viewer
See in particular Cannon 2, clause B, in re Outside Influence.
Coming from a shitforbrains stalker like you, any insult to my intelligence is a compliment. God help me if I ever become "smart" like you and start thinking that neg reps and "Don't bother me with private messages" is an invitation to send me yet ANOTHER essay on your utterly negligible opinion of me.
Apparently, irrelevance isn't a concept you understand in ANY context, whether it's your lame-ass posts or your lame-ass self. Go harass someone who would bother pissing on you if you were on fire. FLUSH!
State Bar of Georgia - Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct
One more example. Notice, no discussion in re Jurisdiction.
OF COURSE there's no discussion of jurisdiction. You're a leftist, so you have no clue what it means. You think it's spiffy to decide US legal cases based on laws from other countries. So NATURALLY, you think talking about West Virginia and Georgia are examples of . . . I don't know what, exactly, because I'm not a leftist, but they're by God examples, right?
God forbid you should take your ignorant leftist ass (I know that's redundant) out and find me something that actually RELATES to the US Supreme Court upon which to hang your bitching and moaning.
And by the way, dumb shit, don't send me any more private essays about "Why I Think You're Stupid". Only a leftist would be brain-damaged enough to think someone who has just neg-repped you for being dumber than dirt would care what you think about them.
Only a dumb shit like you would think that SCOTUS justices are not subject to a code of conduct
Document Viewer
OF COURSE there's no discussion of jurisdiction. You're a leftist, so you have no clue what it means. You think it's spiffy to decide US legal cases based on laws from other countries. So NATURALLY, you think talking about West Virginia and Georgia are examples of . . . I don't know what, exactly, because I'm not a leftist, but they're by God examples, right?
God forbid you should take your ignorant leftist ass (I know that's redundant) out and find me something that actually RELATES to the US Supreme Court upon which to hang your bitching and moaning.
And by the way, dumb shit, don't send me any more private essays about "Why I Think You're Stupid". Only a leftist would be brain-damaged enough to think someone who has just neg-repped you for being dumber than dirt would care what you think about them.
Only a dumb shit like you would think that SCOTUS justices are not subject to a code of conduct
Document Viewer
I'm sure they are, and I'm equally sure it's NOT the code of conduct for West fucking Virginia. Only a dumb shit like YOU would think otherwise.
Perhaps you could take Wry's pecker out of your mouth long enough to contemplate the possibility that 1) he's an ignorant dickwad who wouldn't know a coherent argument if it crawled up his pants leg, and 2) pointing out how ridiculous he sounds telling me that Scalia and Thomas are unethical based on the code of conduct of WV doesn't mean I believe anything except that they're not subject to that code of conduct and that he's an ignorant dickwad who wouldn't know a coherent argument if it crawled up his pants leg.
Am I going too fast for you?
You can slavishly kiss his ass without defending his more boneheaded arguments, I promise.
Only a dumb shit like you would think that SCOTUS justices are not subject to a code of conduct
Document Viewer
I'm sure they are, and I'm equally sure it's NOT the code of conduct for West fucking Virginia. Only a dumb shit like YOU would think otherwise.
Perhaps you could take Wry's pecker out of your mouth long enough to contemplate the possibility that 1) he's an ignorant dickwad who wouldn't know a coherent argument if it crawled up his pants leg, and 2) pointing out how ridiculous he sounds telling me that Scalia and Thomas are unethical based on the code of conduct of WV doesn't mean I believe anything except that they're not subject to that code of conduct and that he's an ignorant dickwad who wouldn't know a coherent argument if it crawled up his pants leg.
Am I going too fast for you?
You can slavishly kiss his ass without defending his more boneheaded arguments, I promise.
Gee, before the Code of Conduct that does appy to SCOTUS was posted, you were arguing all about JURISDICTION, but as soon as the proper code was posted, you started to whine about how you don't care about Wry. Then you follow it up with post after post about Wry, which I guess you think proves you don't care about Wry.
Maybe someday, you'll work up the courage to discuss the actual code of conduct (instead of obsessing over Wry) and how Scalia and Thomas' action may have violated that code.
Until then, keep up the good job of "not caring" about Wry's opinion. Your constant whining about Wry is very persuasive
I'm sure they are, and I'm equally sure it's NOT the code of conduct for West fucking Virginia. Only a dumb shit like YOU would think otherwise.
Perhaps you could take Wry's pecker out of your mouth long enough to contemplate the possibility that 1) he's an ignorant dickwad who wouldn't know a coherent argument if it crawled up his pants leg, and 2) pointing out how ridiculous he sounds telling me that Scalia and Thomas are unethical based on the code of conduct of WV doesn't mean I believe anything except that they're not subject to that code of conduct and that he's an ignorant dickwad who wouldn't know a coherent argument if it crawled up his pants leg.
Am I going too fast for you?
You can slavishly kiss his ass without defending his more boneheaded arguments, I promise.
Gee, before the Code of Conduct that does appy to SCOTUS was posted, you were arguing all about JURISDICTION, but as soon as the proper code was posted, you started to whine about how you don't care about Wry. Then you follow it up with post after post about Wry, which I guess you think proves you don't care about Wry.
Maybe someday, you'll work up the courage to discuss the actual code of conduct (instead of obsessing over Wry) and how Scalia and Thomas' action may have violated that code.
Until then, keep up the good job of "not caring" about Wry's opinion. Your constant whining about Wry is very persuasive
Isn't it a wonder how these self described conservatives are usually profance when confronted with their hypocrisy and silly opinions - opinions formed by listening to the propaganda purveyors without the filter of critical evaluation? And, when provided evidence of their factual ignorance they run away.
I do wonder when someone such as Cecilie1200 is confronted with her ignorance if she ever considers the possibilty of being wrong, and, doing some research?
Gee, before the Code of Conduct that does appy to SCOTUS was posted, you were arguing all about JURISDICTION, but as soon as the proper code was posted, you started to whine about how you don't care about Wry. Then you follow it up with post after post about Wry, which I guess you think proves you don't care about Wry.
Maybe someday, you'll work up the courage to discuss the actual code of conduct (instead of obsessing over Wry) and how Scalia and Thomas' action may have violated that code.
Until then, keep up the good job of "not caring" about Wry's opinion. Your constant whining about Wry is very persuasive
Isn't it a wonder how these self described conservatives are usually profance when confronted with their hypocrisy and silly opinions - opinions formed by listening to the propaganda purveyors without the filter of critical evaluation? And, when provided evidence of their factual ignorance they run away.
I do wonder when someone such as Cecilie1200 is confronted with her ignorance if she ever considers the possibilty of being wrong, and, doing some research?
Why would a wingnut think anything is a reason to do some research when all they have to do is repeat their slogans and follow it up with some cursing?
Cecille, like every other wingnut, doesn't have the courage to defend her principle because she knows she only has one principle - repeat whatever the wingnut leaders are saying
That's why she's lost in this discussion. The wingnuts haven't formulated an argument to support Scalias' and Thomas' corruption, so she has nothing to repeat. That's why she curses
Last night I heard on the radio that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas attended the private strategy meeting hosted by the Kock brothers in Palm Springs. The NYT's reported:
"Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend Californias landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html
Two questions:
Is the participation of two members of the USSC at a solely political secret meeting appropriate?
Plutocracy anyone?
Last night I heard on the radio that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas attended the private strategy meeting hosted by the Kock brothers in Palm Springs. The NYT's reported:
"Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend Californias landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html
Two questions:
Is the participation of two members of the USSC at a solely political secret meeting appropriate?
Plutocracy anyone?
Newsflash:
It isn't "solely political."
That's one of the things that makes it "secret."
That was not what I was referring to.
Do you mean to say that Latino women are not smarter than men?
btw that is not racist, but sexist it would seem to me.
She is a member of La Raza, which IS Anti American and racist. She is sexist based on her statements about being smarter then men and again racist by proclaiming she as a Latino is smarter then white men.
You have proof that she is not smarter than you are?
From your posts I have concluded that you are a white male.
Last night I heard on the radio that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas attended the private strategy meeting hosted by the Kock brothers in Palm Springs. The NYT's reported:
"Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend Californias landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html
Two questions:
Is the participation of two members of the USSC at a solely political secret meeting appropriate?
Plutocracy anyone?
These are two men solely influenced by ideology. With Thomas, more court cases he sits on are settled long before any arguments are heard. He may as well skip the trials. In Scalia's case, it's basically the same, but he listens in to formulate opinions that sound like he actually heard the case.
Neither man has any notion of "Conflicts of Interests".
In a nutshell..they are exactly the wrong types of judges for the bench.
I asked; you did not answer..the state of west virginia does not govern the code of conduct of a supreme court justice. but no justice (or lawyer) can do anything that has an APPEARANCE of impropriety.
I'm going to guess that's true even in WV, anyway.
Does this partucular instance change your opinion as to Scala or Roberts' ability to carry out their judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence?
does it change my opinion?
no. i always thought they were hacks. they just keep proving it.
their being there is inappropriate.
as was thomas ruling on a case that involved a group that pays his wife hundreds of thousands of dollars a year...
and scalia ruling on a case that involved his hunting buddy's employment.
State Bar of Georgia - Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct
One more example. Notice, no discussion in re Jurisdiction.
State Bar of Georgia - Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct
One more example. Notice, no discussion in re Jurisdiction.
I just know Cecelia has already pointed out that this is irrelevant, but let me show you just how irrelevant.
There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can quote all the state codes you like, and even the federal code which is here.
Codes of Conduct
None of them actually apply though.
Last night I heard on the radio that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas attended the private strategy meeting hosted by the Kock brothers in Palm Springs. The NYT's reported:
"Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend Californias landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html
Two questions:
Is the participation of two members of the USSC at a solely political secret meeting appropriate?
Plutocracy anyone?
These are two men solely influenced by ideology. With Thomas, more court cases he sits on are settled long before any arguments are heard. He may as well skip the trials. In Scalia's case, it's basically the same, but he listens in to formulate opinions that sound like he actually heard the case.
Neither man has any notion of "Conflicts of Interests".
In a nutshell..they are exactly the wrong types of judges for the bench.
Really?
How do you explain the fact that he often joins in unanimous decisions that go against business if he hever listens to facts or applies the law?
State Bar of Georgia - Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct
One more example. Notice, no discussion in re Jurisdiction.
OF COURSE there's no discussion of jurisdiction. You're a leftist, so you have no clue what it means. You think it's spiffy to decide US legal cases based on laws from other countries. So NATURALLY, you think talking about West Virginia and Georgia are examples of . . . I don't know what, exactly, because I'm not a leftist, but they're by God examples, right?
God forbid you should take your ignorant leftist ass (I know that's redundant) out and find me something that actually RELATES to the US Supreme Court upon which to hang your bitching and moaning.
And by the way, dumb shit, don't send me any more private essays about "Why I Think You're Stupid". Only a leftist would be brain-damaged enough to think someone who has just neg-repped you for being dumber than dirt would care what you think about them.
Only a dumb shit like you would think that SCOTUS justices are not subject to a code of conduct
Document Viewer
These are two men solely influenced by ideology. With Thomas, more court cases he sits on are settled long before any arguments are heard. He may as well skip the trials. In Scalia's case, it's basically the same, but he listens in to formulate opinions that sound like he actually heard the case.
Neither man has any notion of "Conflicts of Interests".
In a nutshell..they are exactly the wrong types of judges for the bench.
Really?
How do you explain the fact that he often joins in unanimous decisions that go against business if he hever listens to facts or applies the law?
That generally speaks to Justice Thomas' belief in the limit of the Federal government's power.
OF COURSE there's no discussion of jurisdiction. You're a leftist, so you have no clue what it means. You think it's spiffy to decide US legal cases based on laws from other countries. So NATURALLY, you think talking about West Virginia and Georgia are examples of . . . I don't know what, exactly, because I'm not a leftist, but they're by God examples, right?
God forbid you should take your ignorant leftist ass (I know that's redundant) out and find me something that actually RELATES to the US Supreme Court upon which to hang your bitching and moaning.
And by the way, dumb shit, don't send me any more private essays about "Why I Think You're Stupid". Only a leftist would be brain-damaged enough to think someone who has just neg-repped you for being dumber than dirt would care what you think about them.
Only a dumb shit like you would think that SCOTUS justices are not subject to a code of conduct
Document Viewer
Actually, dumb shits are the people that make unwarranted assumptions.
There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can quote all the state codes you like, and even the federal code which is here.
State Bar of Georgia - Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct
One more example. Notice, no discussion in re Jurisdiction.
I just know Cecelia has already pointed out that this is irrelevant, but let me show you just how irrelevant.
There is no judicial code of ethics that applies to the Supreme Court of the United States. You can quote all the state codes you like, and even the federal code which is here.
Codes of Conduct
None of them actually apply though.
