Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
How did he lie? I'm perfectly willing to accept that Chirac lied, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. And when you say "it was not a stance based on morals," what do you mean? Why is it a bribe if you give money to someone whose "morals" leads them to agree with you? It seems to me that the essence of that word is that they change their position in your favor. That's what I'm not seeing here.

T (is for usage Timmy) S

So, if Cheney buys Scalia the new house, and then Scalia rules in Cheney's favor, all he has to do is say "I did it on the merits!"

Cool. You have constructed the perfectly un-violatable bribery definition.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, if Cheney buys Scalia the new house, and then Scalia rules in Cheney's favor, all he has to do is say "I did it on the merits!"

Cool. You have constructed the perfectly un-violatable bribery definition.

We have different rules for bribery in domestic government than we have in diplomacy. Otherwise, it would be like looking up the Queensbury Rules to figure out how to play Grand Theft Auto.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, if Cheney buys Scalia the new house, and then Scalia rules in Cheney's favor, all he has to do is say "I did it on the merits!"

Cool. You have constructed the perfectly un-violatable bribery definition.

Judges are concerned with the appearance of impropriety. Or they ought to be. When it doesn't seem to register that there's something off about going duck hunting with one of the parties in a case in front of you, you start to wonder.

I said that when you pay something and they do something they're going to do anyway, that's not bribery. I don't understand what you think my "bribery definition" is. Although if you are suggesting that Scalia was inevitably going to rule in Cheney's favor, I'm not sure I can prove otherwise.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Judges are concerned with the appearance of impropriety. Or they ought to be. When it doesn't seem to register that there's something off about going duck hunting with one of the parties in a case in front of you, you start to wonder.

I agree with you on this. I think Scalia should not have gone on the trip. The distinction he draws (i.e., that Cheney is not before him in his personal capacity) is BS.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Although if you are suggesting that Scalia was inevitably going to rule in Cheney's favor, I'm not sure I can prove otherwise.

Crux of the problem. And, if Chirac wants to treat among society as an honorable leader, he needs to worry about app of imp just as much as (that asshat, "what's wrong with this?!") Scalia.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop


I said that when you pay something and they do something they're going to do anyway, that's not bribery.

I'd say it's a really dumb purchase . . . er, bribe.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with you on this. I think Scalia should not have gone on the trip. The distinction he draws (i.e., that Cheney is not before him in his personal capacity) is BS.

Well, he can cure the error by (another) recusal.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, he can cure the error by (another) recusal.

For such a brilliant guy, he certainly puts himself in recusal's way enough.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
And, if Chirac wants to treat among society as an honorable leader, he needs to worry about app of imp just as much as (that asshat, "what's wrong with this?!") Scalia.

No doubt. As I say, I'm not defending Chirac, just quibbling over the word "bribe."

Originally posted by bilmore
For such a brilliant guy, he certainly puts himself in recusal's way enough.

The brilliance may be part of the problem.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with you on this. I think Scalia should not have gone on the trip. The distinction he draws (i.e., that Cheney is not before him in his personal capacity) is BS.

Well, he can cure the error by (another) recusal.

The judge I clerked for was particularly well connected politically, and happened to be eligible to sit on a number of high-profile cases involving several of his political friends, or at least acquaintences. He directed the clerk to have him taken off the roster of eligible judges to sit on any of those cases. Although I'm sure he was happy not to have to rule against them.

[ETA: Lest you think I'm repeating myself, I did hit "edit"initially; not sure why a new post was created]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Not to mention Chirac's longstanding very chummy relationship with SH personally, which itself is none too clean (google Chirac and Iraq and nuclear).

Correct me if I am wrong, but the article cited said that SH tried to influence France's foreign policy by providing access to oil. OK, if it doesn't go into Chirac's pocket but instead into the countries, I think it qualifies as simply bad foreign policy rather than a bribe.

Or do we say that Bush bribed Pakistan to help us in Afghanistan?

Now, I have no problem believing that Chirac may have taken bribes and that there may have been an improper relationship between SH and JC, but I don't think that is what is alleged here.

What is acknowledged at this point by Halliburton is that they overbilled the governmnet, and what has been suggested by others is that favoritism has been shown by governmental officials because of some past special relationships (and, it is expected, some large equity positions in certain blind trusts). But no one has shown the latter yet, at least that I am aware of.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop


The brilliance may be part of the problem.

Why, because he believes he's so sharp as to be unable, that is incapable, of having his conclusions altered merely by duck hunts or speeches?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
.

What is acknowledged at this point by Halliburton is that they overbilled the governmnet, and what has been suggested by others is that favoritism has been shown by governmental officials because of some past special relationships (and, it is expected, some large equity positions in certain blind trusts). But no one has shown the latter yet, at least that I am aware of.

Has Cheney not completely divested?

Besides, as I understand the gov't rules, having a stock, and then putting it in a trust designated as "blind" does not make the trust blind for purposes of that stock, only for assets acquired subsequent to the trust's creation.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Crux of the problem. And, if Chirac wants to treat among society as an honorable leader, he needs to worry about app of imp just as much as (that asshat, "what's wrong with this?!") Scalia.

I'm not sure you want to cite appearance of impropriety in a discussion also mentioning Cheney and Halliburton.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why, because he believes he's so sharp as to be unable, that is incapable, of having his conclusions altered merely by duck hunts or speeches?

I think that he's so sharp that he sometimes lacks prudence. I suppose they don't have to go together. There are sharp people who don't do such things, and there are imprudent people who aren't sharp, but dead Greeks would probably try to fit the two traits together.