Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Judicial Ethic rules?

It seems that Judge Scullin, the judge who invalidated DC's carry ban, reported reimbursement for attending a seminar in Florida sponsored by the Charles Koch funded George Mason University Law and Economics Center, aka Mercatus Center in 2010. But I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with his ultimate ruling. It was just a coincidence. Right?

www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Frederick-J-Scullin-Jr-Financial-Disclosure-Report-for-2010.pdf

I think the same  is true for Silberman (Parker), and Thomas and Scalia: they have all accepted gifts from the Kochs or Koch funded entities.

Where are the judicial ethic rules for Federal Judges? Who enforces them if they exist?

19 comments:

  1. So a judge that makes a ruling YOU don't like and now its a ethics problem?

    One can make a book, a LARGE book on the ethics problem on any politician or any other ruling class in this country. Try to keep up Laci, I know its hard for you, by try anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This type of US corruption is particularly operative in the pro-gun rulings.

      Delete
    2. Oh I believe that pro gun rulings pale in comparison to other rulings made in the US. You watch only the gun stuff. The nation hears about other things instead. The media doesn't report the gun stuff at all.

      Delete
  2. It would be nice if judges stayed out of politics, but as long as people (like anon above) give them a pass, it will never stop. It's not about a decision anon, it's about corruption and money that slants a decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where in my comment did I give anyone a pass?

      Delete
    2. You only pointed out all politicians do it you never condemned it, so you gave it a pass. Obviously if you don't speak out against it when you have the chance, you give it a pass, or worse agree corruption is acceptable, which is probably true as long as it goes your way, otherwise you will cry rights being denied..

      Delete
    3. I think I made perfectly clear in my comment that because of their corruption, right, left, center, rear or where ever they stood, that their actions were just that, corrupt. That is condemnation. You on the other hand just like to attack and insert meaning that isn't there to prove some sort of point. I don't even give Laci a pass when she (he) is wrong as well.

      Just because I make a softer point doesn't translate into a "pass". So no, I did not give them a pass.

      Delete
    4. No, you didn't. Please quote me your condemnation from your original comment.

      Delete
    5. Please quote from the original comment where a pass was given.

      Delete
    6. Typical GC response, no response after making a false claim.

      "One can make a book, a LARGE book on the ethics problem on any politician or any other ruling class in this country. Try to keep up Laci, I know its hard for you, by try anyway."

      You admit there is corruption, but don't condemn it. In fact you are telling Laci to simply accept it and then condemn him for not accepting it.
      On to your next word twisting BS.

      Delete
    7. I don't "admit" there is corruption, I pointed it out to be equally on ALL sides. Laci is the one that condemned it, I expanded on her condemnation.

      So where is the false claim? Now your twisting with BS.
      And where is the pass.

      Do try to follow logic, it would help you out greatly and not make you look like another idiot.

      Delete
    8. One false claim by you is that ANY (meaning all) politician(s) are ethically challenged. Do try and follow your own words and skip your usual hypocrisy.

      Delete
    9. Well thank you for proving me right, you are an idiot.

      Delete
    10. Right HA HA HA HA HA you claim ALL politicians are corrupt, but I'm the idiot HA HA VA HA HA

      Delete
    11. Yes and YES. And again, thanks for proving me right.

      Delete
    12. And thanks for proving me correct, that you are just a blabbering fool.

      Delete
  3. There's plenty of corruption to go around on both sides, but you won't hear about it here. It's good corruption if Bloomberg or Soros or OFA does it, but bad corruption if a conservative entity does it.

    ReplyDelete