http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-moshman/children-violence-and-the_b_886606.html

Whew! Now I feel better. Time to catch Fox News and wait for death.

Also

“could make removals a common occurrence, leaving the court without its full complement of nine justices in the case, and might encourage gaming the system by litigants who wanted to get rid of an unsympathetic justice.”

seems like a valid balancing concern.

Back when anyone cared about “conflict of interest.” How quaint.

A law firm employing a relative of a justice bringing cases to the Supreme Court seems like it’s ripe for concern about a litigant gaming the system.

They seem far less inclined to dump a potentially conflicted justice from a case than they are to pretend that there is no conflict of interest because of simple little loopholes.

Also, it is the eagle’s “RIGHT WING” – that can hardly be a coincidence.

Lastly, “You liberals!”

“I ruled in favor of my friends groups”

but the NYT says

“Mr. Crow has not personally been a party to Supreme Court litigation, but his companies have been involved in federal court cases, including four that went to the appellate level. ”

so….?

Citation needed.

You’re thinking more along the lines of a ’70s Benelli?

“Eugene Scalia is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm based in Los Angeles. Partners share in the income from all the firm’s cases, but when Scalia became a partner in 2003, the firm sent a letter to the court saying that he would not receive any earnings from any cases that reached the Supreme Court.

That was in response to a letter signed in 1993 by seven justices, including Scalia, who had children, spouses or other close relatives who were practicing law or studying to become lawyers. The letter addressed a law that requires federal judges to recuse themselves if a close relative is “acting as a lawyer in the proceeding” or has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.”

The justices said they would interpret the law literally, to require removal only when a close relative is currently involved in the case or was the lead attorney at another stage of the proceedings. Reading the law more broadly to cover all members of a law firm, they said, could make removals a common occurrence, leaving the court without its full complement of nine justices in the case, and might encourage gaming the system by litigants who wanted to get rid of an unsympathetic justice.

On the other hand, the justices said law firm partners stand to benefit financially when the firm appears before the Supreme Court. So they promised to bow out of any case argued by a firm in which one of the justices’ close relatives was a partner, unless the firm barred the relative from receiving any income from the case — the very arrangement that the Gibson Dunn firm announced for Scalia’s son a decade later.”

What makes you think those things are mutually exclusive?

Also removals from the court being more commonplace would be a good thing.

In general, not letting lawyers run our country would be a good thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html

But what astonishes me is that, in a country of 308 million people, the legal profession is so closed that the supreme court justices are seriously worried about this being a common problem.