You continue to tell me to read something you haven’t. If you have something to refute my comment then post it. If not, then accept that you lied and are wrong.

The judge that failed to recuse is the judge who was bribed. Read the while thing, and maybe you’ll get it.

RE #94,

If you are going to use quotations, you should reference them. Second, as they are from speeches, grammar takes a back seat to clarity and understanding. Besides, I have read judicial decisions from other judges that also contain grammatical errors.

RE #101,

the Supreme Court generally isn’t asked to make a decision on its own, but rather to review other court decisions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. All court decisions are rulings. Trial Courts decide facts. Appeal Courts are designed to decide the law and become final unless over ruled by a higher court.

Finally, since you are too ignorant to look, here,

The court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution,

…

The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernible rule. The answer is obvious.

Justice Scalia

The wrong being a Judge that benefited from $3 million in campaign help.

“It is an old cliché,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a dissent, “but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.”

“The end result,” the chief justice wrote, “will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.”

Chief Justice Roberts

So a Judge that fails to recuse himself will erode public confidence in the judicial system. Judges being bribed or influenced though won’t.

Ya right. Read the effen decision.

Hint, the Supreme Court generally isn’t asked to make a decision on its own, but rather to review other court decisions. Slight difference that changes things. Try reading the ruling and the dissent, and maybe you’ll understand things.

Why don’t you try reading the decision. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito believe it is acceptable that Judges may rule on cases where one of the parties donated $3 million to the Judges campaign.

We have seen how Scalia feels it is acceptable for a Supreme Court Justice to go on a weekend hunting trip with one of the parties in a major case shortly before the case is heard.

No they didn’t. Try reading the decision and understanding things.

And then they whine about “reverse racism” when minorities don’t vote for them!

Parse the numbers all you like. The numbers are for earned income.

From the sounds of it, your boss makes less than you and wears a bra.

“Those numbers are median numbers”

If they are true median numbers, and yes I certainly am knowledgeable about statistical measures, then that data is statistically meaningless.

(*) Because the median is affected by people with no income, far more likely to be women with children.

If they aren’t true median numbers, then the data they included/excluded becomes relevant.

Did they exclude people with $0 income? How are people in prison accounted for? Does income include child support payments which are made largely to women? Is welfare income counted? Is unemployment?

Obviously wealth is not included? Or is interest from investments counted?

Simple numbers are a good start, but not a good finish.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

“The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”

“Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.”

“For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering?”

“I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation.”

“and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states . . .”

Darn it, I just hate it when I hit the wrong key.

At the very end of that post I meant to add the words “and discipline”.

Not that it matters. Because it destroys Cow-Patty’s argument he won’t bother looking it up anyway.

They also ruled that judges can’t touch the military policy of Don’t ask don’t tell, as the decision belongs to the congress.

The problem is you get too much of your information from biased, unreliable sources. The Supreme Court did not rule the decision belongs in Congress. In fact, they didn’t even rule on it. Now go back and look up the case and gets the truth.

BTW, there is a case in the 9th Circuit that is still before the courts and the Circuit Court ordered be heard. The Air Force was ordered to demonstrate how homosexuality is damaging to moral.

Sounds good. They also ruled that judges can’t touch the military policy of Don’t ask don’t tell, as the decision belongs to the congress. Way NOT to legislate from the bench.

The numbers used were traced to the US Census reports. Deny them, twist them, impeach them, whatever. They are still better than some prediction made in 2001 about what might happen in 2010.

Those numbers are median numbers, that means that just as many people are above as below, which kind of detracts from your certain high paying jobs.

It is also a fairly well established fact that there is a “glass ceiling” which prohibits women from becoming top executives, let alone CEOs. That same glass ceiling stops minorities as well.