Opinion Ginni Thomas called 2020 a ‘heist.’ Clarence Thomas must recuse himself.

[BioHawk]

Well, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of the DoJ ever trying to put pressure on an SC justice to recuse himself.

Not that I disagree mind you, but it would also start a precedent I’m not sure we want to see.

If the precedent is that the DoJ needs to enforce a judge recusing him or herself when there is an obvious conflict of interest, I'm ok with that.

 

[sober_teacher]

If the precedent is that the DoJ needs to enforce a judge recusing him or herself when there is an obvious conflict of interest, I'm ok with that.

They’re two separate branches, how do they enforce that?

technically you’d have to consider the SC as higher ranking than anyone in the DOJ.

 

[BioHawk]

They’re two separate branches, how do they enforce that?

technically you’d have to consider the SC as higher ranking than anyone in the DOJ.

I don't know but people a lot smarter than me in this area would figure it out.

 

[sober_teacher]

I don't know but people a lot smarter than me in this area would figure it out.

If members of the executive branch can tell an SC judge they can’t hear a specific case, separation of powers is gone.

I don’t like it, but there’s a very good reason impeachment is the only avenue available to remove a member of SC or executive.

 

[BioHawk]

If members of the executive branch can tell an SC judge they can’t hear a specific case, separation of powers is gone.

I don’t like it, but there’s a very good reason impeachment is the only avenue available to remove a member of SC or executive.

While any judge in any other position would have been impeached for the things those justices were doing, we are just talking about recusal from a case because of a conflict of interest. We aren't talking about removing judges from the bench permanently. Recusal is a common occurrence in courts with judges and/or lawyers. For some reason, the rules that apply to everyone else are not being applied here, though.

 

[sober_teacher]

While any judge in any other position would have been impeached for the things those justices were doing, we are just talking about recusal from a case because of a conflict of interest. We aren't talking about removing judges from the bench permanently. Recusal is a common occurrence in courts with judges and/or lawyers. For some reason, the rules that apply to everyone else are not being applied here, though.

No, you’re talking about a member of one branch of government FORCING an SC judge to recuse himself.

If Thomas had any integrity at all, or Roberts cared about more than appearances there’d be intense pressure from the other justices on him to resign.

 

[BioHawk]

No, you’re talking about a member of one branch of government FORCING an SC judge to recuse himself.

If Thomas had any integrity at all, or Roberts cared about more than appearances there’d be intense pressure from the other justices on him to resign.

No, I'm talking about a prosecutor doing his job. It's a standard part of the court system and really, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Recusals are common on Supreme Court cases for a variety of reasons and shouldn't be something that a prosecutor even should have to worry about. But here we are. If these clowns would do their jobs properly, this wouldn't be an issue.

The Justices Recused Themselves an Astounding 180 Times Last Term - Fix the Court

Fix the Court has found that Supreme Court justices recused themselves an astonishing 180 times – 176 times at the cert. stage and four times when a case was granted – during the term that ended in June, mostly due to prior work and stock holdings. While Justices Kagan and Sotomayor can’t...

fixthecourt.com