The Sushi Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 01:35 PM
Original message |
QUESTION: MUST BUSH SC JUSTICES RECUSE THEMSELVES? |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 01:44 PM by The Sushi Bandit
if he, the VP and AJ are one trial for crimes while in office?
That would leave 2 less sitting to hear arguements. How would the new mix of 7 lean?
|
kenny blankenship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Because there's no way Roberts and Alito would bow out without being forced to.
|
robinlynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. exactly. Remember Bush vs Gore? Bush's lawyer was Scalia's son, and even |
|
then he didn't recuse himself.
|
MADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Wasn't Ted Olsen lead dog, though? He was well rewarded... NT |
robinlynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. could be. I only know Scalia's son was not only in the crew but spoke... |
IDemo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 01:38 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It would make me happy if they also reclused themselves |
|
but recuse is the word you're after. I think it is their decision whether or not to, and I wouldn't be too optimistic at this point of any Bushie doing the ethical thing.
|
The Sushi Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Thanks for catching the typo |
|
spell check is great but english has tooo many words!
|
The Sushi Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
11. come on people--- we need more imput |
|
this is an important question!
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. Malfunction. Need input. Attractive! Nice software. |
hang a left
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-12-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
12. It IS their decision. They can still be impeached. |
|
Won't hold my breath though
|
MADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I don't think so. It's a nice concept, though. |
|
They wouldn't, in effect, be ruling on their pals George or Dick, anyway. They'd be ruling on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a lower court ruling, if we're talking about criminal prosecutions.
|
HysteryDiagnosis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 01:55 PM
Response to Original message |
7. He who posesses few or no clues, will not too easily himself recuse. n/t |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-11-07 01:56 PM by 4MoronicYears
|
The Sushi Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message |
9. 28 USC 455 reads, in part: |
|
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate 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:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
As the U.S. Supreme Court, itself noted, in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994), "what matters 'is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its appearance.' Quite simply and quite universally, recusal was required whenever "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Of special note is the fact the opinion in Liteky v. United States was delivered by Justice Scalia with four other Justices joining including Justices O'Connor and Thomas.
|
The Sushi Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-11-07 09:58 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:05 PM
Response to Original message |