The Left's New Battle Cry: Recusal
Since the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court is no match, intellectually, for the conservative, the Left has embraced a new litigation strategy: try to force the conservative justices to recuse themselves! Of course, it's a one-way liberal ratchet. Justice Thomas should recuse himself because of his wife's political activity... but when conservatives questioned the impartiality of a Ninth Circuit Judge, whose wife runs the local ACLU, hearing the gay marriage appeal, liberals went bonkers.
The New York Times has embraced a proposal by a group of 176 law professors, described as "bipartisan" (I'm guessing 175 Democrats and 1 Independent). But as Ed Whelan points out over at NRO, the Times editorial has three problems -- the beginning, middle, and end. No really, the editorial board flubbed the most basic facts of judicial ethics, including the fact that SCOTUS has a recusal policy that was adopted some years ago with support from such right-wingers as Justice Ginsburg.
Oh well, if you can't win on the merits, get the judge disqualified!
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Left's New Battle Cry: Recusal
Could we call this "recusal for thee, but not for me?"
Sep '10
Re: The Left's New Battle Cry: Recusal
Adam Freedman:
The New York Times has embraced a proposal by a group of 176 law professors, described as "bipartisan" (I'm guessing 175 Democrats and 1 Independent).
Zing...Absolutely fabulous.
Sep '10
Re: The Left's New Battle Cry: Recusal
You're guessing 175 Democrats and 1 independent? I'm guessing 173 Democrats, 1 Green party member, and 2 Communists.
Aug '10
Re: The Left's New Battle Cry: Recusal
As an outside observer with some experience of legal matters I would respectfully suggest that you have allowed your judiciary to become politicised to a ridiculous degree.And it appears to me that both Parties are to blame, much as I would like to think otherwise (even if the Democrats started it the Republicans have waded in with gusto).
Re: The Left's New Battle Cry: Recusal
Charles, can you explain what you mean by politicized? Certainly doctrines like "penumbral emanations" and "substantive due process" mean that far, far too many political questions end up before judges... but not sure that's what you mean. Recusal, of course, is a different matter, relating only to direct conflicts of interest.
Aug '10
Re: The Left's New Battle Cry: Recusal
Hi Adam, what I mean is that there's something amiss when one can predict how 8 of the 9 Supreme Court members will vote on so many issues. And when those dissatisfied with the result (including the President) can attack the result either explicitly or implicitly as politically motivated. I think Thomas and Scalia, in particular are judicial superheroes but they operate in a system where their judgments will be widely delegitimised because of the perception ( which is not without merit) that Supreme Court appointments are seen as part of the spoils of electoral victory; that the President of the day will try to appoint judges who are on the "right side"
Edited on Mar 20, 2011 at 4:21am- I cringe when I think of Harriet Miers. And the unofficial but obvious application of "litmus tests" coupled with the
often disingenuous statements made by nominees to pass them (and followed quickly by judgments which expose what everyone knew all along about the leanings of the former nominee) further undermine the entire process. Is it healthy that so much discussion and debate about weighty questions due to come before the Supreme Court is about how just one member will vote?