The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

Ethics, Schmethics.

"Nyah, Nyah. Appointed for life. Suck it."

Once again mindless dripple.

A tax cheat runs the Treasury.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd remain unimprisoned for their roles in the housing collapse.

No need to lecture about ethics.

"Justice" is really just a euphemism for "corruption" in the US, it seems. Very troubling.

>> ^hpqp:

"Justice" is really just a euphemism for "corruption" in the US, it seems. Very troubling.


And the two comments above yours are pretty good examples of why it's gotten that way.

non-issue...

justice thurgood marshall attended naacp events, and current justice ginsberg regularly attends now functions

maddow's as bad as fox news

>> ^Diogenes:

non-issue...
justice thurgood marshall attended naacp events, and current justice ginsberg regularly attends now functions
maddow's as bad as fox news


You still going to think it's a non-issue when they are the only two justices who rule against the healthcare reform?

>> ^Diogenes:

non-issue...
justice thurgood marshall attended naacp events, and current justice ginsberg regularly attends now functions
maddow's as bad as fox news
Neither of your red herrings make this a non-issue.



The Maddow comment is just arrogance fueled by ignorance.

ha!

well, let's just put this in perspective then...
26 of our 50 states took the obama healthcare initiative to our highest court.
wouldn't this be the same conflict of interest if any state funds were used to host any activity to which our supreme court justices were invited and attended? (by any measure, they are the plaintiffs in this case.)

answer: yes, by your very myopic and obtuse assessment... it would.

take a deep breath, pull your heads out of your behinds, and realize A. that this is one-sided reporting of a bipartisan pasttime, and B. that the members of our SCOTUS are selected because they are the premier interpreters of our nation's constitution, and therefore given the benefit of the doubt because of the long road and fractious appointment process that has brought them to their positions.

frankly, i don't care which way they vote on this issue - i live overseas. but if i were a betting man, i'd wager that we see a 5-4 / 6-3 split, both against the constitutionality of the current plan. this will clearly disrupt your shortsighted view of political partisanism.

seriously, don't bother to respond to my comments if you don't understand the issue, or are too lazy to do your homework.

rachel maddow is figuratively the unwanted offspring of a beck / limbaugh coupling, where they then pissed on the infant and put her up for adoption.

simply put: she inherited their style but has an axe to grind with their politics.

>> ^Diogenes:
seriously, don't bother to respond to my comments if you don't understand the issue, or are too lazy to do your homework.
How about if I just don't suffer fools?

heh heh

careful... your reference (2 corinthians 11:19) may be showing your christian credentials - that's a big no-no on the sift

and you don't even use the cliché correctly, sheesh!

so... what is it you disagree with?

1. that maddow isn't an attack dog for the left?
2. that the federalist society isn't evil?
3. that it's pure coincidence that the federalist society's annual dinner (planned many months in advance) just happened to take place on the same day as the scotus announcement that it would hear the legal challenge in question? how could any scotus justice have predicted that??
4. that maddow is misinterpreting canon 4c of the code of conduct, which only applies to lower level judges?
5. that virtually all our scotus justices 'violate' the above regularly? heck, ginsberg 'violated' it again just three days ago while being the speaker at an nwlc-sponsored event.
6. that supreme court justices can't have their votes 'bought' by just treating them to a nice dinner?
7. that this whole story isn't just a tit-for-tat over the right's squawking over justice kagan's apparent refusal to recuse herself? i don't necessarily think she should.

so... which is it?

share with us? throw your pearls before the swine...

or is your snarkiness simply a knee-jerk reaction to a true centrist's better erudition and analysis of yet more political polemics?