Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Paul Clement was attorney general for exactly one day in the Bush Administration. However, that is not his claim to fame. He has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other lawyer in the past decade.
The day that it was decided the Supreme Court would hear the health care reform case, guess who was being treated to dinner by Paul Clement’s law firm, the one that would be arguing the case? Justice Anthony Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Do they not feel attending this dinner gives a vision of impropriety?
Obviously not.
Of course at the very least there is an appearance of impropriety here. But as long as the justices were appointed by repug presidents, it’s okay, evidently. The teahadis won’t say jack about this because they are spineless, cowardly hypocrites.
Starry, to I feel a pile on by our more conservative cocntributors? They are going to complain and they will be right. Kinder…gentler….por favor.
One would think, with them being aware of such a high profile case right around the corner, that they would be smart enough to use a little discretion. Instead, they rub it in the face of the opposition. Poor choice. Why does a Justice of the Court go to a dinner sponsored by a firm that tried cases before the court – what would be a valid reason?
Pat, I agree. I don’t know why they would put themselves in that position….other than because they can.
Clement’s law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles. Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.
Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the court’s conference over the case. In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.
The featured guests at the dinner? Scalia and Thomas.
It’s nothing new: The two justices have been attending Federalist Society events for years. And it’s nothing that runs afoul of ethics rules. In fact, justices are exempt from the Code of Conduct that governs the actions of lower federal judges.
-LA Times
I think it’s a stretch to say that they were “treated to dinner” as somehow that dinner was a bribe.
Interesting article on The Chronicle.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/15/bloomberg_articlesLUOJL10UQVI9.DTL
Interestingly, Scalia is being seen as a justice the law’s supporters think they can turn.
you just piled it on higher and deeper. Why are those people even sponsoring something with justices? I think it is worse, not better, since you explained.
It should not have happened.
Yes, justices are exempt from the code of conduct because they should want to appear above the fray.
If this is seen as an improper dinner, how does one excuse Kagan? She directly advocated for the government for ACR.
So…how does she stay impartial when she has already decided that the bill is constitutional?
Can anyone say “5-4?” (I know you can :twisted:)
For liberals, these concepts (integrity) are not applicable and have no place in politics.
Slowpoke, was she invited to dinner? 🙄
I believe there is still time for her to recuse herself if she feels it is appropriate.
Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas literally thumbs his nose at propriety along with his wife, Ginny who must be bat-sh!t crazy to have ever called Anita Hill.
Who is Kagan and what does he have to o with this topic?
Starry,
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan
Kagan is female (not a he). Bloggers and others have noted that her support of ACA, her emails and her time supporting the Administration as Solicitor General should be reason for her to exlude herself.
I don’t support that notion. I think it’s up to Thomas and Kagan to decide for themselves if they see a conflict (for themselves). Let history judge them and the institution of our Courts.
I agree with Cato. In the end it’ll be 5-4. And, as I’ve said a number of times on this blog. It’ll be funny that the case that killed ACA (healthcare reform) was a teenager that decided to take a gun to school. 🙂
Got THAT right!!
How do we feel about Virginia Thomas (wife of Justice Clarence Thomas) receiving salary and donations to her non profit from any Healthcare Reform advocates? Is it ok to enrich the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice? Why did Justice Thomas leave his wife’s income off of his disclosure documents for about 20 years?
As the Right pushes to get Kagan kicked off, the Left will push to get Thomas kicked off the case.
If I could, I would push to have Thomas taken off the Supreme Court. He and his wife are the lowest of the low in my eyes. Both seem to think they can do what they want to do.
The Supreme Court has a long tradition of just doing the right thing because that is what is expected. The Thomases seem to not have grasped this fact.
Together the couple redine the court and not in a very nice way. He is truly the activist judge and he ignores time honored tradition.
Well stated, Moon. This is crony capitalism at its worst, just as the teajadies are fond of saying. But they will not say a word about Scalia and Thomas because they are hypocrites.
So the answer seems simple. If Kagan goes, Thomas should go. If Kagan stays, Thomas stays. Nice and fair!