Conflict of interest on the Supreme Court
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-08-25/conflict-interest-supreme-court
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of legal justice in America. It has immense power over our lives. It is essential that it’s ethics and impartiality are unimpeachable. But now the looming battle over the federal health care law which is likely to make it to the supreme court before the end of the year is raising concerns over the potential, or at the very least, the “appearance” of a conflict of interest on the court. Justice’s Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan are both facing calls to recuse themselves from proceedings should the law make it to the court. If they don’t, critics says the reputation of the court could be affected for years to come.
Guests
Jeffrey Rosen
professor of law at the George Washington University and legal affairs editor of "The New Republic." He's the author of "The Supreme Court," "The Most Democratic Branch," "The Naked Crowd," and "The Unwanted Gaze."
Jeffrey Toobin
staff writer at The New Yorker; senior legal analyst for CNN, author of "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" (Doubleday), and former Assistant U.S.Attorney in Brooklyn, New York.
Sherrilyn Ifill
professor, University of Maryland School of Law, co-founder of the Reentry of Ex-Offenders Clinic and author of "On the Courthouse Lawn."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
i think sherrilyn stepped over the callers statement about thurgood marshall and recusal. the caller stated that thurgood marshall didn't recuse for cases about race and he belonged to several orgs i.e. aclu etc.
she quickly changed the focus from all cases of race to specific cases that he did recuse himself but i think the point of the caller was that he didn't recuse himself in every case which he should have because of his associations.
of course i could be interpreting that incorrectly but that's the impression i took from it.
IF CORPORATIONS ARE PERSONS, THEN ARE PERSONS CORPORATIONS?
The slogan "Corporations Are People" is being bandied about lately. The word "people" is understood commonly to mean the plural of "persons" and implies human status.
Corporations are legal entities and do not have status as individual persons.
If corporations may be defined as "people" in the sense of an individual person, then we must examine the meaning of such definition:
Can a corporation be drafted into the military?
Can a corporation vote?
Can a corporation serve on the Supreme Court?
Can a corporation run for political office?
Can a corporation give birth to a child?
Can a corporation be arrested or serve a prison sentence?
All of these questions above may be answered in the negative.
Similarly, people may incorporate as individuals or groups, forming legal entities, with all the rights and privileges of legal entities; but, each individual is still an individual, subject to the draft, granted the right to vote, to serve in the courts, to run for political office, to bring children into the world, to be subject to justice, etc.
Without a doubt, it is absurd to regard any corporation as a person!
IF CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, THEN ARE PEOPLE CORPORATIONS?
The slogan "Corporations Are People" is being bandied about lately.
I thought that corporations are legal entities! Is this not so?
If corporations are people, then we must examine the meaning of this.
Can a corporation be drafted into the military?
Can a corporation vote?
Can a corporation serve on the Supreme Court?
Can a corporation run for political office?
Can a corporation give birth to a child?
Can a corporation be arrested or serve a prison sentence?
All of these questions above may be answered in the negative for corporations.
Similarly, people may incorporate as individuals or groups, forming legal entities,
with all the rights and privileges of legal entities; but, each individual is still an
individual, subject to the draft, granted the right to vote, to serve in the courts,
to run for political office, to bring children into the world, to be subject to justice,
etc.
It is clearly absurd to regard any corporation as a human being or citizen.
AARON BENEZRA
Cazenovia, NY, USA
Diane,
I think your guests' notion of separating the issues of recusal from disagreements about the opinions of the justices does not comport with reality, as those issues are intertwined. The reason a Justice should recuse herself or himself would be exactly because the issues surrounding his or her recusal are believed to be an undue influence on what will become his or her opinion.
Further, none of your guests acknowledged the political reality concerning the Supreme Court: these are all men and women chosen through a political process. While all the sitting justices have qualifications through their legal tenures, they are nonetheless essentially political appointees, and one would be naive to discount political influence in their decision-making.
Finally, with decisions like Citizens United, which so plainly run contrary to not only to the public's interests, but 100 years of well-established law, learning after the fact that Justices Scalia and Thomas attended a pep rally thrown by the Koch brothers prior to making their ruling cannot help but raise a few eyebrows. Indeed, the reputation of the High Court is what sustains the institution, and acts like these bring into question the propriety of the Justices' decisions.
I think the point was that Justice Marshall actually did recuse himself from cases involving his former associations, and took great pains to recuse himself from any case which would raise the air of impropriety. Certainly, for him, this may have been because of the simple fact that, as the first black justice, he did not want his tenure to be tainted by such impropriety.
He did not recuse himself from every case involving a race issue, but that would be absurd, since not every race issue involves the NAACP, and using that logic, Roberts would have to recuse himself from every case involving presidential issues because he worked for a president.
The clear and stark contrasts to Justice Marshall are Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas, who happen to be Republican appointees, who revel in their own "impartiality". But, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, chances are...
Grounds for recusal are material advantage, not disposition on issues and beliefs. Dispositions on issues and beliefs are reviewed at Confirmation. It is difficult for any person to remain open-minded on an issue where his paycheck or investments, or close business assiciations are concerned.
Justice Thomas's attempt to conceal family income (his wife's) relates to exactly this point, as does Justice Scalia taking favors from wealthy elites with an interest in cases before the Supreme Court.
When Thurgood Marshall was Confirmed his strong interest in interracial justice was a positive part of traits recommending him. To recuse oneself for being just is absurd. (Only a latent racist could argue such.)
We live in an era of intensified legislated classism where not only wealth but human rights are shifted upward. This type of condition is properly called corruption.
@monte the troll
Your recitation of the meaning of the Commerce Clause is perfunctory and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our government works and the relationship between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government. Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, per our Constitution, of what the meaning of the Constitution is.
What "commerce" means in the Commerce Clause is not a merely what the dictionary proclaims, or even what the "Founding Fathers" proclaimed, but it is rooted in a series of case law interpretations by the Supreme Court that has evolved over time. And this is necessary, as the things that constitute our world today, telecommunications an the Internet, did not exist and were not contemplated by the "Founding Fathers". Further, the very best Supreme Court decisions are the ones that contemplate their own consequences, such as Board v. Brown, whereby the Constitution's influence is made into a moral instrument to ensure we have a just society, if not an equal one.
Unless, of course, you're okay with colored people being considered 3/5 of a human being.
Let me boil a lot of ignorance on this board down to a few simple statements.
The Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to REGULATE commerce, not participate in it. That is why every bailout (including GM) is unConstitutional.
The current reading of the Commerce Clause gives the Congress, with the approval of the President, the right to do and participate in anything it wants. Based on my reading of the Founders, not what they had in mind. Otherwise, why is there anything in Article 1 Section 8 BESIDES the Commerce Clause? With the current interpretation, the rest is completely superfluous.
The Constitution is NOT a "living breathing document" unless it "lives and breathes" through the ammendment process. Anything that is subject to one generation's random interpretation, has no value whatsoever.
The Citizens United case is not about what is and is not a person. It is about speech. The decision centered on the right of Citizens United to produce the film "Hillary: The Movie". Let's say the court decided the other way and prohibited its distribution. Now, it's 2012, Mitt Romney is running for President and Michael Moore wants to put out a movie dissing the Mormon faith. Can he do it? That is the problem with an adverse decision in this case. It essentially sets a "sloppy" precedent whereby, CU is denied its speech, but who decides whether Moore can release his movie? or Oliver Stone his next movie? Who decides if, say a parody is too close to reality and shouldn't be shown? It becomes a sloppy mess.
That is why (and this is THE KEY POINT), the court, AND THE FOUNDERS, said, "allow everything". If there are questions of slander, libel, or other factual issues, take the producers to court, otherwise, shut your pie hole and produce your own movie.
Sam in Texas wrote:
"Unless, of course, you're okay with colored people being considered 3/5 of a human being."
Hey Sam, not only are you ignorant of the meaning and purpose of the Commerce Clause, you're also ignorant of the origin and purpose of the above statement. Go study its history and learn its purpose. He who speaks in ignorance just looks ... well, you know.
Well, Grady Lee Coward crawled out from under his rock again. Hey, GLC, did you find that post of mine that you were referring to when you called me a racist? Let's see it. You keep popping up on this board posting your little posts and then running and hiding from me like a little girl. Why don't you man up, GLC. Why don't you show us the post - or retract your vicious and ignorant statement?
You say I'm a racist with nothing to back it up. I don't hear you calling the people here dissing Justice Thomas racists. Why is that Grady Lee Coward?
One more time, show us the evidence!
Distinguishing between doubting the merits of a decision and considering that decision wrong is false. If a decision is truly wrong, then the merits must be called into doubt.
Clear standards must be imposed. As it stands the Supreme Court is completely untrustworthy.
I expect partisanship in a court made up of political appointees. Unfortunately it is difficult to clearly identify partisanship in nominees when every one of them is afraid of being "Borked"--which of course they should be. Such power must be properly vetted.
As it happens I agree that there should be no mandate requiring citizens to buy private health insurance. Healthcare should be single payer, period, with no private for-profit interests allowed anywhere near it.
Roberts, Scalia, and Alito may well be favorable to Executive power--but I suspect they will prove less so when the Executive is a Democrat.
And to those who laud the Roberts Court for its supposed favoring of free speech: I would join you if it didn't equate money with speech. Real "free speech" would imply equal access to dissemination of speech, which certainly doesn't exist. Also, a court that really favored free speech wouldn't have ruled against a teenager with a "bong hits for Jesus" banner.
Term limits? Concerns about justices angling for lucrative work after retirement?
This is a question that should apply to all levels of government.
I think anyone who seeks government position and the power that accompanies it ought to be restricted thus:
First: have a term limit, beyond which one cannot hold position in government ever again.
Second: if you once worked in government, you may never work for any private or public company in any capacity for the duration of your natural life. (An adequate pension for life to cover living expenses would of course be forthcoming for those who were not already independently wealthy.)
Power should always be restricted, limited, and temporary, and its price should always be absolute severance from privacy and privilege.
I know this is "unrealistic", but then, reality is overrated.
ecgberht, I am really impressed by the conservative posters here, and thanks. You guy's are much better at this than I am.
It is just mind blowing how liberals twist the meaning and intent of the Constitution. A document that the framers went through great pains to make readable and understandable to the masses. To listen to them you would think it was written in hieroglyphs. We know the truth though they only seek to force their will upon us and the Constitution is only a nuisance to them.
The fact that trillions of dollars have been spent on anti poverty programs and we have less than zero improvement in any measurable way to show for it would be enough to show them how wrong they are. The liberal democrat is the true face of evil, to thrive and prosper off of the misery of others and to keep them enslaved to the government has certainly got to rank right up there with Satan himself.
"Marvin Wagner wrote:
Well said mellifluous. Man's problem is countering the ignorance and/or intentional manipulation that effect our world and its population. Just as the mass's lives are valueless to the extreme right, shortly in time their own lives will also cease. Not because of aging, but because of the depletion of life's needed resources. Our earth's population is growing at a rate that will hasten earth's death, and consequently man's death.
We have the capacity to save our earth and man. We lack the will. Could Christianity rescue us? rita_marvin@sbcglobal.net"
Don't think the churches or the "extreme right" are doing their part to help the masses. Maybe you ought to read this. Many of those churches are probably considered extreme right if not feeding the disinfrachised.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/hunger_at_home/hunger-home-local-heroes-rescue/...
"Robin Shoulders wrote:
Judge Thomas is clearly one of the worst judges of all time and has no integrity what's so ever. He should be removed"
Thank goodness people of your thinking are in the minority.
Meangreen
"Sane wrote
It is interesting that all progressive liberal states, with fairly advanced social benefits, are also the most productive and prosperous ones. The poor southern, conservative states are poorest and that includes Texas. These are also easiest to control by our plutocrats and their population is the easiest to herd"
Insane:
Why did USA Today Snapshot 8-24-11 Wednesday show that the states that are losing population are California 2 million, New York State 1.5 million, Illinois a little under 1.5 million? All Blue State high taxes and liberal.
USA Today Snapshot, 8-25-11 Thursday, front page states the states that are increasing in population are Florida 1.3 million, Texas 781,542, N.C. 714,458, Georgia 393,074 and even racist Arizona 423,710.
Don't see your logic why people are moving "to the poorest".
"Robin Shoulders wrote:
Judge Thomas is clearly one of the worst judges of all time and has no integrity what's so ever. He should be removed"
Don't look now, Robin, but I think, if we are to remain consistent, that makes you a racist.
Now, Grady Lee Coward, don't you hear how SILLY that sounds?!
In an article about America's history with gun control, this month's Atlantic magazine reported that Conress passed a law in 1793 requiring all eligible males to purchase a commercial military-style gun and ammunition. If precedents count at all, one is there, right from the beginning, for Congress to mandate" a purchase. Regarding Justice Thomas, I think it is quite acceptable for his spouse to have and express her own political views. However, his oversight in not disclosing roughly $600,000 earned by her over a period of thirteen years is scandalous and reprehensible. And I disagree with Jeffery Toobin that the Court has "bounced back" after the Bush v Gore decision. It was a watershed poor decision that taints any NeoConservative decision that has followed.
In an article about America's history with gun control, this month's Atlantic magazine reported that Conress passed a law in 1793 requiring all eligible males to purchase a commercial military-style gun and ammunition. If precedents count at all, one is there, right from the beginning, for Congress to mandate" a purchase. Regarding Justice Thomas, I think it is quite acceptable for his spouse to have and express her own political views. However, his oversight in not disclosing roughly $600,000 earned by her over a period of thirteen years is scandalous and reprehensible. And I disagree with Jeffery Toobin that the Court has "bounced back" after the Bush v Gore decision. It was a watershed poor decision that taints any NeoConservative decision that has followed.
In an article about America's history with gun control, this month's Atlantic magazine reported that Conress passed a law in 1793 requiring all eligible males to purchase a commercial military-style gun and ammunition. If precedents count at all, one is there, right from the beginning, for Congress to mandate" a purchase. Regarding Justice Thomas, I think it is quite acceptable for his spouse to have and express her own political views. However, his oversight in not disclosing roughly $600,000 earned by her over a period of thirteen years is scandalous and reprehensible. And I disagree with Jeffery Toobin that the Court has "bounced back" after the Bush v Gore decision. It was a watershed poor decision that taints any NeoConservative decision that has followed.
meanconcer(mg c)
Maybe because since civil war and since start of federal income tax
WEALTHY progressive Northern states were / are being bled dry by those poor illiterate southern ones.
Today South simply have newer and better infrastructure... BUT now the federal dole is being cut.
So good bye local poliytico jobs like teachers... and police and fire. Next round gets 'smarter'. Last round civil unrest- like good old daze. Not to mention the water wars(again).
Squeezed money from the college bound by abandoning the no cost no profit loan system WE HAD and replaced it with the loan models which evolved into other financial frauds.
Extract money from the many for the few... make money your 'king'.
But an old unheard complaint from states is that SOME states(NY NJ CA etc) PAID for the improvements and sacrificed for the south in order to form a more perfect union(how unAmerican?).
Shared common interests and concerns although regional priorities differ. United we stand...
What a stupid and irresponsible notion. Good thing ITs dead.
The king is dead. Long live the king!
Doesn't anyone read history or religious books anymore? Compare two hundred year old writings? 2000? Anything without pictures? Understand that culture evolves or dies with ITs civilization?
Most of you were NOT even trying. WE watch you know.
and MT women- we think we love you.
Mountainwomon
we waive copyright infringement-
"Opposite of CONgress... "
Remember progress so nasty it takes TWO four letter words.
Do the waters really taste like wine?
Ours slightly toxic... benzene contaminated. Cuts the oily taste of the Soylent Green biscuits nicely.
May we camp there? We have some skills- both industrial and post-industrial. Travel would be safer prior to collapse... lettuce know.
Thank you Meanconser. What do they preach from their pulpit? The "right" to water, food, clothing, shelter, a decent job, education, dignity and respect for all of God's children, including the gay community? Is government complimented for their ability to supply these human rights most efficiently?
Concern for life does not begin at the church entrance.
"meanconcer(mg c)
Maybe because since civil war and since start of federal income tax
WEALTHY progressive Northern states were / are being bled dry by those poor illiterate southern ones.
Today South simply have newer and better infrastructure... BUT now the federal dole is being cut."
No Semi:
A great deal of the wealth that is coming to southern states are companies relocating to Southern States due to less regulation thereby creating jobs. Oil jobs are booming here, might want to relocate here and get a good paying job.
As I stated to you a few week ago USA Today (Snapshot) showed that California is 50 th in the country in creating jobs, big wealthy Connect. is 47th. I also stated that somebody wants to start a Carl Junior franchise in California takes two years compared to Texas which is 45 days.
Let me also mention that many retirees from Baby Boom generation which have the greatest disposal income are moving down here because of high taxes in blue states . I hope you know that retirees spending money result in creating job for good and services and provide revenue for state coffers. That is if you have ever had a real job in private industry or understand it.