Why Does Republican Justice Clarence Thomas Think he is Not Bound by Ethics
Justice Clarence Thomas needs to follow the ethics lead of his colleague, Justice Samuel Alito, who discovered that he voted in a case in which he unwittingly had a financial interest.
Justice Samuel Alito, acknowledging an unintentional conflict of interest, said a staff oversight led him to take part in a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving Walt Disney Co. (DIS)’s ABC Inc. even though his children held Disney stock.
Alito voted against ABC in the case, joining a 5-4 majority that revived Federal Communications Commission efforts to crack down on televised vulgarities. The decision left open the prospect that the FCC rules might be struck down on First Amendment grounds.
That's not the part to be commended, this is:
He has disqualified himself in other cases involving companies whose shares he owns. In 2008, Alito didn’t take part in the court’s 5-3 decision cutting the punitive damage award against Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) for the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to from $2.5 billion to $507.5 million.
Alito also stepped aside in June 2009 when the justices refused to hear another case, concerning home television recording, that involved a Disney unit.
With the revelation last week of the Thomas's financial stake in the political opposition to the Affordable Care Act—Ginni Thomas received $105,000 in salary from a Tea Party group organized to repeal the law and less than $15,000 in payments from an anti-health care lobbying firm she started—Thomas should recuse himself from the any future case coming before the court on the Affordable Care Act.
He won't, but he should.
Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to have ethics problems before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. Many American had hopes that once in office he would change his ways. Nope, he seems as recalcitrant and unethical as ever. They say power corrupts. Thomas doesn't do much to dispel that old adage.
CASE CLOSED! CONGRESSMAN WEINER WAS FRAMED!
The only way to create a URL-free header is to have someone else send a pic to one's Yfrog address. Milowent did just that. You can see the result: The header now has a blank space beneath Dowson's name.So Andrew Breitbart uses the hack/exploit of a wing-nut who was obsessed with Weiner to once again foist another journalistic fraud on the American people. There is nothing patriotic about that. Which is par for the course for Breitbart and conservatism - there is nothing patriotic or American about either.
Why does Yfrog work that way? I don't know. Ask their programmers.
The important point is this: The anomaly in the header indicates that the image was not sent by Weiner. It had to have been sent by someone else.
Not only that. Believe it or not, when an outsider sends a pic to someone else's Yfrog account in this fashion, the action creates a message in the "twitterstream." The message seems to originate with the Twitter account holder -- but it doesn't. It comes from somewhere else -- from someone mailing a picture to the account holder.
This is a serious security flaw in the design of Yfrog and Twitter. It allows a malicious outsider to "spoof" a tweet that seems to come from someone else.
