Amen. Those of us who are lawyers will recall from “professional ethics” codes the concept of “avoiding even the appearance of impropriety”. Apparently propriety is as difficult for our Justices to define as obscenity. Or is it that they are absolutely blind to “appearances”/optics? I cannot imagine our Iowa Supreme Court acting in such a cavalier manner.
Does something change in our mindsets when we have wealthy friends and foundations and corporations swirling around us?
Iowa has clear-cut restrictions in Code Section 688.22. This would be a decent barometer for others to follow, even though I think the $3 daily limit unless the government official is speaking at a meeting is out of date.... https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/68B.22.pdf
Well I have been on the receiving end of an interview conducted by Ed Tibbetts and I can attest to him questioning my motivations, connections and whatever he thinks possibly "smeals" of something not "right". It's clear once you reach a certain level in America you are privileged and your sense of morality and doing the right thing is not as important as it once was on your way up. The justices know what they are doing is suspect at best, but feel they are above scrutiny with their lifelong appointment. They should be embarrassed and the chief justice should have already addressed the issue publically. They should also be embarrassed by their political activism and allowing their religious beliefs to enter into their judicial decisions and forgetting about precedent and the constitution which has long been recognized as a living document that has to change with our ever changing technology world we live in. Term limits are what are needed for our elected officials and the same is true for the Supreme Court.
Boy, I don't remember that, Dan. I do remember asking questions about a PAC endorsement at a news conference where you were. And, as I recall, you were on the PAC board. Is that it?
Amen. Those of us who are lawyers will recall from “professional ethics” codes the concept of “avoiding even the appearance of impropriety”. Apparently propriety is as difficult for our Justices to define as obscenity. Or is it that they are absolutely blind to “appearances”/optics? I cannot imagine our Iowa Supreme Court acting in such a cavalier manner.
Does something change in our mindsets when we have wealthy friends and foundations and corporations swirling around us?
Indeed. I've seen judges and state legislators fret over whether they can accept things as small as a bottle of water. This is appalling.
I was in a job where we couldn’t take perks from clients. Not even dinner. It’s not that hard.
Iowa has clear-cut restrictions in Code Section 688.22. This would be a decent barometer for others to follow, even though I think the $3 daily limit unless the government official is speaking at a meeting is out of date.... https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/68B.22.pdf
Thank you!
Well I have been on the receiving end of an interview conducted by Ed Tibbetts and I can attest to him questioning my motivations, connections and whatever he thinks possibly "smeals" of something not "right". It's clear once you reach a certain level in America you are privileged and your sense of morality and doing the right thing is not as important as it once was on your way up. The justices know what they are doing is suspect at best, but feel they are above scrutiny with their lifelong appointment. They should be embarrassed and the chief justice should have already addressed the issue publically. They should also be embarrassed by their political activism and allowing their religious beliefs to enter into their judicial decisions and forgetting about precedent and the constitution which has long been recognized as a living document that has to change with our ever changing technology world we live in. Term limits are what are needed for our elected officials and the same is true for the Supreme Court.
Boy, I don't remember that, Dan. I do remember asking questions about a PAC endorsement at a news conference where you were. And, as I recall, you were on the PAC board. Is that it?
Great analysis.
Father to child: "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Child: "I wanna be a Supreme Court Justice! Free everything with no rules!!"