[Avoireeideree]

Wow, everyone knows Thomas and Scalia are corrupt but this is just plain scandalous. If there's any justice in this country the ruling will be vacated

[topbonuscasino]

An "unwarranted" attack?

It is well warranted, it will just probably not be effective.

[globjgtyf]

How could a member of SCOTUS be deemed "unethical"?

All of those who sit on the court take an oath to uphold the constitution, which includes this interesting clause:

... I will administer justice without respect to persons ...
Seems that the Citizens United ruling fits that to a T.

Besides, who are we to question such an honorable citizen, who gives up his / her life to so selflessly serve the country?

Only one member of SCOTUS has ever faced impeachment: Samuel Chase. In 1805 he was acquitted of all charges (which dealt with his actions as a judge prior to his term on SCOTUS) and her remained on the court until his death in 1811.

The Chase case established boundaries that remain to this day: "All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance."

[Boripiomi]

Like I said, how dare we even think that these arbiters of justice aren't acting in the most honorable way possilbe?

Thomas Cites Failure to Disclose Wife’s Job

NY TIMES
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
January 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law.

Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures listing Mrs. Thomas’s employment in that time with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group, and Hillsdale College in Michigan, for which she ran a constitutional law center in Washington.

The justice came under criticism last week from Common Cause, a liberal advocacy group, for failing to disclose Mrs. Thomas’s employment as required under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. While justices are not required to say how much a spouse earns, Common Cause said its review of Internal Revenue Service filings showed that the Heritage Foundation paid Mrs. Thomas $686,589 from 2003 to 2007.

The group also asserted that Justice Thomas should have withdrawn from deciding last year’s landmark Citizens United case on campaign finance because of both Mrs. Thomas’s founding of another conservative political group in 2009 and Justice Thomas’s own appearance at a private political retreat organized by Charles Koch, a prominent conservative financier.

Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia said in a statement released by the court on Thursday that they had each spoken at dinners at the Koch retreat and that their expenses were paid by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

The additional filings released by the court on Monday regarding Mrs. Thomas’s employment put Justice Thomas in the odd position of issuing two formal statements in five days about his personal dealings.

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.”

As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”

Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University who specializes in judicial ethics, said the recent episodes could do some harm to Justice Thomas’s reputation. But she added that it was unlikely to have any lasting impact on him or on the disclosure requirements that give justices wide leeway to decide whether they have a financial conflict in hearing a case.

Professor Rhode noted, for instance, that it was still unknown who contributed a total of $550,000 to Liberty Central, the conservative legal group that Mrs. Thomas founded in 2009 in opposition to President Obama’s policies. The amended disclosures filed by Justice Thomas, which do not include income in 2010, do not mention Liberty Central, and no regulation requires the group or the Thomases to disclose the source of the group’s financial support. Mrs. Thomas left the group in the fall.

“There’s no formal mechanism for review of conflicts among Supreme Court justices,” Professor Rhode said. “Personally, I think issues like this are somewhat scandalous for the court, but from what we’ve seen when these issues have come up before, I don’t see that changing.”

© 2011 The New York Times Company

[casinochniks]

And then there's ol' Tonio, schooling some of Congresswoman Bachmann's closest allies ...

'Pay attention to the Constitution,' Scalia tells Bachmann group

MINNESOTA POST
By Derek Wallbank
Mon, Jan 24 2011 6:23 pm

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave members of Congress what amounted to a largely uncontroversial lesson on the Constitution and Federalist Papers in a briefing this afternoon organized by Rep. Michele Bachmann.

"I told them to pay attention to the Constitution," Scalia told MinnPost following the hourlong discussion, which included a short question and answer session between lawmakers and the Court's most outspoken conservative jurist.

More than 50 members and staffers attended the "wonderful civil discussion," which was closed to the press, Bachmann told reporters in a news conference afterwards. At least three Democrats were present, one of whom said the briefing was "incredibly useful" and non-partisan.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, said Scalia told the members to get a hard copy of the Federalist Papers and keep it on their desks.

"You're not going to like some of the things I have to say about the ability of Congress to limit the executive [branch]," Schakowsky said Scalia told them. Iowa Republican Steve King later told reporters that was in reference to Congress ceding authority to the executive in recent years, a practice King has frequently (and vocally) opposed.

King said Scalia was "very careful to not address subject matter that may come before the Court." That includes the recently-passed health reform law, which is being challenged in several federal courts and is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

But while the meeting may not have been controversial in what was said, it certainly was in terms of who said it, to whom and by whose invitation. The Star Tribune's Kevin Diaz wrote a particularly good summation of many of those concerns, quoting one legal scholar who said it ""suggests an alliance between a conservative justice and a conservative member of Congress."

Bachmann declined to comment on the substance of the meeting. Asked afterward by MinnPost what she personally learned from the seminar, she replied that it was that Scalia has a good sense of humor.

Bachmann has pledged that her constitutional conservative seminars will be open to scholars who lean toward either party, and said the Supreme Court's more liberal justices have or will be invited too. That will have to wait at least a month though; the next speaker scheduled is the very conservative Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College in Michigan, where he also teaches a class on the U.S. Constitution.

COPYRIGHT © 2011 MINNPOST.COM

[merloermfgj]

... The Star Tribune's Kevin Diaz wrote a particularly good summation of many of those concerns, quoting one legal scholar who said it "suggests an alliance between a conservative justice and a conservative member of Congress."

Bachmann declined to comment on the substance of the meeting ...

Does Scalia belong at Bachmann sessions?

The justice will cross the street to meet with lawmakers
in the first "Conservative Constitutional Seminar"
Bachmann is holding. But will he cross a line?

THE MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL STAR TRIBUNE
By KEVIN DIAZ, Star Tribune
Last update: January 23, 2011 - 9:21 PM

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., raised a few eyebrows last fall when she announced plans to hold "Conservative Constitutional Seminars" for arriving members of the new GOP-controlled House.

But the decision of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to speak at the first class on Monday has raised legal hackles about his participation in what turns out to be a closed-door event in conjunction with Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus.

One of the most outspoken critics is University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush. Painter notes that Bachmann is among 63 House members who filed a brief in support of a lawsuit by more than two dozen states challenging President Obama's health care overhaul. The case could easily end up before the Supreme Court.

Painter recently posted an entry on the online Legal Ethics Forum entitled, "Justice Scalia Takes Some Tea."

Bachmann's office has portrayed the class as a bipartisan event open to all members of Congress, with more than 40, including Bachmann, expected to attend. No one else from the Minnesota delegation will be there, with the possible exception of freshman Republican Chip Cravaack, who is tentatively scheduled to attend.

In addition to Painter, others have raised alarms about whether Scalia is injecting himself into partisan politics. Among them is George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who wrote a column about it for the weekend edition of the Washington Post.

In an interview with the Star Tribune, Turley said Scalia's participation "suggests an alliance between a conservative justice and a conservative member of Congress."

Bachmann also has received some support in academia.

"This is a complete nonissue," said University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen. "There is absolutely nothing unethical or improper about Supreme Court justices or other judges giving public speeches, teaching classes, giving lectures, participating in panel discussions or writing books -- which often may include discussion of their views about the Constitution or specific legal issues. Justices do it all the time."

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Scalia accepted an invitation from Bachmann to talk to members of Congress about the separation of powers among the three branches of government -- a doctrine Scalia's critics say he is violating. Arberg's written statement referred to the event as a "constitutional seminar," leaving out the qualifier "conservative" used by Bachmann's office.

Caroline Fredrickson, executive director of the liberal-leaning American Constitution Society, said in a letter to Bachmann on Friday that the term "Conservative Constitutional Seminars" suggests "you do not intend to provide members of Congress with a comprehensive understanding of the Constitution, but instead will offer an interpretive approach that yields results consistent with the political views of Tea Party Caucus members."

Bachmann aides stressed that while the event is being held in conjunction with the Tea Party Caucus, it is not considered a caucus meeting. But, they added, they expect the twice-monthly seminars to be consistent with Tea Party principles.

A spokesman for Bachmann, who is eyeing a White House run, said she views Scalia's participation in the inaugural seminar as "entirely appropriate."

"It's ironic that at a time when the country wants to see a good working relationship between the legislative and executive branches, that some critics have found fault with a member of the judicial branch talking about constitutional issues with members of Congress," said Bachmann communications director Doug Sachtleben. "The fact that a constitutional scholar is offering his insights on constitutional matters to members of Congress from both sides of the aisle should be evidence of a worthwhile dialogue in Washington."

Painter, in an interview, drew a line between public speeches, books, and law school lectures and a closed-door meeting with members of Congress who have business before the high court.

"A lot of what the Supreme Court does is decide whether what Congress does is constitutional," Painter said.

He said it would "help" if the press were allowed to monitor the meeting, where Scalia could be exposed to pressure from lawmakers with political agendas. "There's no guarantee these members of Congress are going to just sit there like potted plants," Painter said.

Bachmann's office said the meeting is closed to the media at the court's request. Arberg, however, said it was Bachmann's office that "set the guidelines for the event."

Whether or not Scalia's presence represents an actual conflict of interest, some scholars say it could at least raise the perception of such a conflict at a time when the national political debate has focused intensely on the constitutional limits of government in health care and the economy.

Adding to the sparks is the timing of the event, coming on a day of national protests and commemorations of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court's landmark ruling legalizing abortion.

"I don't think there's a clear answer to it, but I think raising the issue is appropriate," said court watcher Carl Tobias, who teaches at the University of Richmond Law School.

Kevin Diaz is a correspondent in the Star Tribune Washington Bureau.

© 2011 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

[ImmitsRom]

January 20, 2012 – Move to Amend Occupies the Courts!

[Chooriwrocaxz]

Now, that's a cause worth sticking with...and then maybe OWS would naturally flow on to (also) be more organised, cohesive, focused and meaningful.