Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Foxi4]

Why will they do that, you mean? I dunno, perhaps out of some misguided sense of loyalty, to the Kochs or Trump. Perhaps because all their friends, family, and business associates are either Republicans, wealthy, or both, and they'd also benefit from such a decision.

So unless money is changing hands inside the courtroom and while court is in session, there is no conflict of interest? That's bullshit and you know it. Money was spent on their behalf. That creates obligation, or expectation of reciprocation. Trump's appointees cannot be trusted to remain impartial in this case, and therefore there's a conflict of interest.

Read above, I've added more information. If you claim there is a conflict of interest, it is encumbent on you to demonstrate what two opposed interests exist currently. I'm afraid that "the expectation to reciprocate" is not sufficient because the judges are under no obligation to do so. You must have two conflicting pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests, otherwise there is no conflict existing in the present. Are they in a country club together and they might get booted if they rule against a former donor? Is their position in an institution threatened based on the ruling? Do they have a financial interest in the present that sways them to rule one way or the other? If you can't answer yes to any of those questions, there's no conflict.

 

[Xzi]

I'm afraid that "the expectation to reciprocate" is not sufficient because the judges are under no obligation to do so.

But they will fucking do so. You and I both know it. If they want to blatantly flout the law and Supreme Court procedure, that's their choice. But it also means they'll have fewer people willing to cry for them when there are inevitably consequences for that choice.

 

[Foxi4]

But they will fucking do so. You and I both know it. If they want to blatantly flout the law and Supreme Court procedure, that's their choice. But it also means they'll have fewer people willing to cry for them when there are inevitably consequences for that choice.

They're not "flouting" the law or the SC procedure, as demonstrated above. In fact, they're not even in a conflict of interest in common parlance as they are not presently in any relation with the donor. You can't just say that there is a conflict of interest here if there is no opposing interest, that's not how it works.

 

[Xzi]

You can't just say that there is a conflict of interest here if there is no opposing interest, that's not how it works.

Obviously we're at an impasse here if you're just going to keep pretending 2+2=5. Obligation was created the moment money was spent on their behalf. When all three rule in favor of their "generous benefactors," that much will be confirmed. For all I know, there's even money in it for the justices after the fact, considering that a ruling in the Kochs' favor would allow for unlimited dark money donations without the possibility of the donors' identities being revealed. That's what makes this case particularly nefarious.

 

[Foxi4]

Obviously we're at an impasse here if you're just going to keep pretending 2+2=5. Obligation was created the moment money was spent on their behalf. When all three rule in favor of their "generous benefactors," that much will be confirmed. For all I know, there's even money in it for the justices after the fact, considering that a ruling in the Kochs' favor would allow for unlimited dark money donations without the possibility of the donors' identities being revealed.

It's not my fault that you can't demonstrate a present and real interest for the justices. If they have nothing to gain or lose from the verdict and they are not ruling in a case that involves a former client (in which case they would be interfering with the interests of the client, as well as their own) then there is no conflict of interest, rather a suggestion of impropriety, which is an unevidenced assumption on your part. As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the justices ruled that donors should be anonymous since that's sensible - it's a conclusion one can come to with or without any greasing.

 

[Xzi]

It's not my fault that you can't demonstrate a present and real interest for the justices.

It's not my fault you refuse to see the forest for the trees.

As a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the justices ruled that donors should be anonymous since that's sensible - it's a conclusion one can come to with or without any greasing.

I must've missed the part of the Constitution where it suggests corporations and billionaires should be able to donate to political candidates (and Supreme Court justices) anonymously and with unlimited amounts.

You're making a preemptive excuse for when these justices inevitably bow to their obligation, bow to the Kochs. The majority of the country will be appropriately appalled and their opinion of the Supreme Court will sour in kind.

 

[Foxi4]

It's not my fault you refuse to see the forest for the trees.

I must've missed the part of the Constitution where it suggests corporations and billionaires should be able to donate to political candidates (and Supreme Court justices) anonymously and with unlimited amounts.

You're making a preemptive excuse for when these justices inevitably bow to their obligation, bow to the Kochs.

I am 100% happy to switch sides on this by the way, if you can provide me with compelling evidence that their judgement is clouded due to an existing interest or loyalty. So far you haven't done that, but I'm keen on leaning one way or the other if you do present one. Justice Roberts has already explained this once, way back when. I quote:

"I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process. (...) If a justice withdraws from as case, the court must sit without its full membership. A justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy. Rather, each justice has an obligation to the court to be sure of the need to recuse before deciding to withdraw from a case. (...) Some observers have suggested that, because the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct applies only to the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court is exempt from the ethical principles that lower courts observe. That observation rests on misconceptions about both the Supreme Court and the Code."

In other words, the recusal process is the reverse of what you think it should be. It is not the default position a justice should opt for, it is a last resort. Controversy, which I will loosely define as "we no likely", is not a relevant factor in making this decision.

 

[Xzi]

I am 100% happy to switch sides on this by the way, if you can provide me with compelling evidence that their judgement is clouded due to an existing interest or loyalty.

What I've provided meets all your criteria, you say a former client is a conflict of interest but somehow the justices being de facto former clients of AFP is not a conflict of interest? Make it make sense. Because it seems like you're doing an awfully lot of mental gymnastics just to avoid admitting the grass is green and the sky is (perceived as) blue.

 

[Foxi4]

What I've provided meets all your criteria, you say a former client is a conflict of interest but somehow the justices being de facto former clients of AFP is not a conflict of interest? Make it make sense. Because it seems like you're doing an awfully lot of mental gymnastics just to avoid admitting the grass is green and the sky is (perceived as) blue.

They're not former clients unless any of the justices have represented them in a court of law. Have they done that or not? You're playing loosey goosey with definitions here. Donating money to a cause does not make one a client.

 

[Xzi]

They're not former clients unless any of the justices have represented them in a court of law. Have they done that or not? You're playing loosey goosey with definitions here.

Read again, I'm saying it's the other way around. The justices are former clients of AFP's advertising agency. Money was spent on their behalf which was never repaid. It's no less a conflict of interest than if things were reversed.

 

[Foxi4]

Read again, I'm saying it's the other way around. The justices are former clients of AFP's advertising agency. Money was spent on their behalf which was never repaid. It's no less a conflict of interest than if things were reversed.

That's asinine. I suppose if they drank a can of coke at some point in their life, they can't rule on any cases involving Coca Cola then. To reiterate, in the civil realm you have to outline a pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest - the justices would have to stand to gain or lose something on the basis of the ruling. That's the literal definition of the word "interest". In the legal realm, they would have to be ruling on a case related to a former client - *their* former client, specifically a client in the legal system, since that creates a form of legal obligation *as well as* personal interest - they couldn't exactly defend someone one day and then go against their own defense the next, that would imply they were lying at one occasion or the other, which is an ethics violation. Having money donated on behalf of your nomination, not even directly to you, does not create a contract which generates on-going loyalty, and it does not generate an on-going fiduciary interest for the justice. There isn't a way for me to explain this in more detail than I already have.

 

[Xzi]

Having money donated to you does not create a contract which generates on-going loyalty, and it does not generate an on-going feduciary interest for the justice.

Absolutely it does, when the implication is that more money will follow if the "right" ruling is made. And that is the case here. Oligarchs buying off the highest court in the land in broad daylight.

 

[Foxi4]

Absolutely it does, when the implication is that more money will follow if the "right" ruling is made. And that is the case here.

To whom? The justices? The justices are appointed for life, there is no expectation of any money coming their way on the basis of the ruling, their position is cemented in the moment they're confirmed. They don't need to campaign to keep their seat, they have the seat for life. The seat on the court, which we will define as "an interest" here, cannot be affected by a third-party, so the only other interest could be monetary. If what you're suggesting is that they'll receive a bribe, that could happen with or without prior association and you'd have to provide evidence that one was offered and accepted - any judge can be bribed by anyone at any time, regardless of whether you've donated money towards their advertising or not.

 

[Xzi]

To whom? The justices? The justices are appointed for life, there is no expectation of any money coming their way on the basis of the ruling

That expectation is there with this ruling in particular, yes. It would make catching and reporting on illicit donations to the justices nearly impossible. And these are the Kochs we're talking about, Republican royalty. If all three of Trump's appointees rule in their favor, you're going to have a tough time convincing anybody they can remain impartial in future cases, or that they were ever impartial to begin with. I'd love for just one of them to prove me wrong, even if it's only to save their own public image.

 

[Foxi4]

That expectation is there with this ruling in particular, yes. It would make catching and reporting on illicit donations to the justices nearly impossible. And these are the Kochs we're talking about, Republican royalty. If all three of Trump's appointees rule in their favor, you're going to have a tough time convincing anybody they can remain impartial in future cases, or that they were ever impartial to begin with. I'd love for just one of them to prove me wrong, even if it's only to save their own public image.

If the system worked according to your weird standard, all conservative justices on the SC would have to recuse themselves due to the specter of "future donations towards GOP causes". That's a ridiculous standard to operate on, the justices are not instruments of either party, they just happen to be conservative or liberal. Do justices even receive donations at all? Towards what? They're not campaigning, they're not subject to any election past the point of confirmation. I'm unfamiliar with this, can you elaborate?

 

[Xzi]

Do justices even receive donations at all? Towards what?

Typically no, and any money sent their way, especially in large sums, would be met with a lot of suspicion and probably an investigation. But this case involves dark money and the ability to cover its trail. The wrong ruling here could spawn a whole new wave of organized crime, assuming the Republican party doesn't already have a monopoly on that.

 

[Foxi4]

Typically no

Then you're arguing a non-issue. I won't be discussing hypotheticals, if you think they're getting bribes, that's an unevidenced claim.

 

[Xzi]

Then you're arguing a non-issue. I won't be discussing hypotheticals, if you think they're getting bribes, that's an unevidenced claim.

The money already spent on their behalf is not hypothetical, and neither is the implication that the Kochs will provide more if the ruling is in their favor. There will be no evidence for it after the fact, that's the big benefit they receive from ruling that dark money should be anonymous.

 

[Foxi4]

The money already spent on their behalf is not hypothetical, and neither is the implication that the Kochs will provide more if the ruling is in their favor. There will be no evidence for it after the fact, that's the big benefit they receive from ruling that dark money should be anonymous.

The reason why I'm going hard on you for this is because you've made a serious allegation that doesn't fulfil the requirements of the term you used.

When I questioned you about it and asked what two present interests exist that would interfere with the judgement, since you need two conflicting interests to have a damned conflict of interest, you were unable to name them and kept back-tracking to a past donation which is irrelevant and in no way indicative of future gain or loss, financial or otherwise. When I asked you about whether or not one side of the suit was a former client, you again were unable to answer and flipped it the other way around for some reason, which doesn't work. The justices never represented that side of the case in a court of law (that we know of) and as such it cannot be considered a former client. When I questioned you about supposed donations to the Supreme Court, which to my knowledge aren't a thing, you stated that they don't receive monetary contributions, but now they totally will, based on nothing.

In other words, you've concocted a conspiracy theory and expect it to be accepted as gospel. You have no evidence of any existing interest, you just *think* there is one on the basis of a donation. In your mind that creates an obligation, which it does not - the stakes for the justices are zero. They have no interest in terms of their position, which is a lifetime appointment that the side of the case cannot affect, and no interest financially, since they don't receive donations either way, nor would they have any reason to receive them.

Your only actual argument is the idea that they might be bribed, which you have no evidence for, and when questioned your line of defense was "hey dude, it only makes sense, don't make it 2+2=5, follow the money my man". Uh, no. This is an Alex Jones-level argument. Either you can describe a present, relevant and opposing interest or you can't - anything beyond that is your own conjecture. If the justices can't gain or lose anything on the basis of their judgement, there is no conflict of interest - they don't have an interest to begin with if nothing is at stake.

 

[Xzi]

Either you can describe a present, relevant and opposing interest or you can't - anything beyond that is your own conjecture.

We're simply not gonna agree on what fulfills those requirements. Gifts provided to justices above and beyond a certain monetary value constitute a conflict of interest that's ongoing until the debt is repaid. You want to pretend it's over and done with, but the obligation remains. The Kochs would have undue influence over conservative justices even without having spent tens of thousands of dollars on air time for them, which just further solidifies the case for term limits.

Again, they're gonna rule however they please, but nobody should be surprised if/when that leads to a check on their power, such as expanding the court or impeachment.