/dev/null Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 There will be calls from The Right for Kagan to recuse herself and from The Left for Thomas to recuse himself. So should one, the other, both, or neither recuse themself for conflict of interest?
ieatcrayonz Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 There will be calls from The Right for Kagan to recuse herself and from The Left for Thomas to recuse himself. So should one, the other, both, or neither recuse themself for conflict of interest? Recuse themselves from what and why? Did you mean rescue themselves? Have they gone astray?
Buff_bills4ever Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Link When a person starts a thread, it's just common courtesy to provide with a reasonable amount of info about the topic at hand. I bet your the type who nails a guy in the ass and doesn't even give him the courtesy of a reach around! Edited November 15, 2011 by Buff_bills4ever
ieatcrayonz Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 When a person starts a thread, it's just common courtesy to provide with a reasonable amount of info about the topic at hand. I bet your the type who nails a guy in the ass and doesn't even give him the courtesy of a reach around! That was harsh dude. I know you are new to the board but be aware that Booster can be a little sensitive. Before replying to him ask WWFLPD? which is a standard he has set.
....lybob Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 When a person starts a thread, it's just common courtesy to provide with a reasonable amount of info about the topic at hand. I bet your the type who nails a guy in the ass and doesn't even give him the courtesy of a reach around! Why are you busting on Booster? /dev/null started the topic Booster gave you a nice Link BTW didn't Scalia set the standard for recusal when he refused to remove himself on a ruling of whether the White House must release information about private meetings of Cheney's energy task force with different industry leaders. The recusal was requested by by the Sierra Club, the environmental group saying it was improper for Scalia to take a hunting trip with Cheney while the court was considering whether the White House must release information about private meetings of Cheney's energy task force. Scalia said the remote Louisiana hunting camp used for a duck hunting and fishing trip ``was not an intimate setting.'' ``My recusal is required if ... my impartiality might reasonably be questioned,'' Scalia wrote. ``Why would that result follow from my being in a sizable group of persons, in a hunting camp with the vice president, where I never hunted with him in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation?''
DC Tom Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 When a person starts a thread, it's just common courtesy to provide with a reasonable amount of info about the topic at hand. I bet your the type who nails a guy in the ass and doesn't even give him the courtesy of a reach around! It's also common courtesy to keep your pie-hole shut when you're a newbie who doesn't know **** about what is and is not common courtesy on this board. Idiot.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 It's also common courtesy to keep your pie-hole shut when you're a newbie who doesn't know **** about what is and is not common courtesy on this board. Idiot. Speaking of someone that needs to recuse themself
DC Tom Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Speaking of someone that needs to recuse themself No, Dave, please stay. You're funny.
....lybob Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 No, Dave, please stay. You're funny. Speaking about funny who went Muppet first you or Darin from the Great People's Republic of Alaska.
DC Tom Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Speaking about funny who went Muppet first you or Darin from the Great People's Republic of Alaska. Darin...but I suggested it. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/137789-best-muppet/page__view__findpost__p__2298883
birdog1960 Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 neither, their involvement is tangential.....and at least one and possibly 3 republican, er conservative, justices will affirm the healthcare bill conditions.
LeviF Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 Nah, !@#$ it. The only consequence of Kagan planning the defense of the bill previously is that she'll know the case better than the other justices before the new briefs are read. Thomas isn't directly involved. And even if they did recuse themselves, would it really make a difference? Instead of 5-4 it would be 4-3. Who gives a ****?
/dev/null Posted November 15, 2011 Author Posted November 15, 2011 When a person starts a thread, it's just common courtesy to provide with a reasonable amount of info about the topic at hand. Sorry, forgot we had so many n00bs around. I was just so used to the usual PPP crowd that was already informed or would seek out their opinion on whatever their source of Daily Truth is
Recommended Posts