quote:Following a time-honored Washington tradition of dumping required but embarrassing information on a Friday night before a major holiday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas finally released the details of his wife's income from her year or so working for the tea party group Liberty Central, which fought President Obama's health care reform law. His new financial disclosure form indicates that his wife, Virginia, who served as Liberty Central's president and CEO, received $150,000 in salary from the group and less than $15,000 in payments from an anti-health care lobbying firm she started.
The disclosure was apparently prompted in part by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who had been needling Thomas (including on Twitter) for months to disclose how much money his wife earned from Liberty Central. That's because challenges to Obama's health care reform law are likely to end up before the Supreme Court sooner rather than later, and if Thomas and his wife benefited from her income working against the bill, the justice has an enormous conflict of interest in hearing any legal challenge. Thomas had failed to disclose Virginia's income on his financial disclosure forms for 20 years; under pressure from Weiner and others, he had recently amended old disclosures to reflect hundreds of thousands of dollars she had earned working for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that also opposed Obama's health care plan.
But, up until now, Thomas had not revealed how much money his wife made from her controversial Liberty Central work. When Virginia Thomas decided to take a high-profile role in the organization, she was immediately criticized because of the potential that her job might compromise her husband's independence on the bench. Eventually, she was forced to step down (a move also apparently prompted by her bizarre October phone call to Anita Hill, the woman who'd accused her husband of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearing). When she left the organization, she created a new consulting firm, Liberty Consulting, which also did anti-health care reform lobbying. Justice Thomas finally released the details of her compensation Friday night, but the disclosure, and Weiner's triumphant press release announcing the move, were largely overshadowed by Weinergate.
Short copy: wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas finally releases details of her income from last year; she earned $150,000 from her Tea Party-aligned "Liberty Central" group that fought Obama's health care plan. Clarence Thomas should recuse himself on any cases involving Obama's health care plan due to the massive conflict of interest represented.
Of course, who wants to bet he doesn't recuse himself, sits there like a log and says absolutely nothing, and votes against anything and everything related to the health care bill anyway?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just googled Weinergate and I have to say its a rather bizarre scandal. He'd have to be a complete idiot to post a picture of an underwear covered erect penis on twitter. He might in fact be a complete idiot, but it seems far more probable that someone hacked his account. Possibly even someone trying to distract the public from Clarence Thomas's conflict of interest.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Justice Clarence Thomas agree with his wife's ideas? Of course, if in fact he disagrees with her about these matters, and they often fight about them, then that might tend to compromise him the other way.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No wouldn't. Thats not how the law works.
IP: Logged |
posted
Does Justice Thomas have a financial stake, via his wife, in the decision?
Honestly, I am less concerned about that - I can still hope that the nine people who get to be on the Supreme Court have some integrity - than I am about this kind of thing:
posted
It depends on whether you believe that the financial success of her advocacy group (and thus her salary) depends upon its ability to promote its causes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it probably does have some impact. Similar to lobbyists. But I don't know and can't prove it. I would be surprised if they allowed someone with a similar conflict to serve on a jury regarding a similar case. I think recusal makes sense.
Again, though. How does one live and move in such circles without getting enmeshed in these tendrils of conflict? Wives are no longer appendages to husbands and are likely to be involved in politics. Powerful people meet other powerful people and make connections, get offered jobs. Leave boards temporarily to be, say, Vice President. I wish that it were not the case, but I am not sure what can be done about it other than holding up to the light and paying attention.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry,I just don't see what the big deal is. It was his wife for heavens sake. I love my wife and we agree on a lot of issues, but we disagree on a lot of others.
Just because you are married to someone doesn't mean you subscribe to every one of their beliefs. If he rules against Health Care it doesn't mean his wife gets a huge bonus and that he stands to benefit. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm sure if Obamacare was not ruled unconstitutional his wife would make a whole lot more money fighting it through legislation.
So again, I don't see what the big deal is.
If Thomas recuses himself, so should Kagan. But then again you don't see that in the article.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the concern is more along the line of people can't give Clarence Thomas a whole mess of money to rule the way they want him to. They may, however, be able to get away with giving his wife a whole lot of money, which is essentially the same thing. And, it's not like she's just working in a related field. She's working as a lobbyist, which basically means people give her money for her to use her influence to get things they want to happen.
I don't know that this is a clear cut issue, but I don't think that dismissing it as something to be concerned about is reasonable.
---
I'll throw out something that's been bugging me lately. You know how people are prevented from trading stocks based on privileged, non-public information - known as insider trading. Well, members of Congress aren't. They're specifically exempted from being prohibited from using their knowledge of what Congress is going to do to trade stocks. And, not surprisingly, they make a killing in the stock market.
There's a bill out there that is aimed at doing away with this exemption. This bill or something like it has been introduced over and over since 2006 and dying a quiet, neglected death each time. I'm going to go out on limb and say it's unlikely to pass this time either.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's also disturbing is, there's been a similar over-profitability among congressional staffers. And they're not exempt, they're just not pursued.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm sorry,I just don't see what the big deal is. It was his wife for heavens sake. I love my wife and we agree on a lot of issues, but we disagree on a lot of others.
Judges should recuse themselves from any case where there is reasonable appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest. There's quite literally a financial interest at stake here: the Thomases stand to gain or lose money as a direct result of the decision. Which way that goes isn't that important to it. Whether they intended or were aware of creating this conflict of interest for themselves, it exists now.
There's also the issue that in this particular case, it goes further. Justice Thomas' wife is accepting money to lobby the court on the issue. That's a rather direct and traditional question of corruption, not just ideology.
quote:If Thomas recuses himself, so should Kagan. But then again you don't see that in the article.
I haven't heard the full case on this one, but Kagan so far has a good record of recusing herself. I'd like to see if the situations between Thomas and Kagan are actually directly comparable, though.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm sorry,I just don't see what the big deal is. It was his wife for heavens sake. I love my wife and we agree on a lot of issues, but we disagree on a lot of others.
Just because you are married to someone doesn't mean you subscribe to every one of their beliefs. If he rules against Health Care it doesn't mean his wife gets a huge bonus and that he stands to benefit. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm sure if Obamacare was not ruled unconstitutional his wife would make a whole lot more money fighting it through legislation.
So again, I don't see what the big deal is.
If Thomas recuses himself, so should Kagan. But then again you don't see that in the article.
Why should Kagan recourse herself? Because she's an Obama appointee?
IP: Logged |
quote:There's quite literally a financial interest at stake here...
I'm having this conversation with Dag on Sake, and actually the definition of "financial interest" for the purposes of this statute is pretty explicit and does not include having one's wife's salary paid by a non-profit, even if that non-profit is a party in the case. Basically, you only have a financial interest if you own securities in one of the parties involved or hold a high office in one of the parties involved when one of those parties is not a charitable, educational, or religious organization. You may have ANOTHER interest, but it's not one that's defined as a "financial interest."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry,I just don't see what the big deal is. It was his wife for heavens sake. I love my wife and we agree on a lot of issues, but we disagree on a lot of others.
...Geraine, this is really pretty straightforward. Are the finances of Justice Thomas and his wife linked at all? The answer is obviously yes.
So you'll have to understand why the one getting a whole lot of money might ding up the rep of the other just a bit on certain issues, the appearance of impartiality that's actually pretty important. It's not a standard we want set just for Thomas, but rather to approach the whole thing (money for politics) much more real-world.
Kagan's got nothing to do with it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's quite literally a financial interest at stake here...
I'm having this conversation with Dag on Sake, and actually the definition of "financial interest" for the purposes of this statute are pretty explicit and do not include having one's wife's salary paid by a non-profit, even if that non-profit is a party in the case. Basically, you only have a financial interest if you own securities in one of the parties involved or hold a high office in one of the parties involved when one of those parties is not a charitable, educational, or religious organization. You may have ANOTHER interest, but it's not one that's defined as a "financial interest."
That's actually kind of interesting! So I guess strike the exacting definition of financial interest out of it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although when you think about it, that makes the definition of "financial interest" kind of ridiculously, uselessly narrow in terms of imposing reasonable restrictions on people who have financial conflicts of interest related to their position as a judge or other ruling authority.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does make it seem like a case of, "we can't give you lots of money for ruling our way, but we can give your wife a lot of money if she influences you to rule our way."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems weird to consider a couple to be a unified economic unit for taxation purposes, but turn around and treat them separately for things like conflict of interest.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is $150k a lot of money for the Thomases? Depending on the lobby, it doesn't seem like a whole lot to be paying the president.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry,I just don't see what the big deal is. It was his wife for heavens sake. I love my wife and we agree on a lot of issues, but we disagree on a lot of others.
...Geraine, this is really pretty straightforward. Are the finances of Justice Thomas and his wife linked at all? The answer is obviously yes.
So you'll have to understand why the one getting a whole lot of money might ding up the rep of the other just a bit on certain issues, the appearance of impartiality that's actually pretty important. It's not a standard we want set just for Thomas, but rather to approach the whole thing (money for politics) much more real-world.
Kagan's got nothing to do with it.
I agree with you that money received from a group on one side of an issue can be a problem. I didn't see when Justice Thomas wife worked with those groups, then I read a New York Post article that Thomas' wife's time with the conservative group was prior to Congress even taking up Obama Care. If it was during the Obamacare debate I believe could get onboard in asking him to recuse himself. From what I have read though that isn't the case.
Look at some of the other Justices. Should Justice Kennedy recuse himself from any case related to education since his wife is a school teacher? Scalia should recuse himself from abortion cases since his wife is a pro-life advocate and crisis-pregnancy counselor? Should Justice Ginsberg recuse herself from tax law cases since her husband is a tax law professor and counsels Fried Frank? Each of those spouses make money on politically charged issues. That doesn't mean that the justices can't make an honest and sound ruling on those subjects.
I believe Justice Kagan has everything to do with the issue as well. As Solicitor General she is part of the administration, and as such gives advice on legal matters. There are emails that show she gave advice on what legal arguments could arise on Obamacare and how to combat them. This actually came up during her confirmation hearing and she said she would recuse herself from any cases she had been previously involved with. In my opinion Obamacare qualifies.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't see when Justice Thomas wife worked with those groups, then I read a New York Post article that Thomas' wife's time with the conservative group was prior to Congress even taking up Obama Care. If it was during the Obamacare debate I believe could get onboard in asking him to recuse himself. From what I have read though that isn't the case.
I don't know what article you read, but from what I've read the $150,000 and $15,000 numbers are from the 2010, a year when the suits against Obamacare were filed so clearly a relavant time period.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at some of the other Justices. Should Justice Kennedy recuse himself from any case related to education since his wife is a school teacher? Scalia should recuse himself from abortion cases since his wife is a pro-life advocate and crisis-pregnancy counselor? Should Justice Ginsberg recuse herself from tax law cases since her husband is a tax law professor and counsels Fried Frank? Each of those spouses make money on politically charged issues. That doesn't mean that the justices can't make an honest and sound ruling on those subjects.
There is a world of difference between being a Lobbyist, who is paid to promote a specific legislative or legal agenda, and being a teacher, professor, counselor or even activist. Teachers aren't paid to promote a particular education bill. Counselors aren't paid to persuade leaders. Even activists aren't paid to represent a particular view point.
quote:I believe Justice Kagan has everything to do with the issue as well. As Solicitor General she is part of the administration, and as such gives advice on legal matters. There are emails that show she gave advice on what legal arguments could arise on Obamacare and how to combat them. This actually came up during her confirmation hearing and she said she would recuse herself from any cases she had been previously involved with. In my opinion Obamacare qualifies.
If there is substantial overlap, she should clearly recuse herself. But unless you know a lot more than has been publicly released about the specific legal issues she dealt with as part of the administration and their overlap with the Supreme Court case, your opinion on this means jack.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at some of the other Justices. Should Justice Kennedy recuse himself from any case related to education since his wife is a school teacher? Scalia should recuse himself from abortion cases since his wife is a pro-life advocate and crisis-pregnancy counselor? Should Justice Ginsberg recuse herself from tax law cases since her husband is a tax law professor and counsels Fried Frank? Each of those spouses make money on politically charged issues. That doesn't mean that the justices can't make an honest and sound ruling on those subjects.
There is a world of difference between being a Lobbyist, who is paid to promote a specific legislative or legal agenda, and being a teacher, professor, counselor or even activist. Teachers aren't paid to promote a particular education bill. Counselors aren't paid to persuade leaders. Even activists aren't paid to represent a particular view point.
Whether or not the person is a lobbyist is irrelevant. Does the judge have a vested interest in the outcome? If the answer is yes, how is it different?
quote:
[QUOTE]If there is substantial overlap, she should clearly recuse herself. But unless you know a lot more than has been publicly released about the specific legal issues she dealt with as part of the administration and their overlap with the Supreme Court case, your opinion on this means jack.
No need to get nasty. There has been publicly released information a simple google search could have given you. It came out last month though so it could have been easily missed:
quote:
According to a January 8, 2010, email from Neal Katyal, former Deputy Solicitor General (and current Acting Solicitor General) to Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Kagan was involved in the strategy to defend Obamacare from the very beginning:
Subject: Re: Health Care Defense:
Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues…we will bring in Elena as needed. [The “set of issues” refers to another email calling for assembling a group to figure out “how to defend against the…health care proposals that are pending.”]
On March 21, 2010, Katyal urged Kagan to attend a health care litigation meeting that was evidently organized by the Obama White House: “This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.”
In another email exchange that took place on January 8, 2010, Katyal’s Department of Justice colleague Brian Hauck asked Katyal about putting together a group to discuss challenges to Obamacare. “Could you figure out the right person or people for that?” Hauck asked. “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them,” Katyal responded. “I’ll speak with Elena and designate someone.”
Well golly gee wiz, sure looks like she was involved.
Seriously, is there is anyone out there doubts Kagan had anything to do with Obamacare? She was the Solicitor General. It was her job to be involved in this sort o thing.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's also strip quoted. What I said was conditioned on "Unless you know more than .....". (Damn the English language for not having a clear conditional tense)
I have no apologies for those who find that conditional offensive. Opinions formed in ignorance of the facts do mean jack.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well golly gee wiz, sure looks like she was involved.
Seriously, is there is anyone out there doubts Kagan had anything to do with Obamacare? She was the Solicitor General. It was her job to be involved in this sort o thing.
Based on what you posted and the other stuff that I've found, I really don't know enough to know whether her involvement should disqualify her. She attended some meetings. That doesn't tell me anything unless I know more about the agenda of the meetings.
If they were discussing specific legal questions and strategies, yes she should be disqualified. But if they were discussing things like what personnel to assign to the case or the needed budget, not so much. I agree it raises questions. I don't think there is enough information publicly available to form an informed opinion.
I think one can make a reasonable argument that in a such a high profile case, judges should recuse them self if there is an appearance of conflict (even if there is little substance behind it) because that appearance of conflict will erode peoples confidence in the fairness of the courts. That is however something that can be so easily abused. It gives incentive to for people and groups to make spurious claims against justices in order to stack the court in their favor.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's also strip quoted. What I said was conditioned on "Unless you know more than .....". (Damn the English language for not having a clear conditional tense)
I have no apologies for those who find that conditional offensive. Opinions formed in ignorance of the facts do mean jack.
The conditional isn't offensive, but your attitude toward Geraine is. It is the attitude I am critical of, not the conditional.
EDIT: Let me make it clear that I think that you are using the conditional to indicate the unlikelihood that Geraine does have information unavailable to the public.
As a scientist, I'm sure you're aware of the need to use language in the most effective way possible, in order to persuade your audience of the strength of your arguments. Your rude dismissal of Geraine's POV does not convey confidence or strength; it conveys impatience and frustration.
**
Geraine, those emails don't show that Kagan was very involved with the defense of Obama's health care plan; they show that some folks meant to ASK her about it.
Nothing in them connects her directly with the details.
posted
The first email stated however that Kagan was aware of it and wanted to be part of the discussions.
I think that would at least merit some question as to the extent of her involvement. Afterall, she knew it was happening and according to the email said she wanted her office to be involved.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless one of us is in a position to affect the outcome, each of our opinions on the matter means jack. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The conditional isn't offensive, but your attitude toward Geraine is. It is the attitude I am critical of, not the conditional.
Have you consider that our very recent disagreement on sake along with your general dislike for me may be coloring the way you read my posts and perceive my tone?
Have you considered the possibility that our many unpleasant interactions over the years might render you singularly unqualified to form an objective opinion on anything I say.
Have you considered that our history means I'm extremely unlikely to find any criticism you make of me in the least bit "constructive"?
Have you considered that, for a person who regularly makes a big stink when people speculate on your intent, its more than a little hypocritical to criticize me for what your believe to be my "attitude"?
Have you considered that given my attitude toward you, your criticisms are almost certain going to be counterproductive?
I've asked you several times to stop this. Your following me into a different thread on a different forum to keep pressing this issue indicates a distinct moral failing. Bug off.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that would at least merit some question as to the extent of her involvement. Afterall, she knew it was happening and according to the email said she wanted her office to be involved.
The extent of her involvement (as noted in her congressional testimony) with the Obama administration defense of the health care bill concerns me less than Thomas' wife's connections to the anti-health care bill lobby.
A lot of that has to do with the fact that if there were more evidence to be found, showing that she had a stronger presence in the defense, I think it would have been raised during the hearings.
Maybe I put too much trust in the media.
Rabbit, I'm sorry that you feel that I'm following you to criticize you. That's not my intent, but I think I understand why you feel that way.
If you will start treating other people with the same respect you demand, I will stop bugging you.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you will start treating other people with the same respect you demand, I will stop bugging you.
The alleged disrespect is a matter of your perception, not my intent. You need to recognize you aren't capable of making an objective assessment of my tone or intent and back off. You can't seem to treat me with the slightest respect so you have no right to criticize me for failing to respect others. Back off!! I've asked a number of times. Stop it!
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, to be completely honest I didn't take your comment as demeaning. If something can be taken multiple ways, I try to always give the poster the benefit of the doubt, since it is more difficult to determine intent on the internet.
I understood what your were saying. I know my post after yours does not seem like I did, but it was a knee jerk reaction, and I apologize. Once I read your post again I understood what you were getting at.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, I did not intend my post to be demeaning and am glad you didn't interpret it that way.
My beef is with Scott. He is carrying over an argument we had on Sakeriver last weekend that really has nothing to do with this thread.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Can a justice of the supreme court be impeached? What are the rules and policies around such a thing?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congress can impeach a Supreme Court justice, in a process very similar to impeaching the President. To the best of my knowledge, only one justice has ever been impeached -- for being excessively partisan, IIRC, a rationale that would be almost unthinkable today -- and he was acquitted by the Senate and remained on the court.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. This guy's not really much more literate; he's trying hard to sound like he knows what he's saying, but he doesn't.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you don't understand: the other guy's a conservative (far right, no less), so *by definition* he is superior in nearly all virtues.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He strictly avoids the give-and-take among justices during oral arguments; he has not asked a question or made a comment in more than five years.
And his most provocative opinions have been solo dissents. Among them, he has declared that the Constitution gives states a right to establish an official religion. Prisoners, he wrote, have no constitutional right to be protected from beatings by guards. Teenagers and students have no free-speech rights at all, he said in an opinion Monday, because in the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, parents had "absolute authority" over their children.
Two years ago, the court ruled that a school official could not strip-search a 13-year-old girl to look for two extra-strength ibuprofen pills. Thomas — alone — dissented, calling the search of her underwear "reasonable and justified."
Alone, he voted to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act that is credited with giving blacks political power in the South. And he was the lone justice to uphold the George W. Bush administration's view that an American citizen could be held as an "enemy combatant" with no charges and no hearing.
quote:During most of his tenure, Thomas rarely has written major opinions for the court. Because his views did not sit well with the moderate justices needed to form a majority, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist often assigned him tax and bankruptcy cases.
But this year, under current Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., he has spoken for the court's conservative majority in significant decisions that limited the rights of prisoners, which has become his signature issue. In March, he announced a 5-4 decision that threw out a $14-million jury verdict in favor of a black Louisiana man who had been convicted of murder and nearly executed because prosecutors hid evidence that could have proven his innocence.
A month later, Thomas said a state's "sovereign immunity" barred inmates from suing for damages when their freedom of religion had been violated.
claaaaaaaaa
quote:Nowhere is the difference more apparent than in cases involving prisoners. Marshall wrote the court's opinion holding that deliberately subjecting prisoners to cruelty, including refusing them needed medical care, can violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Thomas, alone among his colleagues, continues to oppose that ruling. The constitutional ban has nothing to do with what happens to an inmate in prison, he argues; it only limits what sentence the defendant may receive. "Judges or juries — but not jailors — impose punishment," he said. By that standard, brutal beatings meted out by a guard do not qualify as unconstitutional punishment.
In November 1991, two months after Thomas took his seat on the court, the justices heard the case of Keith Hudson, a Louisiana prisoner who had been handcuffed and then repeatedly punched in the face and kicked by a guard. His teeth and dental plate were cracked. He sued, and a magistrate awarded him $800 in damages.
Roberts, then the Bush administration's 36-year-old deputy solicitor general, argued on behalf of the prisoner. He said that although guards may use force to maintain discipline, it is cruel and unusual punishment for them to brutally beat inmates. The Supreme Court agreed in a 7-2 decision. Thomas dissented. "In my view, a use of force which causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner … is not 'cruel and unusual punishment,'" he wrote. Thomas' approach would permit the torturing of prisoners, Justice Harry Blackmun said.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
