All Hank, all the time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
she sits on a board of an organization that gives major money, other people's money, to the ACLU= she supports what the ACLU does= she has no business hearing its cases. she is more than donating her money, she is effectively a fund raiser.

So scalia should recuse from every case brought by a church? Or the Bush admin. Just supporting what someone does seems to be a pretty weak basis on which to recuse. It would require judges to recuse themselves on anything on which they've formed an opinion.

And, btw, is there any evidence she personally approved the donations to the ACLU? Perhaps she voted against it. Or it's decided by someone else within the organization who does not report to her.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
she sits on a board of an organization that gives major money, other people's money, to the ACLU= she supports what the ACLU does= she has no business hearing its cases. she is more than donating her money, she is effectively a fund raiser.

So you are saying that no one on the DC Circuit or the Supreme Court who was involved in Bush v. Gore has ever been involved with an organization that supports either of the two main political parties? If people had to recuse for reasons like that, no cases would ever get decided. Who wrote amicus briefs supporting the defense in the ACLU case? Are any judges involved with those organizations at all?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So you are saying that no one on the DC Circuit or the Supreme Court who was involved in Bush v. Gore has ever been involved with an organization that supports either of the two main political parties? If people had to recuse for reasons like that, no cases would ever get decided. Who wrote amicus briefs supporting the defense in the ACLU case? Are any judges involved with those organizations at all?

I don't answer hypotheticals. I'm saying she should not have touched the case. She fund raises for the ACLU. If you people really can't see that raising and giving other people's money is far more involvement than personal donations, I really don't think we need discuss it further. And you numbskull, there is a very wide difference between what an appeals court judge can do to slant an issue and what a district court judge can do.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
. She fund raises for the ACLU.

That's a different set of facts.

You said she was Secretary of a foundation. A foundation generally is created by a wealthy donor who wants to give away money. They don't raise funds; they are given them to start.

Second, the foundation gives money away at the direction of the deed of gift (or whatever it's called), not on the personal whims of the secretary.

Why would a foundation exist to solicit contributions for the ACLU? Couldn't the ACLU do that itself?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't answer hypotheticals. I'm saying she should not have touched the case. She fund raises for the ACLU. If you people really can't see that raising and giving other people's money is far more involvement than personal donations, I really don't think we need discuss it further. And you numbskull, there is a very wide difference between what an appeals court judge can do to slant an issue and what a district court judge can do.

I've only worked with arts related foundations, but for the most part, the board members don't generally make decisions on the merits of individual grant applications. They don't even look at individual grant applications. That's what foundation staff is for.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's a different set of facts.

You said she was Secretary of a foundation. A foundation generally is created by a wealthy donor who wants to give away money. They don't raise funds; they are given them to start.

Second, the foundation gives money away at the direction of the deed of gift (or whatever it's called), not on the personal whims of the secretary.

Why would a foundation exist to solicit contributions for the ACLU? Couldn't the ACLU do that itself?

read the Foundation's webpage. It's not an individual donor. They solicit new donors. You don't think donations that large require some form of board approval?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
read the Foundation's webpage. It's not an individual donor. They solicit new donors. You don't think donations that large require some form of board approval?

Hank, your extreme wackadooness is giving me a headache, and it's not even 9 am here. Are you angling for a visit to Fu?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
read the Foundation's webpage. It's not an individual donor. They solicit new donors. You don't think donations that large require some form of board approval?

$45,000 over two years? For an organization with an endowment of over $350 million?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
read the Foundation's webpage. It's not an individual donor. They solicit new donors. You don't think donations that large require some form of board approval?

Okay. Fair enough. I fall back to my backup point. Why should charitable giving be cause for recusal? What if she personally gave $25 to the ACLU? Should she recuse?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Hank, your extreme wackadooness is giving me a headache, and it's not even 9 am here. Are you angling for a visit to Fu?

mmmmmm egg Fu young

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't answer hypotheticals. I'm saying she should not have touched the case. She fund raises for the ACLU. If you people really can't see that raising and giving other people's money is far more involvement than personal donations, I really don't think we need discuss it further. And you numbskull, there is a very wide difference between what an appeals court judge can do to slant an issue and what a district court judge can do.

Wow -- now she fund raises for the ACLU.

This is horseshit.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wow -- now she fund raises for the ACLU.

This is horseshit.

From what I can tell, the best argument that she should have recused herself is that she was incapable of issuing a carefully reasoned, dispassionate opinion rejecting the government's program.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wow -- now she fund raises for the ACLU.

This is horseshit.

you should go back to using parentheticals

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
2. This is similar to Allito ruling on the case involving the mutual fund.

3. Who cares.

Besides, the case is going to be overturned quicker than you can say Tin Foil Hat.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
From what I can tell, the best argument that she should have recused herself is that she was incapable of issuing a carefully reasoned, dispassionate opinion rejecting the government's program.

2, and that criteria for recusal should be applied to any case that comes before any of Souter, Breyer, Stevens and/or RBGinsburg by each and every one of them.