Who's being persecuted?Do you want to be persecuted for what you believe?
It's a simple motion to recuse oneself?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Who's being persecuted?Do you want to be persecuted for what you believe?
Nope, lower courts are magistrates and JUDGES.
Only the supreme court, are they called justices, dessert texan.
The law is US CODE, for federal judges, magistrates, and the supreme court justices.
You are wrong. It is the LAW. Not some ethical rules and standards.
You've been misinformed.
Of course judges are REQUIRED to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest. It is bizarro world, to think they don't.That’s stupid. Lots of people have an interest in the allegedly stolen election and in the 1/6 incident. Nobody said a judge can’t rule on an issue where his or her spouse has such an “interest.” You must live in Bizzaro world!
Silly one, the law posted is a federal law, a US CODE for the federal judicials.You're lying.
Judges and justices are court officials who make the final decision in every case that is brought to a court of law. Depending on the jurisdiction, they can sit on the bench anywhere between six to eight years. Judges and justices must retire at least by the age of 70.
Justices are found on a state’s Appeals Court and Supreme Court. A higher court justice can either be elected or appointed.
What is the difference between a judge and a justice? - Criminal Justice Degree Hub
Are you are interested in learning more about the difference between a judge and a justice? This article will get you started on that journey!www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com
She and thus her husband, have a strong interest in the ruling of those cases
She has a beyond huge interest in the court ruling coming out one way, over another way. That is a conflict of interest, for justice thomas.What does that mean, strong interest? Why do you feel that means conflict of interest?
If she has a strong interest in the Washington Nationals, maybe she has season tickets, does
that he can't rule on a case involving Major League Baseball?
If she has a strong interest in lower taxes, does that mean he can't rule on a case involving the IRS?
The PACs she belongs to, do as well.
Unless she works for a PAC that is a party to a lawsuit, where is a specific conflict?
She has a beyond huge interest in the court ruling coming out one way, over another way. That is a conflict of interest, for justice thomas.
Why is that hard to understand?
Just the appearance of there being a conflict of interest in a case's outcome, is a reason for judges to disqualify themselves.
Are you implying Thomas will rule in an usual or contradictory way to his previous rulings? If not, it's difficult to see the problem.She has a beyond huge interest in the court ruling coming out one way, over another way. That is a conflict of interest, for justice thomas.
Why is that hard to understand?
Just the appearance of there being a conflict of interest in a case's outcome, is a reason for judges to disqualify themselves.
The operative phrases are “if” and “conflict of interest.” Here the if is not met and there is no conflict of interest. It is bizzaro world to pretend there is.Of course judges are REQUIRED to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest. It is bizarro world, to think they don't.
Ginny Thomas.Who's being persecuted?
It's a simple motion to recuse oneself?
Many many people do have an interest, but not all people have been pubically vocal, or have access to the president's chief of staff to direct him, or is married to a justice of the supreme court, giving them more access to one party in the cases the court may receive.Many, many people have a huge interest in the court's rulings.
That doesn't mean there is a conflict of interest
Ginny is actively involved in a case her husband may hear in the court.Ginny Thomas.
No one has commented about the legality of her actions...She did nothing illegal.
Ginny is actively involved in a case her husband may hear in the court.
That is a conflict of interest for justice Thomas, which under the law, a cause for him to recuse himself.
Easy peasy!
His other ruling on the president's emails on 1/6 going to the committee law suit, SHOWS he has a conflict of interest as the sole dissenter justice....and has an appearance of such.Are you implying Thomas will rule in an usual or contradictory way to his previous rulings? If not, it's difficult to see the problem.
That did not address my question.His other ruling on the president's emails on 1/6 going to the committee law suit, SHOWS he has a conflict of interest as the sole dissenter justice....and has an appearance of such.
84 million Americans saw it that way.
Coupled with Trump mouthing off constantly on the supreme court being in his pocket.
These are reasons to recuse himself on future cases involved.
We expect and deserve the supreme court being above the fray.
That's what recusals are for...
Actually, there is a federal law in US CODE that does. I have posted it in this thread. Not an ethics rule, but actual code. There is no means of reprimand, but impeachment though. Look it up to get the full wording of the statute...Actually there is no where in the law for Thomas to actually recuse himself but it would be expected to preserve the reputation of the court...
Thomas has just severely damaged the reputation of the court and his judgement and impartiality...
Other justices could speak out about this after the nomination process is over..
It didnt??? Why not?That did not address my question.