Observateur wrote:You don't even know what a case is -- any more than you know what a judge's job is.billy o wrote:Bottom line is: If the guy"
That's your case........ "If the guy."
Have fun walking into a court with that kind of evidence.
I've stated that if he had the same holdings on June 22 as in '08, he should have recused (and, fyi, so should any judge in that position); that his office directed people to that '08 report; and that his delay in releasing the '09 report is mystifying and very unsmart. I didn't base answers re: ethics and recusal on my "feelings" or personal worldview: I cited the boring-but-mandatory U.S. Code and the Code of Judicial Ethics. (Sorry if you don't like them.)
You've been spinning a "case" out of this by presuming what's in a yet-unseen '09 report (which I haven't presumed); presuming that he tried to protect his district and praising him for it, w/o realizing that this would violate judicial ethics; ranting about disclosure in other fed branches (and clearly not understanding why the United States views its judiciary as special); trying to blow off judicial-ethics laws; and emoting like mad while claiming that questioning this issue = some sort of partisan conspiracy.
It's very clearly a partisan attack and I haven't been "spinning" any case. I'm responding to people that are "spinning" a case out of outdated assumptive information hoping to have the judges ruling struck down. It may come out that he has holdings. If that's the case, I'm in your camp. I haven't seen evidence that shows that to be true as of yet and until that time, I give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
None of this would even be an issue if Obama wouldn't have blown up the rig.