US Representative Jamie Raskin(D) constitutional law professor for 25 years | Alito & Thomas | Due Process Clause & 28 U.S. Code § 455

Procrustes Stretched

Dante's Manifesto
Dec 1, 2008
65,441
10,180
2,040
Location: Positively 4th Street
Raskin is quite the intellectual. Personally, I wish we had a few more like him in the legislative branch of government. Earlier, we did have faux intellects like Newt Gingrich in the House, but we know how that all ended (resigning in disgrace).



Raskin:
The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455.

The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals.


links -- context:
The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause



28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:



Raskin:
The constitutional and statutory standards apply to Supreme Court justices. The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “supreme law of the land,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices like other judges: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.

This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.



This is an interesting argument Raskin is making. I for one am wondering if it will get amplified enough to take hold, and wondering where it would go.

Jamie Raskin page.png
 
He supports single payer, attacks on the second, minimum wage, and supports us paying for other countries wars.
Show me where in the constitution the federal govt has any authority to do any of that.
I'm not here to argue your ignorance of constitutional questions/issues. But I will point out your ignorance surrounding of the history of single payer. Stuart Altman says it was Richard Nixon who came closer to establishing a national health program than any president before Obama.

"Who is Stuart Altman?" you may ask, proving your ignorance. Not to worry, you are representative of most of the population in the US.



:th_Back_2_Topic_2:

RASKIN and "Alito & Thomas | Due Process Clause & 28 U.S. Code § 455"


Raskin is quite the intellectual. Personally, I wish we had a few more like him in the legislative branch of government. Earlier, we did have faux intellects like Newt Gingrich in the House, but we know how that all ended (resigning in disgrace).



Raskin:
The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455.

The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals.


links -- context:
The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause



28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:



Raskin:
The constitutional and statutory standards apply to Supreme Court justices. The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “supreme law of the land,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices like other judges: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.

This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.



This is an interesting argument Raskin is making. I for one am wondering if it will get amplified enough to take hold, and wondering where it would go.

View attachment 954114
 
Last edited:
I'm not here to argue your ignorance of constitutional questions/issues. But I will point out your ignorance surrounding of the history of single payer. Stuart Altman says it was Richard Nixon who came closer to establishing a national health program than any president before Obama.

"Who is Stuart Altman?" you may ask, proving your ignorance. Not to worry, you are representative of most of the population in the US.



:th_Back_2_Topic_2:

RASKIN and "Alito & Thomas | Due Process Clause & 28 U.S. Code § 455"
Completely irrelevant.
Thanks for admitting youre a dumbfuck.
Good day :fingerscrossed:
 
Completely irrelevant.
Thanks for admitting youre a dumbfuck.
Good day :fingerscrossed:
Addressed your ignorance surrounding of the history of single payer, which you brought up.

Raskin is quite the intellectual. Personally, I wish we had a few more like him in the legislative branch of government. Earlier, we did have faux intellects like Newt Gingrich in the House, but we know how that all ended (resigning in disgrace).



Raskin:
The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455.

The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals.


links -- context:
The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause



28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:



Raskin:
The constitutional and statutory standards apply to Supreme Court justices. The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “supreme law of the land,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices like other judges: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.

This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.



This is an interesting argument Raskin is making. I for one am wondering if it will get amplified enough to take hold, and wondering where it would go.

View attachment 954114

This is an interesting argument Raskin is making. I for one am wondering if it will get amplified enough to take hold, and wondering where it would go.
 
Last edited:
Addressed your ignorance surrounding of the history of single payer, which you brought up.


This is an interesting argument Raskin is making. I for one am wondering if it will get amplified enough to take hold, and wondering where it would go.
I brought up the constitutionality of it, and you completely ignore it. Because you cant discuss it because it will prove me right. And everyone already knows how dishonest you are...
Good day dumbfuck.
 
I brought up the constitutionality of it, and you completely ignore it. Because you cant discuss it because it will prove me right. And everyone already knows how dishonest you are...
Good day dumbfuck.
I posted: I'm not here to argue your ignorance of constitutional questions/issues. But I will point out your ignorance surrounding of the history of single payer.

I'm not here to argue your ignorance of constitutional questions/issues. But I will point out your ignorance surrounding of the history of single payer. Stuart Altman says it was Richard Nixon who came closer to establishing a national health program than any president before Obama.

"Who is Stuart Altman?" you may ask, proving your ignorance. Not to worry, you are representative of most of the population in the US.



:th_Back_2_Topic_2:

RASKIN and "Alito & Thomas | Due Process Clause & 28 U.S. Code § 455"
 
Newsmax finally caught up: They must've struggled strongly on how to spin Raskin's argument(s).

"The U.S. Department of Justice … can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law," Raskin wrote.

"The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455."

The lawmaker added that the "statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals."



snippet from NYT article:

In one key 5-to-3 Supreme Court case from 2016, Williams v. Pennsylvania, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained why judicial bias is a defect of constitutional magnitude and offered specific objective standards for identifying it. Significantly, Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the majority’s ruling.

The case concerned the bias of the chief justice of Pennsylvania, who had been involved as a prosecutor on the state’s side in an appellate death penalty case that was before him. Justice Kennedy found that the judge’s refusal to recuse himself when asked to do so violated due process. Justice Kennedy’s authoritative opinion on recusal illuminates three critical aspects of the current controversy.

First, Justice Kennedy found that the standard for recusal must be objective because it is impossible to rely on the affected judge’s introspection and subjective interpretations. The court’s objective standard requires recusal when the likelihood of bias on the part of the judge “is too high to be constitutionally tolerable,” citing an earlier case. “This objective risk of bias,” according to Justice Kennedy, “is reflected in the due process maxim that ‘no man can be a judge in his own case.’” A judge or justice can be convinced of his or her own impartiality but also completely missing what other people are seeing.

Second, the Williams majority endorsed the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct as an appropriate articulation of the Madisonian standard that “no man can be a judge in his own cause.” Model Code Rule 2.11 on judicial disqualification says that a judge “shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This includes, illustratively, cases in which the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” a married judge knows that “the judge’s spouse” is “a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding” or the judge “has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result.” These model code illustrations ring a lot of bells at this moment.

Third and most important, Justice Kennedy found for the court that the failure of an objectively biased judge to recuse him- or herself is not “harmless error” just because the biased judge’s vote is not apparently determinative in the vote of a panel of judges. A biased judge contaminates the proceeding not just by the casting and tabulation of his or her own vote but by participating in the body’s collective deliberations and affecting, even subtly, other judges’ perceptions of the case.

Justice Kennedy was emphatic on this point: “It does not matter whether the disqualified judge’s vote was necessary to the disposition of the case. The fact that the interested judge’s vote was not dispositive may mean only that the judge was successful in persuading most members of the court to accept his or her position — an outcome that does not lessen the unfairness to the affected party.”
 
Well there is the dumbest thing any of us will read all day.

Of course, these right wingers hold contempt for academics and accomplishment.
Look at his voting record, dumb shit. Its the same thing with all of you idiots.
LOL
Nevermind. I forgot how statist you are. How the boot licking runs through your veins.
 

Forum List

Back
Top