The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum Justice Gorsuch failure to disclosureGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| One of Us |
Very disappointed. Justice Gorsuch testified that disclosure was important in a democracy. He did inform the Senate Congress had room to pass legislation to be tested in the Courts on disclosure. Justice Gorsuch disclosed the sale of the real estate, but left the seller blank on the disclosure form. The buyer is a lawyer in a firm that practices bf the Supreme Court including the Court with Justice Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch felt he had to disclose the sale. That he did. I infer he knew the sell to a lawyer of this firm would bring heat. This, he failed to disclose who the sell was made as the disclosure form ask. https://www.politico.com/news/...operty-sale-00093579 Legitimacy is political faith. When the Court loses legitimacy, we are doomed. Once folks stop believing in the Court as final arbitrator violence becomes reality. The actions of the Justices (not decisions) are creating the impression of illegitimacy. This disclosure reform is something we should all support. According to Forbes, S. Ct. has a 58 percent disapproval rating. President Biden has 54 percent disapproval. | ||
|
| One of Us |
Why do you think the SCOTUS has that negative a view? Can’t have anything to do with their decisions, can it? I suspect the view is purely based on the after effects of their abortion decision, not on things like disclosure forms. Not that I have a problem with disclosure. | |||
|
| Administrator |
I wish America would stop being petty! Everyone, EVERYONE, does things to benefit himself. No pro there at all. Punish those who do all sorts of criminal ac. Including accepting “donations”! That would be a start! And stop punishing those who actually work. Taking ,obey from them to give to those who don’t!  | |||
|
| one of us |
Forgot a few AMWAY sales? TomP Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right. Carl Schurz (1829 - 1906) | |||
|
| One of Us |
You're missing the point. Judges shouldn't be involved in financial transactions with litigants in their court or the litigants' attorneys. Actual impropriety isn't the standard. It's the potential appearance of impropriety. It defies belief that a justice on the SCOTUS would be engaged in a real estate transaction with a partner at a powerful New York law firm that practices regularly in front of that justice....22 times per the article. And, then fails to disclose it. That right there ought to tell you that he knew it was inappropriate. Nor is it appropriate for a justice to accept gratuities such as vacations, jet rides, yacht cruises, valuable vintage bibles, etc etc etc from someone whose family operates one of the largest real estate businesses in the country. And, again...to then not disclose it is even worse and probably tells you that Thomas knew it wasn't proper when he did it. That's why he hid it. -Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Not missing the point. I agree with you. But the reason that SCOTUS has a negative view popularly has nothing to do with that issue. The comments on Thomas and Gorsuch are not really in the mainstream. It’s only something that the folks interested in politics and the law see.
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Maybe. It's been front page news. Anybody paying attention ought to be aware of it. I agree with the premise that the court's reputation was probably damaged by Dobbs more than anything else. Telling Americans that something that has been a constitutional right for 50 years suddenly isn't is hard to understand or fathom. I suspect the republicans are going to learn that lesson during the next few election cycles.
-Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Only Court of administers of Justice that do not have these ethical rules in the entire USA is the Supreme Court. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You would think that such rules wouldn't be necessary at the SCOTUS.....since it is made of folks that have been sitting on various trial and appellate benches for many many years. I'd note that, so far, republican appointees have the corner on these ethical problems. -Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Be enterested in the price of the real estate sold. If it was market value I see no real issue. If it was unusually low or high it might demonstrate some impropriety. | |||
|
One of Us |
Exactly. Everyone always wants to jump to conclusions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It is reported Justice Gorsuch made between 250k to 500k on the deal. Again, he disclosed the sale of the property, but not who the buyer was. He left that section blank. | |||
|
| One of Us |
What does that^^^have to do with market value? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
What does market value have to do with his conscious decision to not disclose who the buyer was? What does market value have to do with the fact every other Fed Judge has to disclose? What does market value have to do with the fact he sold to a lawyer whose firm that regularly practices bf the S. Ct.? I do not see market value as the issue. Market value is irrelevant. | |||
|
| One of Us |
If it sold for market value…he would have the same money as if he sold it randomly. It means he got no benefit from selling it to this person and the buyer just bought a market value piece of real-estate. Like EZ said…were it sold high or low…one could argue a benefit to one party. A hill of beans. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Who he sakes to matters. Or he would have disclosed. Of course, you do not see the issue in a judge selling real estate to someone who practices bf his court. Any other Fed Judge would face discipline for not disclosing. He chose not to disclose the seller. Why? A) Because he did not have too, and B) He knew selling to this person would not wash with the Senate and public. Again, you cannot get around the fact every other judge is subject to ethical rules this behavior violates. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Why does it matter? One party puts his property up for sale at an appraisal value. Another buys it at the going market rate. I see no foul. If it was the market value…it was going to sell to someone at that price. Neither party benefited beyond what the random public would have. Hill of beans. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It matters because if I make money off you and you practice before me it appears I may be slanted to you. It is the appearance that matters. Justice Gorsuch knows this, it he would have disclosed the seller. Again, tell me why the S. Ct. should be treated differently from every other Court and prosecutors? | |||
|
| One of Us |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Answer the question posed. Why should the S. Ct. be excused from the same ethics rules that apply to every other Judge and every other prosecutor? I have asked this at least 3 times. Tell us why? Or are you going to go another thread wo answering a direct question? | |||
|
| One of Us |
My answer was that under the rules we play by…they are. I didn’t make the rules. And I wasn’t arguing pro or con in that regard. In the evolution of our government they were not implemented for the SCOTUS…there must be reason. You are the precedent guy…been that way for 250 years. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That is not the question. I will ask again. Why should the S. Ct. be exempt from the rules that apply to all other Judges and Prosecutors? I know you, alone, do not make the rules. You are arguing for keeping the rules status quo when status quo has no rational basis that damages the legitimacy of the S. Ct. | |||
|
One of Us |
The system of disclosure is there to ensure that people in public life are seen to behave with integrity and to prevent corruption. | |||
|
One of Us |
You are classroom monitor or prison trustee or teachers pet or forum moderator or what? Lemme know, I apparently ain't up to speed on your rules regarding forum participation. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Doesn't seem to work in any way, shape or form. Isn't It interesting that those charged with the law, ( BAR association members,) are known by and as Johnny Cochran, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Michael Avenatti and Michael Cohen? "But the District Attorney's!" https://www.nbcbayarea.com/new...s-out/3204172/?amp=1 https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/0...y-charges/index.html Lucky America. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I bought my current home in the real estate market lull I believe in 2010. The house has been paid for for years. Paid about $525K for it. Two years ago I could have sold it for $1.3M Even today it would go for +$1M. I see no reason I could not sell it to anyone I want and make a profit.There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Nothing was said about how long the judge lived in the home, how much he owed on it and if it sold for a fair market value. Hyem, I suspect if you want to change residences you would want to make a profit. Good business. I know two families that would like to acquire home if my wife and I moved If they wanted to pay a market value I would like to sell directly to them and cut out the real estate sales margin and I know they would be good neighbors to our community. Why pay some real estate agent 6% to post it for sale, show it twice (open house) and if does not sell the ask you to drop the price? Very predictable... Actually sounds good to me from time spent and money saved. I see you point on tracking money on people with influence. Just provide info like i noted above and move on. EZ | |||
|
| One of Us |
I own some property in E Texas I inherited. My neighbor on my north fence line has pestered me to sell it to him for years. Until recently I have just never had the desire. That land has escalated in value about 3X over the past 10 years. 20X since my father acquired it (late 60's). About two years ago a couple of chicken farms were built about a mile or less from this place. When the wind is out of the wrong direction on a warm humid day it is not too pleasant. I can acquire 4X as much property in Oklahoma for the same price not far across the river about the same distance from my home. If that neighbor wants to pay me the current value (Not sure he can afford it) I will deal directly with him. Do a 1031 and located a same value property and be all good! Taxes on rural land in Oklahoma are silly low. EZ | |||
|
| One of Us |
That is just it. I am NOT arguing for status quo or against it. I am pointing out that there “may” be a pro argument for (status quo) since it has long precedent. My initial post on the thread was merely to point out that logically this event seems to be a hill of beans. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Where's that squeaky clean Robert's??? Can you imagine what history will say about his rule... | |||
|
| One of Us |
When you say nom disclosure is a hill of beans, you are making a pro argument. You still have not answered the question pending. You have also made a pro status quote argument in Justice Thomas thread. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Lane staying in his lane. He'd be the first one squawking about this kind of transaction if it involved a progressive SCOTUS justice. -Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
My thought is that SCOTUS is supposed to be independent of other bodies. I think this is where this comes from. Making them subservient to other bodies would make them unable to control other parts of the government. The SCOTUS is supposed to be self regulating, and they decide amongst themselves what is appropriate behavior (short of impeachment). So that is why the policy exists. They control themselves by peer pressure. Should it change? I would think so. They should live under the same rules they foist off on the rest of us. Same goes for congress and the president. | |||
|
| One of Us |
All Courts are separate co-equal branch of government either state or federal. That does not mean a Court should not have ethical standards for judges. All other Courts do. The S. Ct. is no more independent than any other Fed Court. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Judges should not have financial dealings with litigants or their lawyers. Period. If they do, they should either recuse themselves or provide full disclosure of the nature of the transaction and let the litigants decide if they want to file a Motion to Recuse. -Every damn thing is your own fault if you are any good. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It must be noted that Justice Gorsuch not only never disclosed. He did not recuse from 12 cases litigated before the S. Ct. by this attorney’s firm. | |||
|
| One of Us |
And Kagan didn’t recuse from cases she worked on as a member of the administration. The rules for SCOTUS seem to be that there are none, really. The justice’s own conscience is it. Quit complaining about “violations” and stick to the real point… most folks feel there should be a written policy that is enforced. We have to take the media as being both complete and correct here. Tell me that none of the liberal justices never took a dime of money from an abortion rights cause ever? Can you prove it? Never gave a speech for abortion rights? Not condemning them, just pointing out that all of these issues coming out are the result of media targeted scrutiny after an unpopular decision. I’m on record as agreeing that having a code that is enforced is a good idea. Once it’s put in place, then going forward there will be issues for violations. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Your example underscores the great need for ethical reform of the S. Ct. Crying look at them diss not change anything. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The cry for accountability needs to be bipartisan. There is ample evidence of the problems on both sides of the political spectrum. Whining about Thomas and Gorsuch without equal time for the others makes it a partisan fight that is less likely to be productive. If we can point out collectively that pretty much every court has had issues with this for decades, then we can get bipartisan agreement that a law that holds all justices, including the supreme court to a singular high standard is necessary. Right now its a partisan smear attempt, regardless of the factual basis... Its not a violation of a law, and by making it partisan you are interfering with your goal... unless the goal isn't getting a standard passed. No one here has defended the right of a justice to be influenced or bribed. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading The Political Forum Justice Gorsuch failure to disclosure
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: