Any Justice Trump appoints now, after voting started, would have to recuse from deciding election

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

[LakeArenal]

1. Some still hold those lofty ideals. Recuse. Haha.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. Lofty. ha-ha-ha.

What's that? The Republicans have brought the fight at their level. A toxic tidal pool next to the swamp where they operate.

[Beaverhausen]

2. Good luck with that

Who is going to stop them?

[dalton99a]

3. We're assuming Trump judges are decent people who give a shit about democracy

[greenjar_01]

4. Sounds like a "norm" and you know what conservatives think about "norms"

Our system is not good. Despite being drilled endlessly on checks and balances, we actually run on changeable rules, violatable norms, and assumptions of good faith. Our system can be gamed easily, as the last few years have shown. It's not well-constructed.

[tavernier]

17. Interesting.

I’ve never thought about it that way, but you are right.
I may steal your observation for future reference.

[Thekaspervote]

5. Interesting...so any decision would at the worst be 4 4. Roberts, yes conservative, yes is no

Friend to voting rights, but he isn’t going to become the laughing stock for Dotard’s self serving schemes. He very much cares about his appearance as conservative, but isn’t willing to side step the constitution ..just MHO

[Bradshaw3]

6. It already is a laughingstock

Vance is smart but it is sad she doesn't get it.

[Blue Owl]

7. Does Little Donny have any idea how utterly desperate and pathetic he looks?

[Mz Pip]

8. Have to?

Yeah, right. They do whatever they want. Ethics be damned.

[genxlib]

9. Sure

The same way Thomas has always recused himself on healthcare decisions even though his wife rakes in big money lobbying on health care matters.

Ethics is for losers

[gratuitous]

11. Not sure I follow your logic there, Joyce Alene

You know who decides whether a Supreme Court Justice recuses from a case? That justice. For example, Justice Thomas has consistently heard cases that affect his wife's business as a lobbyist. He doesn't recuse himself even though the ruling could financially benefit himself. All a justice has to say is, "I think I can render an impartial verdict," and voila! conflict of interest vanishes.

[superpatriotman]

12. How charming

Bless their souls

[Caliman73]

13. They should. That by no means indicates they would.

Conservatives appear to have shed any veneer of respect for rules, traditions, ethics, etc...

We cannot expect any conservative to act honorably or to respect the laws.

[onenote]

18. They should, but they're not required to.

So saying that they "would have to recuse" themselves is simply wrong.

To be clear:
Trump shouldn't nominate anyone.
The Senate shouldn't consider a nomination if one is received.

But there is nothing unlawful, or even unethical, about a new justice nominated and confirmed in an election year acting on cases involving the president that nominated him or her, whether it is a case that involves the election itself or a case involving some action taken by the president or his appointees.

[RhodeIslandOne]

14. You act like there are rules now.

[enough]

15. No SCOTUS Justice "has to" recuse for any reason. NT

[Jose Garcia]

16. They have done so, but it is usually

because they have some conflict, such when Elena Kagan recused herself from cases that she had been involved in when she had been Solicitor General of the United States. They also usually don't participate in decisions on cases that were argued before the court prior to their confirmation.