Spokane sues Monsanto for PCB contamination

[RonMexico]

It wouldn't be as alarming if there weren't so many representing Monsanto. The fact that so many Monsanto alumni are making it into key positions that would potentially directly affect the company is very suspicious.

But if it was say 2 or 3 alumni in the whitehouse, nobody would bat an eye.

It's OK to just let Ambien live in his dream world where corporations only hire people on the up and up. Clearly Clarence Thomas just has friends from school and his old job that gave him a good reference for his judge application.

[Mr. Ambien]

Yes and they have a conflict of interest because they have a revolving door between these companies and government while supporting legislature/laws that benefit those same companies over the people they're supposed to be representing.

It's not about their work background, or what school they went to. It's that these guys work for the company for a while, then go in to a government position where they promote that industry's interests from within over the people's whom they're supposed to be governing for and then go write back in to that industry again.

But continue putting your head in the sand, it's working out real well

Someone doesn't think like me, must have head in sand.

So you're saying that after they work for the government they can't work for an industry they already worked for? They have to find a new line of work? Retire? It's pretty cool living life based on these terrible presumptions you make about how other people should be doing things.

To get a job as a US judge you need a decade or more experience practicing law in the private sector. That is a requirement. Oops?

It's OK to just let Ambien live in his dream world where corporations only hire people on the up and up. Clearly Clarence Thomas just has friends from school and his old job that gave him a good reference for his judge application.

lol

Talk about living in a dream world.

Thomas didn't want to work for the government, Bush Sr. basically bugged him into it.

Please, tell me more about how Thomas submitted a job app like he's working for 7-Eleven. Please tell me how all the other judges submitted apps like that too.

You guys are really bad at this. Unfortunately this is the way a lot of other people approach life so you guys can high five each other as if you know what's what, and that there's some magic conspiracy because someone works in the private sector, then moves to government.. or even worse, gasp, moves back to the private sector, maybe even the job they were doing before rather than starting over with another firm! This is like comic relief.

[inane]

You guys are funny. Like most things this is grey where you argue in black or white. Are they all corrupt beholden to monsanto? No. Are they all pure as the driven snow? No.

Stop with the extremes.

[RonMexico]

Someone doesn't think like me, must have head in sand.

So you're saying that after they work for the government they can't work for an industry they already worked for? They have to find a new line of work? Retire? It's pretty cool living life based on these terrible presumptions you make about how other people should be doing things.

To get a job as a US judge you need a decade or more experience practicing law in the private sector. That is a requirement. Oops?

lol

Talk about living in a dream world.

Thomas didn't want to work for the government, Bush Sr. basically bugged him into it.

Please, tell me more about how Thomas submitted a job app like he's working for 7-Eleven. Please tell me how all the other judges submitted apps like that too.

You guys are really bad at this. Unfortunately this is the way a lot of other people approach life so you guys can high five each other as if you know what's what, and that there's some magic conspiracy because someone works in the private sector, then moves to government.. or even worse, gasp, moves back to the private sector, maybe even the job they were doing before rather than starting over with another firm! This is like comic relief.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, his resume reads black and white. Worked as a lawyer...appointed as a judge....appointed as a higher judge. Free to be employed by whomever he wishes for however long he wants.

But if you can't see how a judge making rulings in favour of a company he worked for in the past is not a conflict of interest, then that is your problem. It goes beyond the simple optics you are referring to. Monsanto has a shady background. It's been shown many times. But to you, all that shady background stuff is just tinfoil conspiracy. I am not telling you that your opinion is wrong but don't tell others they are wrong because they chose to see it differently.

[Jägermeister]

You guys are funny. Like most things this is grey where you argue in black or white. Are they all corrupt beholden to monsanto? No. Are they all pure as the driven snow? No.

Stop with the extremes.

Sir may I remind you that this is a logic free zone. These kind of comments will not be tolerated. Please collect your things and leave immediately.

[Mr. Ambien]

I don't disagree with what you are saying, his resume reads black and white. Worked as a lawyer...appointed as a judge....appointed as a higher judge. Free to be employed by whomever he wishes for however long he wants.

But if you can't see how a judge making rulings in favour of a company he worked for in the past is not a conflict of interest, then that is your problem. It goes beyond the simple optics you are referring to. Monsanto has a shady background. It's been shown many times. But to you, all that shady background stuff is just tinfoil conspiracy. I am not telling you that your opinion is wrong but don't tell others they are wrong because they chose to see it differently.

Can you explain the rulings in question where you see conflict of interest?

I can agree with you if there are demonstrated conflicts of interest.

Most of the Monsanto cases I've seen tend to either be unanimous rulings (8-0 or 9-0) in favour of Monsanto or settlements outside of court. What this has to do with Clarence Thomas, unless Thomas has some magic mind control over all the other judges, is beyond me.

I can cite you a conflict of interest right off the top of my head and what should result in disqualification:

-Barack Obama spends his handful of state and federal Senator years blasting Bush for warrantless wiretapping, noting the fact that it's illegal

-During the Democrat primary run of 2008 when it's basically just down to him and Hillary and his chances of becoming President are much better, he changes his mind about it, and suddenly would want those powers

-AT&T host the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, all the execs are seen partying with Obama

-Barack Obama becomes President, immediately defends AT&T, Verizon, et al., vies for, gets Congress to write, and signs a bill giving AT&T retroactive immunity from being sued in court for their part in warrantless wiretaps

-Continues to defend them henceforth

That is as brazen as conflict of interest gets.

[Jägermeister]

In an ideal world, private corporations and government would be completely seperate from one another. But there is litterally no way that can truly happen. Everybody has their own interests.

[Mr. Ambien]

In an ideal world, private corporations and government would be completely seperate from one another. But there is litterally no way that can truly happen. Everybody has their own interests.

Everyone has their own interest because people are people.

If you're hiring someone for a job, if you have someone you know for the position that's known to the company you work for and is reputable, you're going to favour that person over someone you don't know. It's a no-brainer.

Yes, it's bias, and yes, it promotes favouritism and such, but that is how the world works regardless of whether you're a judge, pipe fitter, fry cook, cashier, or an inside sales manager for a company that makes parts and systems for oil and gas companies.

People are so caught up associating a company you work for and your political ideals as conflict of interest they openly miss actual conflicts of interest, like the one I cited, that slap them in the face. But that's the nature of people, and why most don't get the things they want. They walk around in life imagining how a world should be with little understanding of how it works, then get upset when they find the real world doesn't match up to their expectations. Those who are successful learn to adapt.

[RonMexico]

Can you explain the rulings in question where you see conflict of interest?

Monsanto vs Geertson and Monsanto vs Bowman were both cases where Clarence Thomas voted in favour of Monsanto.

Now I won't say that Thomas isn't incapable of impartiality; but he worked for Monsanto in the 70s (so you would think that many years later his ties are pretty much severed) and he ruled in favour of Monsanto (as did all the other judges except in the Geertson case where one dissented) in these two cases instead of recusing himself from both cases. It's bad optics even if he voted with the utmost integrity expected of a Supreme Court Judge.

[Mr. Ambien]

Monsanto vs Geertson and Monsanto vs Bowman were both cases where Clarence Thomas voted in favour of Monsanto.

Now I won't say that Thomas isn't incapable of impartiality; but he worked for Monsanto in the 70s (so you would think that many years later his ties are pretty much severed) and he ruled in favour of Monsanto (as did all the other judges except in the Geertson case where one dissented) in these two cases instead of recusing himself from both cases. It's bad optics even if he voted with the utmost integrity expected of a Supreme Court Judge.

In both of those cases, Thomas should have recused himself. I'm sure he might have miffed a few in law practice as well by additionally writing the majority opinion for the 6-2 verdict.

On the other hand, these were 6-2 (seems more like 7-1) and 9-0 decisions, and looking at the arguments made in opposition to Monsanto, they were terrible, so really, Thomas wasn't the deciding factor, but while I don't think this is really a flagrant conflict of interest, there's little doubt as to what Thomas should have done. Unfortunately this is not done consistently enough throughout SCOTUS. Breyer, for example, recused himself in the 6-2 ruling (hence why it didn't add up to 9), but didn't in other rulings that directly involved his own family.

So I'll agree with you here partially, it represents somewhat of a conflict of interest. Nothing that resembles even remotely the stuff, or gives validity to the crap, that's getting plastered all over this thread.

[Aladeen]

I think Spokane is one of the nicest cities in the US.

[Jimayo]

If a judge is honest he will recuse himself to avoid a conflict of interest like ruling on a company you used to work for. LOL at not seeing a conflict of interest in actually ruling on that company, let alone not seeing a conflict if interest in always ruling in that companies favor.