It doesn't matter that Scalia's son's firm reps wal-mart - Scalia would have ruled for Wal-mart anyw

[Liberal_in_LA]

anyway.


Scalia's son's firm represents Wal-Mart, but it's OK by the rules


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=86192#ixzz1IPIkDPsJ

[SpiralHawk]

1. Screaming conflict of interest (R)

Republicon Family Cesspool Values. As usual.

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Bush* v Gore.

:grr:

[Curmudgeoness]

3. Lower than a snake's ass. This describes RW conservatives

as a whole these days. None of them seem to have an ounce of moral integrity.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT...

:crazy: :silly: :wtf:

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. there is NO CHANCE Scalia would rule against a big corporation and for women

[SpiralHawk]

6. Of course, Uncle Clarence Thomas (R) has Scalia's ample ass (R) covered

he will definitely vote FOR Wal-Mart, because they stock lots and lots of COKE cans.

[Liberal_in_LA]

9. yup. Two votes in Wal Mart's pocket

[malaise]

7. There are rules?

This stinks
:puke:

[AlabamaLibrul]

8. The difference is that

if his son didn't represent Wal-Mart, he'd be free to rule however he wants. He should have been removed from the bench LONG ago.

[pacalo]

10. It's NOT okay. And there you have it -- Scalia sided with Wal-Mart & against women's

rights to equal pay & to equal opportunity for promotions.

This jerk needs to be impeached for his long record of impropiety.

[MadMaddie]

11. Did I miss the ruling?

[former9thward]

12. No. The ruling won't come until June.

The posters here are assuming Scalia will vote for Wal-Mart. I suspect from the comments made by the justices at oral argument that it will be a 9-0 vote for Wal-Mart.

[madamesilverspurs]

13. One wonders

if Scalia's robes have a white stripe down the back . . .


-