I'm baffled by the stories coming out of about #SCOTUS judges #hobnobbing with special interests.
I don't remember in which context I ran across this notion. Heck, it might have been as far back as when I lived in the land of my birth, #Canada.
I recall a discussion about #ethics where the ethical rule was to avoid doing anything that could even give the *appearance* of #favoritism.
There was no need to *prove* that someone had shown favoritism. If there was an *appearance* of it, it was a no go.
This seems to be a reasonable standard to me. Apparently, SCOTUS does not operate under this standard.
All the hobnobbing with special interests gives an *appearance* of favoritism. Under the standard I gave above, it would be a no go.
What we have now is judges going to the press to explain their actions in minute details. That's #bullshit. Avoid giving the *appearance* of favoritism, and then you don't have to explain in detail.
#SpecialInterests