of course they did: scalia & thomas dine w/ ppaca challengers

It’s a glaring example of not even caring to present the façade of impartiality:

The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.

No big deal, right? Just a friendly, non-controversial dinner/fundraiser sponsored by Pfizer, the law firm Jones Day (representing the National Federation of Independent Business, a trade association challenging the PPACA), and the law firm that will argue the case against PPACA, Bancroft PLLC. Actually, I’m not sure which is the bigger concern — that it is effectively a yawner story in our society that justices sitting on the top court of the land regularly wine and dine with those that have a direct interest in the cases they will hear, or that the Supreme Court justices don’t have to answer to the same Code of Conduct that all other federal judges do.

These two justices, specifically, are an embarrassment to our legal system and society. One (Scalia) has continually thumbed his nose at the mere concept of performing his duties ethically, while the other (Thomas) has been a paragon of ignorance and the lack of any kind of notable achievements in his time on the court, unless you count his historically notable record of non-participation in Supreme Court hearings.

And yet they’ll both be there for life. Two more examples of conservatives turning our government into a farce.

associated press apparently believes you can only file one complaint in your lifetime

Seriously, AP:

A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.

This is the new media “balance”. There would actually be something to this story, if perhaps the accuser displayed a disturbing trend of bouncing from job to job, filing sexual harassment complaints. But one complaint, three years later, isn’t a trend or even a pattern. It’s merely another complaint.

It isn’t, say, five different women accusing one man over the course of his employment at the National Restaurant Association. It isn’t two of the women now public and one known to have received what amounts to a full annual salary as a payout resulting from the alleged incident. It isn’t an allegation of the expectation of sexual favors in exchange for giving someone a job.

Now that, AP, would truly be disturbing.