Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

Ginsburg violates code of conduct

Discussion in 'The Soapbox' started by LDB, Sep 19, 2014.

  1. LDB

    LDB Veteran Expediter Retired Expediter

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Trophy Points:
    755
    Ratings:
    +3,504 / 8 / -1
    Vehicle:
    Recliner
  2. Turtle
    Busy

    Turtle Administrator Staff Member Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    24,650
    Trophy Points:
    1,285
    Ratings:
    +12,804 / 12 / -2
    Carrier:
    Load One
    Vehicle:
    2005 Sprinter
    If the cases come before the Court and Ginsburg recuses herself, then the entire hysterical worry is moot.

    Also, let us not forget that the aforementioned (in the article) Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 was a proposed House bill that came about directly because of the actions of conservative justices Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who did not, in fact, recuse themselves from cases in which they were directly affected. Point of fact, they ruled in their own favor, blatantly.
     
    • RLENT

      RLENT Veteran Expediter

      Joined:
      May 14, 2006
      Messages:
      8,657
      Trophy Points:
      405
      Ratings:
      +1,268 / 3 / -0
      Carrier:
      Bolt Express
      Hilarious ... the thread originator comes up with a thread title ... and then, in the first sentence, has to insert the disclaimer "No ... it isn't actually what I just said it was ..."

      That's almost as hilarious as posting/linking some garbage crapola piece from some radical "conservative" whack-a-doodle website ...

      ... lol ...
       
    • LDB

      LDB Veteran Expediter Retired Expediter

      Joined:
      Sep 11, 2004
      Messages:
      16,472
      Trophy Points:
      755
      Ratings:
      +3,504 / 8 / -1
      Vehicle:
      Recliner
      Hilarious.. some anal orifice that lives only to denigrate fails to see or acknowledge the problem with certain groups being exempt from the laws and rules they expect everyone else to follow.


      ...lol...
       
    • RLENT

      RLENT Veteran Expediter

      Joined:
      May 14, 2006
      Messages:
      8,657
      Trophy Points:
      405
      Ratings:
      +1,268 / 3 / -0
      Carrier:
      Bolt Express
      No ... you clearly saw it and are acknowledging it ... albeit thru the use of a false pretense ... sorta a bait and switch kinda deal ...
       
    • cheri1122
      Bookworm

      cheri1122 Veteran Expediter Driver

      Joined:
      Jul 14, 2005
      Messages:
      12,292
      Trophy Points:
      755
      Ratings:
      +2,823 / 0 / -0
      Carrier:
      Load One
      Vehicle:
      Straight truck
      If the issue of the SC exempting itself from the rules it decrees is troublesome to you, why didn't you mention it when they banished the 35 ft barrier around abortion/family planning clinics? :confused:
      A barrier they continue to require in front of their own place of business....
       
    • RLENT

      RLENT Veteran Expediter

      Joined:
      May 14, 2006
      Messages:
      8,657
      Trophy Points:
      405
      Ratings:
      +1,268 / 3 / -0
      Carrier:
      Bolt Express
      BTW - I'm guessing - and I'm really just spitballing here - you didn't really think it through and fully consider the ramifications when you - of all people - decided (unadvisedly) to use the following formulation:

      If the absolute irony of the above escapes you, just let me know ... I think I can probably clear it up for ya ...
       
    Loading...

    Share This Page