Comments on: Congress’ Denial of Judicial Cost-of-Living Salary Increases Violates Constitution, ABA Argues http://www.abanow.org/2012/07/congress-denial-of-judicial-cost-of-living-salary-increases-violates-constitution-aba-argues/ ABA Media Relations & Communication Services Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:13:30 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Dennis http://www.abanow.org/2012/07/congress-denial-of-judicial-cost-of-living-salary-increases-violates-constitution-aba-argues/comment-page-1/#comment-6763 Dennis Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:18:47 +0000 http://www.abanow.org/?p=25790#comment-6763 I would like for the ABA to name the current sitting federal judges who accepted the appointment as a federal judge but are not qualified for the position. Frankly, with the lifetime appointment and pay being a Federal judge is a great job that many qualified lawyers and state judges would love to have. I would like for the ABA to name the current sitting federal judges who accepted the appointment as a federal judge but are not qualified for the position. Frankly, with the lifetime appointment and pay being a Federal judge is a great job that many qualified lawyers and state judges would love to have.

]]> By: lefty2g@gmail.com http://www.abanow.org/2012/07/congress-denial-of-judicial-cost-of-living-salary-increases-violates-constitution-aba-argues/comment-page-1/#comment-6762 lefty2g@gmail.com Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:36:03 +0000 http://www.abanow.org/?p=25790#comment-6762 Some time ago a former editor of Fortune magazine said,"Laws are made by lawyers... for lawyers....with no regard for anyone else". I believe that is true as demonstrated when they look very hard for ways to avoid ETHICS rules and then only apply a slap on the wrist for major breaking of ETHICS rules. ETHICS apply to ALL , even if there is nothing on paper because it is considered PROPER to treat others the way you want to be treated. The idea of being "immune" for whatever you say in the well of Congress may allow you to say hurtful things free from a lawsuit but you said it and it is on the record. Ethics rules may not be broken but when you seek "protection" from law suits it is because you know you are not ETHICAL. It is UNETHICAL to make rules that are for your own group and leave out others only because you have the "power" to do so. UNETHICAL is still UNETHICAL wherever you say or do it. To say hurtful things in the protection of the "well" means you are also "chicken" to say it elsewhere because you know the difference. I have PROOF (it was recently published on the front page of the Business section of the New York Times) that in a case recently decided by the Supreme Court of the USA.... a lawyer pleaded his case by omitting the major part of the TRUTH and TWISTING the TRUTH. Does it mean that a lawyer should be expected to take an oath that his argument is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.... or is that assumed to be the case without any mention of the word TRUTH because he is a lawyer, Imagine,TRUTH.... just because he is a lawyer it is assumed he AWAYS tells the truth. I don't believe that.. DO YOU?... REALLY? Some time ago a former editor of Fortune magazine said,”Laws are made by lawyers… for lawyers….with no regard for anyone else”. I believe that is true as demonstrated when they look very hard for ways to avoid ETHICS rules and then only apply a slap on the wrist for major breaking of ETHICS rules. ETHICS apply to ALL , even if there is nothing on paper because it is considered PROPER to treat others the way you want to be treated.

The idea of being “immune” for whatever you say in the well of Congress may allow you to say hurtful things free from a lawsuit but you said it and it is on the record. Ethics rules may not be broken but when you seek “protection” from law suits it is because you know you are not ETHICAL. It is UNETHICAL to make rules that are for your own group and leave out others only because you have the “power” to do so. UNETHICAL is still UNETHICAL wherever you say or do it. To say hurtful things in the protection of the “well” means you are also “chicken” to say it elsewhere because you know the difference.

I have PROOF (it was recently published on the front page of the Business section of the New York Times) that in a case recently decided by the Supreme Court of the USA…. a lawyer pleaded his case by omitting the major part of the TRUTH and TWISTING the TRUTH. Does it mean that a lawyer should be expected to take an oath that his argument is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…. or is that assumed to be the case without any mention of the word TRUTH because he is a lawyer, Imagine,TRUTH…. just because he is a lawyer it is assumed he AWAYS tells the truth. I don’t believe that.. DO YOU?… REALLY?

]]>