|
twodot posted:Asserting a point is not debatable is not particularly persuasive. Are you seriously saying that avoiding the appearance of impropriety* isn't or shouldn't be part of a judge's ethical obligations? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying *According to an objective reasonable person standard- which that guy might not be aware of
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
twodot posted:Asserting a point is not debatable is not particularly persuasive. When the discussion regards best practices, it really should be. Edit: especially easily-verifiable, elementary best practices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Are you seriously saying that avoiding the appearance of impropriety* isn't or shouldn't be part of a judge's ethical obligations? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying Potato Salad posted:When the discussion regards best practices, it really should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Do you know what a "Bar Association" is? This isn't an argument about substantiation of claims. This is an argument about entry-level required understanding to consider yourself even a novice on the subject of legal ethics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
There was another post here, but I'm deleting it right after refreshing this page as I am now calming down and realizing that what you are trying to post about is simply not a part of your daily experience and worldview. My posts don't matter. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
I think there are several people ITT who don't understand what typical rules are so here's a sample for federal judgesquote:Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I think there are several people ITT who don't understand what typical rules are so here's a sample for federal judges Great quote, I was going to go here instead: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct.html Also, Mr. Esquilax, you forget the  at the end of your post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Wait, is anyone disputing that appearance of a conflict is a reason for recusal? I only brought up the indirectness issue to illustrate that it was a closer call for Justice Thomas in NFIB than it was for Justice Kagan in her recusals, because it appeared that his non-recusal was being directly compared to Justice Kagan's recusals as an indicator of some sort of ideology-based ethical failing. The Justices seem pretty vigilant about it -- Justice Scalia tipped his hand in a public speech once and recused himself from the relevant case (the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance case) and Justice Thomas recused himself from the VMI case because his son was a student there at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Wait, is anyone disputing that appearance of a conflict is a reason for recusal? Yeah, they were. But hopefully that's behind us now. With the SC, recusal is an honor system because there's no appeal from the SC - other than the "court of public opinion" which is what you are invoking. For what it's worth, I respect Kagan for recusing herself in so many cases because she did bolster the reputation of the court (and of herself). However, Kagan's recusals aren't precidential or somehow binding on the other justices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Wait, is anyone disputing that appearance of a conflict is a reason for recusal? I only brought up the indirectness issue to illustrate that it was a closer call for Justice Thomas in NFIB than it was for Justice Kagan in her recusals, because it appeared that his non-recusal was being directly compared to Justice Kagan's recusals as an indicator of some sort of ideology-based ethical failing. The Justices seem pretty vigilant about it -- Justice Scalia tipped his hand in a public speech once and recused himself from the relevant case (the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance case) and Justice Thomas recused himself from the VMI case because his son was a student there at the time. I think the underlying argument was about the definition of "appearance" and I'm guessing everyone is on the same page now. patentmagus posted:Also, Mr. Esquilax, you forget the Plz don't cheerlead
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yeah, they were. But hopefully that's behind us now. Well, there was a law professor who suggested that the role of the academy was to check the excesses of the Supreme Courahahahahahahahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Wait, is anyone disputing that appearance of a conflict is a reason for recusal? I only brought up the indirectness issue to illustrate that it was a closer call for Justice Thomas in NFIB than it was for Justice Kagan in her recusals, because it appeared that his non-recusal was being directly compared to Justice Kagan's recusals as an indicator of some sort of ideology-based ethical failing. The Justices seem pretty vigilant about it -- Justice Scalia tipped his hand in a public speech once and recused himself from the relevant case (the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance case) and Justice Thomas recused himself from the VMI case because his son was a student there at the time. Shades of grey are being lost to motivated reasoning. Some folks are asserting that Thomas's non-recusal in the NFIB scenario was unambiguously an ethics violation. This is a sign that Those Bad People on the Red Team are openly abusing the court, so we need to close the doomsday gap by also openly abusing the court. Realism consumes all in a fiery abyss. But it's a Blue fiery abyss. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Shades of grey are being lost to motivated reasoning. Some folks are asserting that Thomas's non-recusal in the NFIB scenario was unambiguously an ethics violation. This is a sign that Those Bad People on the Red Team are openly abusing the court, so we need to close the doomsday gap by also openly abusing the court. Realism consumes all in a fiery abyss. But it's a Blue fiery abyss. I definitely wasn't asserting that - I agree completely with Warszawa on the Thomas/Kagan recusal comparison. I literally just think that people were misunderstanding and talking past each other on what "appearance of impropriety" actually means. Whether it fits actions on a particular case is completely separate issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
This was the root quote, imo.Unzip and Attack posted:Yes. For an explanation as to why, simply review the cases in which Kagan recused herself for propriety's sake then contrast them to the cases Thomas, whose wife receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from political activists, chose to recuse himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who is "them?" Conservative appointments? Liberal appointments? Politicians without backgrounds in constitutional law? Potato Salad posted:Those who see the court as a simple "hurr durr I vote party line" do not understand the complexity and depth of constitutional law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
But his wife's money is his money for all intents and purposes, unless she is keeping it in some sort of special fund that can never be used to buy things for the family but only for her specifically. Surely receiving money from lobbying groups who lobby about issues you are going to rule on has the appearance of impropriety at the very least. I mean, I'd go so far as to say that depending on how direct the link between the lobbying and the case, it could easily be actual impropriety. What am I missing here? Is this any different from Rick Scott giving government money to businesses his wife owns?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:But his wife's money is his money for all intents and purposes, unless she is keeping it in some sort of special fund that can never be used to buy things for the family but only for her specifically. On an everyday basis, there is nobody to whom the court answers. Theoretically, the public could shame a judge into falling in line with clear, unmistakable code on conflict of interest, but that would involve an informed public that doesn't already know whether it is "siding with" or "opposed to" the judge's history of rulings, constitutional philosophies and ascribed theories, and thus likely opinion of the case to be heard. Joe Sixpack living in Rustbeltville isn't going to care that Thomas's wife received a bajillion dollars and other favors from Deregulate Industry Everywhere (DIE) in a case on interstate commerce vs state environmental / safety law, and Liberal Larry doesn't give a gently caress that John Paul Stevens is a gay-loving fetus-eating firebrand with a copy of his dissent on Citizens United v. FEC in print form as the wallpaper of his in-home orgy room.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:What am I missing here? Is this any different from Rick Scott giving government money to businesses his wife owns?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:But his wife's money is his money for all intents and purposes, unless she is keeping it in some sort of special fund that can never be used to buy things for the family but only for her specifically. Well, there's the fact that one can bee seen as giving the appearance of impropriety and the other is pretty text book impropriety. Particularly in the case of Rick Scott, who was the owner of said business until the law passed, at which point his wife became the owner. I will say though, that of any Justice in the history of the nation, I most trust Clarence Thomas to make a ruling that is not impacted by his wife's lobbying. He's capable of making an argument that is not impacted by the racial nature of his marriage when talking about Loving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
All the recent comics poking fun with 3rd Amendment People has me realizing that I know very little about the edge cases of my 3A rights. Can I refuse the local cops who want to watch a neighbor using my house as a staging point? Can I refuse non-personnel requests like the cops or (for some imaginary reason) federal military wanting to put a camera up in my yard to watch the Syrian refugee across the street? What, if any, are the points of contention over 3A?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
3rd doesn't apply to states (and thus police) I believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Surely receiving money from lobbying groups who lobby about issues you are going to rule on has the appearance of impropriety at the very least. I mean, I'd go so far as to say that depending on how direct the link between the lobbying and the case, it could easily be actual impropriety. This was the point I was trying to make in comparing Kagan's recusals and Thomas's non-recusals. I appreciate those who have spelled out differences and I realize it's not a one to one comparison, but I don't see how Thomas's situation doesn't meet the "appearance of impropriety" standard. His family is being paid handsomely by lobbyists. What could be more improper than that- someone handing him bags of money with dollar signs on it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Radish posted:3rd doesn't apply to states (and thus police) I believe. Wikipedia posted:Anthony Mitchell claims in a lawsuit that on July 10, 2011 he was at home, when officers called his home and said they needed to occupy the house in order to gain a "tactical advantage" in dealing with a domestic violence case at a neighbor's home. Mr. Mitchell told the police that he did not want them entering his home. Officers showed up a bit later and broke down the door anyway. Anthony and his father, Michael Mitchell, where arrested and charged with obstructing an officer and spent 9 hours in jail. Anthony's mother, Linda Mitchell, was forced from her and her husband's home as well, which is on the same street as Anthony's home. The lawsuit alleges that officers are guilty of crimes including assault, battery and abuse of processes as well as violating constitutional amendments, notably, the suit alleges officers violated the Third Amendment to the US Constitution [6]
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:There was a case last year! Mitchell v. City of Henderson. That was a district judge though. It was basically a case of a lawyer saying "I could kinda make a 3rd ammendment claim here and be one of 3 people in the history of the country to try it!" (in addition to the police are not soldiers thing they weren't really living there, in fact they didn't even spend a night)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
So why isn't that a 4th violation? They literally seized his house, albeit temporarily. Although now that he's been charged, is it up for civil forfeiture?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:So why isn't that a 4th violation? They literally seized his house, albeit temporarily. The last news articles I could find on it said that they were going to trial on the 4th violations. The 3rd violation was dismissed because they didn't make a claim that was a violation of the 3rd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:3rd doesn't apply to states (and thus police) I believe. Engblom v. Carey says that the Third is incorporated, at least in the Second District. The case was about the National Guard rather than the cops, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:So why isn't that a 4th violation? They literally seized his house, albeit temporarily. Why is it a fourth violation? Seems like a "reasonable" seizure to me given that it was temporary and contemporaneous with an emergency situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
There is a very real slippery slope wherein the police is essentially able to confiscate physical bills belonging to you with literally no means of recourse, even in the absence of an indictment or after acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
From the Texas threadzoux posted:lol I guess my theory that Abby Fisher is an innocent pawn in all this isn't shared by the UT admin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Why is it a fourth violation? Seems like a "reasonable" seizure to me given that it was temporary and contemporaneous with an emergency situation. If it was reasonable, they should have called a judge and asked for a warrent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:There is a very real slippery slope wherein the police is essentially able to confiscate physical bills belonging to you with literally no means of recourse, even in the absence of an indictment or after acquittal. Wait are we talking about the same thing? I thought we were talking about the guy who wouldn't let swat in his house during a hostage situation next door? Keeshhound posted:If it was reasonable, they should have called a judge and asked for a warrent. Because you don't need a warrant if a search or seizure is already reasonable without one? See: border crossings
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because you don't need a warrant if a search or seizure is already reasonable without one? Would you like to hazard a guess at the legal difference between approaching a border crossing and being informed that you must subject yourself to a search to pass and having the police demand entry into your domicile?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Dameius posted:From the Texas thread Good gently caress abby.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Would you like to hazard a guess at the legal difference between approaching a border crossing and being informed that you must subject yourself to a search to pass and having the police demand entry into your domicile? Your complete lack of understanding of how the fourth amendment works?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Your complete lack of understanding of how the fourth amendment works? You know, I always thought that quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Was pretty straightforward, but I guess you're just beyond me. Shucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:You know, I always thought that quote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. See that bolded part, it's important, my word choice was not random. edit: Also for the record, almost any time you post "I thought <full text of constitution> was straightforward" it's like a giant loving beacon visible from space that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are arrogant about your ignorance. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:See that bolded part, it's important, my word choice was not random. Given how little you've actually done to support your interpretation of these events as "reasonable," aside from try to shout down other people, I think I'd be forgiven for assuming it was. Have you actually read what happened in this case? I'll grant that there are scenarios in which it would be reasonable to expect a search, and therefore do not benefit from 4a protections. I'm not willing to accept "we wanted a better view of their neighbor's house, and we thought they might be telling them what we were doing" as one of them
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
I let my thinking accidentally drift toward seizure, but this is interesting regardless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I let my thinking accidentally drift toward seizure, but this is interesting regardless. Yeah, especially if the SWAT team had found drugs or kiddie porn during their home invasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2016 23:52
|
|