Senate Democrats say they will press President Trump's SCOTUS nominee to commit to recuse herself

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text: NEW: Senate Democrats say they will press President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee to commit to recuse herself if the justices hear a case that could impact the outcome of the fall elections, @mkraju reports.

[dalton99a]

1. She'll lie and say yes

as it is in every Republican's DNA to lie

[Nevilledog]

3. Them she'll be lying under oath and can be impeached.

This isn't hypothetical situation here. She'll either say she will recuse or won't. If she says she won't, even after numerous clips of Trump saying he's specifically asking for a quick confirmation to help him in this election, Chief Justice can disqualifying her.


https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217208311.pdf
Disqualifications of Supreme Court Justices: The Certiorari Conundrum

[rurallib]

4. there's already plenty of that going on on the Court

How many impeachments have there been

[Nevilledog]

6. We haven't been in power.

Personally, I think we have to marginalize the conservative judges by increasing its size. It's not packing the court, it's making the court more representative of the country. It would also greatly lessen the impact of any one justice dying or retiring.

[rurallib]

7. Fully agree. Was just pondering on that

Congress has the power to set up the courts. It is well beyond time it is used.

[regnaD kciN]

5. She'll dodge the question...

...and just say, "It will depend on the specifics of the case."

[Nevilledog]

8. Then you ask what circumstances would/would not lead her to recuse.

In my opinion, the only ethical thing for her to do would be to recuse from any 2020 election case. The mere appearance of impropriety is glaring.

If she refused to recuse, she should be disqualified by Roberts.

[enough]

13. Justices have no obligation to recuse for any reason. It's entirely optional for them.

So is ethics.

[Nevilledog]

14. Recusal and disqualification are not the same.

[tritsofme]

16. The chief justice lacks the power the disqualify other justices.

The decision to recuse would be hers alone.

[FBaggins]

18. Not really

Some people draw a distinction between them, but the law refers to both scenarios as disqualifications and most use the terms interchangeably.

It certainly isn't a power granted to the CJ, nor can it be argued that being appointed by a given president forms a necessary conflict of interest (since almost all of them have ruled in cases where that happened).

[FBaggins]

15. And she'll decline to speculate

Have you not watched previous nominee hearings?

There's no way that you'll get one of them to a blanket commitment to recuse themselves on the basis of who appointed them to the court.

[Codeine]

2. She won't.

Anyone who expects her to do so is silly.

[brewens]

9. It means nothing other than baiting Trump into commenting on it. Remember Sessions?

Just the suggestion that the judge he's appointing to work for him would recuse herself on the election or anything else involving him, will make him freak out. He'll end up making it clear that is exactly what he expects.

[enough]

10. Massive waste of time. These old notions like recusal went out with Scalia.

And I mean before he died. The principle is: I won’t recuse because don’t want to.

[Nevilledog]

11. I do not agree.

[enough]

12. That's good. You still have hope. I'll take heart from that. NT

[Nevilledog]

17. Another thing I fully expect to happen is Trump touting her as "his" judge.

During one of his rallies or during a debate he will state that his judge will vote to overturn Roe and get rid of ACA. He won't be able to help himself.

[TeamPooka]

19. she will not