Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)

3. Judges have ruled on significant cases involving the presidents who appointed them:

Reply to wt1531 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 27, 2017, 10:14 PM

Nov 2017

For example, the Supreme Court that ruled on the Watergate tapes included several justices, including the Chief Justice, who were appointed by Nixon. The Courts that ruled on Clinton’s liability in the Paula Jones case included Clinton appointed. Two of the justices who ruled on Obamacare were appointed by Obama.

You’re right that these judges could be biased - but the fact that they were appointed by the president are not grounds for recusal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge deciding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dispute was appointed by Trump [View all] wt1531 Nov 2017 OP

Being appointed by a president is not grounds for recusal EffieBlack Nov 2017 #1

I agree but... wt1531 Nov 2017 #2

Judges have ruled on significant cases involving the presidents who appointed them: EffieBlack Nov 2017 #3

If that's the case, someone will file an immediate appeal, Volaris Nov 2017 #6

We're about to get a test Matthew28 Nov 2017 #4

I prefer to think that a federal judge will fairly apply the law TomSlick Nov 2017 #5