Revealed; Four Supreme Court Justices Attend Right Wing Gala After Roe Decision

[postman]

The only reason for recusal at the SC level is usually involvement on the case at a lower level of being a justice, or if you were part of one of the parties in question.

You forgot, having a close relative with a stake in the outcome of the decision.

 

[pknopp]

Conservative judges attend a conservative event.................. not Earth shattering. I noted that the Thomas deal with his wife bothers me but Liberal judges attend liberal events also.

If you don't like the make up of the court, the answer is to nominate decent people and get them elected.

 

[easyt65]

All credibility with the court is gone.

 

[postman]

Because one of her previous jobs made her a party to many of the cases going in front of the Supreme Court, not because of any other reason.

She did not argue those 28 cases. Nor was she lead counsel on them. Many were because of her administrative role of assigning who would handle the case for the US government.

 

[berg80]

68% of single women voted Prog in the last election. And you do not even know what that means.

It means as a group they are uniquely enlightened.

 

[postman]

If you don't like the make up of the court, the answer is to nominate decent people and get them elected.

You mean like how electing Obama, and having a majority of the senate willing to confirm Merrick Garland?

 

[easyt65]

"The first meal USSC Justices had after overturning RvW to 'prorect unborn life' was bacon and scrambled CHICKEN FETUS.

Oh, the hypocrisy! The credibility of the USSC has been destroyed forever!"

 

[martybegan]

You think that legal forums are influential on their decisions? They are there to inform, not to be influenced.

Unlike as happens at events where the speakers try to indoctrinate the participants into their views. It would be like a supreme court justice attending a Trump political rally.

They are sponsored by law schools, most of the top ones are very progressive.

If someone took the time to dig into the events attended by all the justices you would see the progressive ones attend similar events.

 

[postman]

It means as a group they are uniquely enlightened.

Or they voted over their personal interests. Just like anybody else voting about taxes, or crime, or inflation or gas prices, or guns.

 

[martybegan]

You forgot, having a close relative with a stake in the outcome of the decision.

That's just made up to you can bash Thomas.

 

[pknopp]

You mean like how electing Obama, and having a majority of the senate willing to confirm Merrick Garland?

Obama was a bad choice. He was too lazy to fight for anything. He should have been fighting daily in the halls of Congress and on television for a vote. He WRONGLY assumed Hillary would win and she could nominate someone more liberal.

 

[martybegan]

She did not argue those 28 cases. Nor was she lead counsel on them. Many were because of her administrative role of assigning who would handle the case for the US government.

And still the reason she recused herself, because she saw the process from the DOJ side and the DOJ was involved.

Still not comparable to the obviously partisan reasons you want Conservative Justices to recuse themselves over.

You really don't think people see the game you are trying to play?

 

[postman]

They are sponsored by law schools, most of the top ones are very progressive.

If someone took the time to dig into the events attended by all the justices you would see the progressive ones attend similar events.

Top law schools? You accuse them of being progressive, while at the same time affirming they're the top schools. So what they're teaching has to be right.

 

[easyt65]

That's just made up to you can bash Thomas.

Thomas is black, which makes him prejudicial and compromised....

Of course Sotomayor is Latino, Keagan is a woman, Kavanaugh is a white male ... holy shit, they all have prejudicial predispositions...

The whole USSC is compromised, their credibility forfeit...

 

[postman]

You forgot, having a close relative with a stake in the outcome of the decision.

That's just made up to you can bash Thomas.

maybe you should read the rules before denying their existence.

Recusal of Judges: Everything you need to know about - Law Circa

The word recusal in judicial context means to “remove oneself due to conflict of interest”. Recusal is “removal of oneself as a judge or policymaker in a

lawcirca.com

A judge in order to maintain fairness and impartiality in his duty to perform an action should recuse himself in the following situations:

•When the judge is interested in the subject matter or he has a relationship with someone who has an interest in it.
•When the background or he has some experience in relation to the matter at hand as a lawyer. ...
•When he has personal knowledge about the parties or the case before him
•When there is ex parte communication with the parties or lawyers.

 

[postman]

Obama was a bad choice. He was too lazy to fight for anything. He should have been fighting daily in the halls of Congress and on television for a vote.

Maybe Obama should have had the CIA take out McConnell with extreme prejudice.

 

[martybegan]

Top law schools? You accuse them of being progressive, while at the same time affirming they're the top schools. So what they're teaching has to be right.

Not even close. Our current crop of "experts" on things like COVID shows that.

 

[martybegan]

You forgot, having a close relative with a stake in the outcome of the decision.




maybe you should read the rules before denying their existence.

Recusal of Judges: Everything you need to know about - Law Circa

The word recusal in judicial context means to “remove oneself due to conflict of interest”. Recusal is “removal of oneself as a judge or policymaker in a

lawcirca.com

A judge in order to maintain fairness and impartiality in his duty to perform an action should recuse himself in the following situations:

•When the judge is interested in the subject matter or he has a relationship with someone who has an interest in it.
•When the background or he has some experience in relation to the matter at hand as a lawyer. ...
•When he has personal knowledge about the parties or the case before him
•When there is ex parte communication with the parties or lawyers.

Are those the rules for Supreme Court Justices? because you do know there are two sets of rules, one for the SC, and one for everyone else.

 

[postman]

That's just made up to you can bash Thomas.

When a judge should recuse himself?

A judge in order to maintain fairness and impartiality in his duty to perform an action should recuse himself in the following situations:

•When the judge is interested in the subject matter or he has a relationship with someone who has an interest in it.

 

[postman]

Not even close. Our current crop of "experts" on things like COVID shows that.

You admitted the TOP law schools, which have been the TOP schools for decades, have to be on TOP because what they teach is right and has been right for a long long time.

No different than M.I.T. being the best at teaching science, math and engineering.