I think it’s ridiculous to think one could “buy” justices Scalia and Thomas’ votes for just a dinner.
..
..
I’m sure it WILL cost the benefactors much more than that.

Fascist motherfuckers.

Shorter conservative justices:

Ethics? We don’t need no stinking judicial ethics!

Thanks for the post BT.

So fucking disgusted it is almost unbearable.

You described my feelings, exactly.

That’s a good one.
..
..
Unfortunately, it’s true.

Yes, that about sums it up.

Also, I assume everybody knows the bribes for Thomas go “through” his wife.
..
Gotta admit, that’s clever. Best reason to have a wife I’ve ever heard.

There needs to be a Code of Conduct for Supreme Court justices. Perhaps in the past the justices self-regulated but those days are long gone in the U.S. plutocracy.

How is this not illegal?

What? Nothin wrong with that. Surprised the other three knuckelheads weren’t there as well.

Still, I think they will not strike it down. Too much money involved with this.

Prolly community property and all.

More evidence that the rule of law is a joke in this country.
I guess conflict of interest ain’t such a big deal.
Well bribery is legal, so why not this?

Everybody should be outraged and be ready to march on this crooked Supreme Court. This is hubris of high crimes as spoken of in the constitution. They must be removed. Please, review this very interesting article on this subject. It is very informative and dispels a lot of assumptions that most people have about impeachment.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Remember when Fortas had to resign? Times sure change.

No, not killing me, but making me sick. What jerks….Of course Anita Hill was telling the truth.

SCOTUS bias, corrupt etc. LOL of course it is. That said forcing people to buy health insurance should go down in flames. It sets a dangerous precedent and God know what they might force us to do next

She was on book-tv this past weekend. What a classy lady she is.

Strike at Berkeley.

Occupy Cal protesters have called for a strike and day of action today (Tuesday, Nov. 15)

Rayguns would know how to handle those damn hippies.

It was you who asked me earlier about my experience on Wall St, wasn’t it? If so I have another couple of sentences to add. If it wasn’t you, I’ll go back & find out who it was.

It’s time these corrupt bastards were hauled in for criminal activity.There has to be something to nail them with .Graft is criminal ,tax evasion is criminal.Collusion between corporate interests and a judge should be if the judge acts unethicaly.What the hell? Why can’t we do something.The outcry from Americans should be deafning ! They should not be above the Laws they are charged with deciding ! It’s supposed to be an honest and unbiased Court.If they can decide a non Human is a Human I wouldn’t be surprised at anything they did.When is a corporation a person ? At conception “oops” that can’t happen ! No such thing as intercourse between two consenting corporations

It’s degenerated in this country to the point where they don’t even bother with pretenses anymore.

Copy that.

Eh? Rightwingers only dislike “activist” justices when they are not facist rightwing activists. From the conservative perspective: what’s NOT to like with this picture?? It’s win-win all the way.

As with so much anymore in our failing/flailing nation, the fascists don’t even bother to hide their fascism & greed. It’s just all nakedly on display for all to see.

Despite the OWS movement beginning to wake up a long-slumbering citizenry, we still have quite a ways to go before citizens *really* fully awaken to how very very much the powerful have got us all by the short ‘n curlies.

Thanks for the post. Unsurprised but disgusted, as always. But since Bush v. Gore, what’s new?

I owes ya drink… whaddaya having today??

OCCUPY SCOTUS.

Can you say “conflict of interest?” I knew you could. Now, I’m sorry but for displaying sentiments in line with OWS, we must evict and/or arrest you.

Yup, gonna be a lot of things that need occupying me thinks.

At the risk of being crude, but they sure do f… us, don’t they?

Of course they don’t hide it anymore. From their perspective, “what you gonna do about it–HUH?”

“Despite the OWS movement beginning to wake up a long-slumbering citizenry, we still have quite a ways to go before citizens *really* fully awaken to how very very much the powerful have got us all by the short ‘n curlies.” Sadly true.

At the risk of being crude, I hope some one left a pubic hair on the top of Thomas’ dinner.

yes it was me

The SCOTUS will rule 5-4 that the ACA is unconstitutional, simply to make Obama look bad in an election year. No other reason that that, and ironically enough, Obama’s ACA has a ton of GOP goodies in it.

All that “bipartisanship” for nothing.

Fucking douche. someone should come serve it to him on one of those silver platters.

Nah, not unless the PTB say that would definitly sink zero. I really do doubt it. Too much money to be made here.

Unless the next vacancy is filled with a Douglas i.e. a PTB that turns out to be a real human being the Supreme Court (which Andrew Jackson proved has no power) is becoming less and less relevant. We are signing petitions to reverse their decisions right now.

Or one of the undocumented workers in the kitchen pissed on the salad.

You had asked about the Fed in control & I didn’t answer that part of your Q.

It was not my job to evaluate or predict monetary or fiscal policy, but to take those as inputs & figure out how it would influence the outlook for the economy. As that was enough work all by itself, I didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about policy. I did from time-to-time shake my head about a policy folly, and write a bit about it, but it had to be extreme, like Nixon’s price controls in 1973, or at the end of the 1970s how Arthur Burn’s monetary policy (targets for the money supply which they overshot every year, then set the next year’s targets off that as base) was an integral part of embedding inflation in the economy. A lot of my focus was cyclical, i.e. figuring out when the economy would go into recession or come out of it, so I paid little attention to some of the broader implications of monetary policy.

WRT Greenspan’s statement that wages were the source of inflation, I knew that was crazy (wages lag inflation), but didn’t have any practical influence since I knew that real wages wouldn’t begin to rise until unemployment got really low, which it did in the late 1990s.

I did know that when Greenspan eased to bail out his friends at LTCM in 1998, it was really stupid, and wrote a piece in 11/98 “Beginning the Next Bubble.”

So it was not until 2008 that I started to look at the political aspects of the relationships from a broader POV.

These assholes neither know nor care about conflict of interests.

Fork these forking forkers and all their forking friends. Impeach the bastards.

Because the SCOTUS ultimately decides what is legal?

Yes, that, but also, I believe it’s because the PTB also know that the credulous “public” either isn’t paying attention and/or they are easily bamboozled by the fascist propoganda poured forth 24/7/365 by the so-called “main stream media.” Why not be blatant when most of the USA populace is either: 1) asleep at the wheel, 2) bamboozled by b.s., and/or 3) doesn’t get the connection??

And/or the SCOTUS just does what it pleases. The SCOTUS threw out the so-called “Rule of Law” and the US Constitutions (pesky document, that one) quite a while ago. Again: most notably with Bush v. Gore. Sealed the deal with Citizens United. And so on…

Let’s not leave out the eminent domain decision.

At the risk of sounding violent, I’d like to send Scalia into the middle of next week. Not saying how…

The only upside is that it is apparent to the rest of the world what a Banana Republic the US has become.

So if they hadn’t fed them these judges might have voted sympathetically for the heath care law? I know it smacks of impropriety but I don’t think they were ever worried about these two votes. Had they invited Sotomayor and Kagan, and they accepted, that would be troublesome.

Yeah, fine: these two would’ve “voted” as their fascist 1% masters told them to “vote” on the decision.

But it’s still troubling to me to see how blatantly bought off these 2 “justices” are. It’s not all that long ago that they type of activity would not have happened. Let’s get real. This is how being bought off looks, no matter who’s being bought off.

Yep. Good to recall that nasty little “decision” that inured solely to the benefit of the 1%.

How much do you think Scalia and Thomas are getting paid in straight speaking for this? It stinks to high heaven. They are civil servants.

Thanks very interesting. so many questions i could ask, but don’t want to bog you down. maybe if we show up @ows on the same day and get arrested we could talk about on the way to jail:-))

why wouldnt the supreme court as its presently constituted uphold the mandate? they’ve ruled in favor of corporations over people every time its come up. this wont be any different.

Scalia and Third Branch and their little duck hunting expedition come to mind. As I recall, that was about keeping secret the divvying up of the Iraki oil fields the Energy Task Force…..

Or on a morning or evening thread.

I like answering those kinds of Qs bc they make me think about how I thought about stuff and how my thinking evolved. Mostly I just didn’t have the time to think about the more profound issues in real time when I was working. I find now that I do have the time, it still takes quite a little while until I can make connections & synthesize.

In my favor, some of the stuff that has become profound problems for the U.S., like medical & higher ed costs, I did identify 20 years ago, and have been watching them get worse with horror in the intervening years.

Sotomayor and Kagan would have been fed cantalope. :)

Urge Kagan & Thomas to recuse for conflict of interest.

When the SCOTUS does issue its ruling on ACA, the “wild card” jurist won’t be Kennedy. It will be Breyer. Breyer’s CV and SCOTUS qualifying jurisprudential orientation was his extraordinarily pro-business track record.

I suspect Caligula’s ghost is feeling relieved that he is no longer history’s poster child for corruption, pettiness and madness in rulers.

I realize this is a quaint and almost anachronistic question, but isn’t this sort of thing unethical?

Scalia looks like he’s a heartbeat away from a stroke. Would anyone notice if he had one?

The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other human beings.”

Albert Schweitzer quotes (German medical Missionary, Theologian, Musician and Philosopher

Perhaps they’ll vote against it, but at least one hardcore conservative or a USSC “swing voter” will vote in favor of the mandate and become the republicans’ villain of the week, just as Senator Lieberman became the democrats’ villain of the week nearly 2 years ago.

The mandate is horrible, but the USSC will certainly vote in favor of it.

How much do you think Scalia and Thomas are getting paid in straight speaking for this? It stinks to high heaven,even though They are civil servantswhores for the 1%

There: hope you don’t mind my editing to be more factual. Neuther of those 2 are “civil” and the only “citizens” that those 2 are “servants” for are the 1%, even though it’s mainly the 99% who pay what passes for their “salary” (albeit they get a LOT more in bribes and kick-backs, let’s face it) and platinum-plated benefits & pension for life for them & their skeevy spouses.

Potassium chloride is odorless and tasteless.
..
Just sayin’. And you didn’t hear it from me.

At the risk of soundling like a “know it all”, federal judges cannot accept gifts and MUST recuse themselves if they have a “conflict of interest. Supreme court justices do NOT have the same rules of conduct. In fact, as long as they wear that black robe, they’re good.

pissed on the salad

There is a sort of savory tart that is called pissaladiere. You have officially ruined it for me!

oh fer chrissakes. These fuckers are utterly without morals, not to mention fearless of possible repercussions.

Time to start researching grounds for impeachment of SCOTUS consiglieres members.

Cuervo Gold, neat, with a water back and tortilla chips on the side. Thanks.

I agree completely. This law will be upheld because it benefits a group that is ripping off the public. How can the Supremes rule against something like that?