Another of the DUmp's TomInTib, Jr. fakers brings up a really stupid complaint about the Supreme Court, which prompts other DUmmies
to chime in with equally stupid replies:
11 Bravo (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:03 PM
Original message
WTF? Scalia's son is a partner with the firm that represented Wal-Mart before SCOTUS?
Am I the only one who didn't know that Eugene Scalia is a partner at Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher - the firm which represented Wal-Mart in the recent gender-discrimination case? (A case in which Scalia, coincidentally no doubt, cast one of 5 votes which provided the margin of victory for Wal-Mart.)
Nope, no conflict of interest there. Damn! These ****ers don't even bother to pretend anymore, do they?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1481897EFerrari (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's gross and in our faces already.
I have no idea what poor, stupid Beth is trying to say.
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. The DoJ will need to show some spine.
Poor, stupid Beth thinks the Supreme Court is part of the Department of Justice.
Fla Dem (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
28. This is a BIG reason the rethugs want Obama to be a one term President
If a Republican is elected in 2012, there is a very good chance there will not be a liberal court again in my lifetime.
It's by far and away the most important reason that a Republican, regardless which one, must be elected in 2012.
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. And where's Congress ... ?
DUmmy defendandprotect thinks the Congress polices the Supreme Court.
He and poor, stupid Beth should get together.
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Do you honestly think that...
if this is anywhere near the issue you think it is, counsel for plaintiffs would not have demanded that Scalia refuse himself?
But, but...Code Pink says Scalia shouldn't vote on any decision.
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I said "counsel for the plaintiffs"
not some advocacy group. I'd love to see Scalia off the court, but there's no evidence of a conflict of interest here.
PoliticAverse (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Counsel didn't: "The group has failed to sway the attorney representing the workers"
"Joseph Sellers, who represents the women suing Wal-Mart, told Bloomberg News that he was not taking up the recusal cause."
tkmorris (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Do you really think this ISN'T an issue?
Furthermore, do you really believe that Scalia would recuse himself just because of a little conflict of interest?
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Yeah...
I don't think it's an issue. Neither did counsel for the plaintiffs.
You're assuming it is.
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
15. Scalia's son was not involved in the case. This is a non-issue.
Do you think the relatives of Supreme Court justices should be incapable of being partners in major law firms? Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher is also representing the plaintiffs in the case challenging Prop. 8; do you think Scalia will be swayed to vote in favor of that challenge as a consequence?
Finally, another Lousy Freeper Troll shows up to support SDuderstadt. About time.
former9thward (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
17. I don't know why people keep on posting this was a 5-4 case.
It was 8-0.
former9thward (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. No it wasn't.
It was 8-0 on the specific Wal-Mart case. All justices said that particular suit could not go forward as a class action. It was 5-4 on tightening up class action requirements for future suits.
librechik (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
20. Scalia doesn't recuse for any reason, becasue he is a SUPER SUPREME
no close relationship with a plaintiff or defendant will ever make him make the wrong decision. HE NEVER MAKES MISTAKES.
So stop worrying, everything's fine.
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
29. ******* it. It's conflict-of-interest-palooza and they have no shame.
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Not even counsel for the...
plaintiffs thought so.
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. The son wasn't even...
involved in the case. Even counsel for the plaintiffs did not see a need for Scalia to recuse himself.
So what? No conservative justice should ever vote.
DUmmy numbersBravo, TomInTib's protege, has had it with SDuderstadt. It was enough to prove the premise of his OP was
silly and DUmb. Why does he have to keep rubbing it in? SDuderstadt is just a bully, that's what he is.
11 Bravo (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-13-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Or possibly plaintiff's counsel understood that Scalia has the sole discretion to determine ...
whether or not he need recuse himself from any case, appearance of impropriety be damned; and decided not to bother. But then, you're clearly the mind reader here, so obviously counsel for the plaintiff simply "did not see a need".
