4merper4mer Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County Board of Elections has filed a brief with the Supreme Court demanding Barrett recuse herself if the case involving ballots received after Election Day is heard again. “The nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice this close to a presidential election is unprecedented,” the brief states. “As concerning as that is, what is even more troubling is the language President Trump has used in consideration of this nomination, linking it directly to the electoral season at hand, with implications for his own re-election.” The argument maintains that Trump rushed that confirmation process in an obvious attempt to stack the deck in cases involving his reelection, which “raises a terrible ‘appearance’ problem which can only engulf the Supreme Court in a political stew with poisonous consequences for the independence and perceived integrity of the judiciary.” The brief cites a case regarding a justice on West Virginia’s supreme court to show that failure to recuse when necessary impinges on the due-process rights of the litigants. In that case, the brief argues, what was critical “was not the justice’s own beliefs, nor even the presence of actual bias which mattered, but instead, the ‘objective risk of actual bias that required [the justice’s] recusal.’” The brief continues: The law has long understood “the universally recognized legal maxim, nemo judex in causa sua, [‘no one may be his own judge’].” . . . [The West Virginia case] adds an important annex: improprium eligere vestri iudici — “no one may choose his own judge.” The present case is one of utmost important to the President’s re-election bid. Just as President Trump has placed Justice Barrett on the Supreme Court with whatever hope or expectation he may have, he has also imposed on her the duty to recuse herself in this case. Her integrity and the integrity of this Court cannot tolerate any other choice. The brief also points out that the judicial rules governing lower federal court judges require recusal based on how his or her “participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.” The standard is whether participation in a case might cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances to “harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” That is certainly the case here. How did Trump rush the confirmation process? Also I have Josh Allen on my fantasy football team. Can you explain why he didn't get credit for the 6 field goals last week? I should have won my game but I lost.
Wacka Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 29 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: On what basis should she recuse herself? Because Tibs doesn't like her.
Tiberius Posted October 28, 2020 Author Posted October 28, 2020 55 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: How did Trump rush the confirmation process? I like this answer because when we push things through I can just say, what’s fair? Who’s to say?
Just Joshin' Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 I see why the Dems did not vote for her: day 2 and no changes made to hurt people. What a loser.
4merper4mer Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: I like this answer because when we push things through I can just say, what’s fair? Who’s to say? Huh?
Warcodered Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 I was having a conversation about this with my dad and the whole thing is kind of weird. It makes no sense for them to hurry up and get it done now. This is such an important issue for a large part of the Republican base why wouldn't they make it an election issue. Getting it done quick before the election makes it look like they don't actually think they're going to win.
Doc Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, Warcodered said: I was having a conversation about this with my dad and the whole thing is kind of weird. It makes no sense for them to hurry up and get it done now. This is such an important issue for a large part of the Republican base why wouldn't they make it an election issue. Getting it done quick before the election makes it look like they don't actually think they're going to win. Not weird at all. No one knows how the election will go and they have a chance to seat her. And the election issue now becomes court-packing by the Dems. 1
Warcodered Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Doc said: Not weird at all. No one knows how the election will go and they have a chance to seat her. And the election issue now becomes court-packing by the Dems. Right but I mean Supreme Court packing is hypothetical(there has been 9 since 1869). This is seat is clearly there and if it's such an important issue for their base and maybe even some people in the middle it's a much bigger vote driver. One of the things my dad said was that it's weird for them to essentially give people who this is a huge issue what they want with a conservative majority right before the election with a virus out their making some people think I've got what I want maybe I'll just stay home.
The Frankish Reich Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said: On what basis should she recuse herself? Ordinarily she wouldn't have to recuse herself. There is no active case or controversy that she's been involve in or commented on regarding election issues, so there's no actual conflict. But thanks to Trump stating that it's important to confirm her to have a full Court to hear any election disputes, and given that her confirmation was moved through quickly in order to have her in place before the election, the standard becomes the more vague "appearance of impropriety." And (again thanks to Trump thinking out loud here) there's a good argument to be made that that's exactly what her involvement in election cases would create -- an appearance of impropriety.
4merper4mer Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: Ordinarily she wouldn't have to recuse herself. There is no active case or controversy that she's been involve in or commented on regarding election issues, so there's no actual conflict. But thanks to Trump stating that it's important to confirm her to have a full Court to hear any election disputes, and given that her confirmation was moved through quickly in order to have her in place before the election, the standard becomes the more vague "appearance of impropriety." And (again thanks to Trump thinking out loud here) there's a good argument to be made that that's exactly what her involvement in election cases would create -- an appearance of impropriety. In what loony world? Trump stated his opinion. The Senate confirmed her.....not Trump. She most certainly did not confirm herself. Any appearance of impropriety would be based on SC judges "owing" something to those who nominated and confirmed them. What would be the expiration date on that? Would Sotomayor have to recuse because she knows what Obama thinks about a case? 1
The Frankish Reich Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: In what loony world? Trump stated his opinion. The Senate confirmed her.....not Trump. She most certainly did not confirm herself. Any appearance of impropriety would be based on SC judges "owing" something to those who nominated and confirmed them. What would be the expiration date on that? Would Sotomayor have to recuse because she knows what Obama thinks about a case? No. He said it was important to have her in place to hear any election challenges, which is an immediate issue that may be facing her. And there are some that were existing challenges -- the Pennsylvania one -- that are being re-filed because she is now confirmed. So it's case by case, but a pretty close issue if you ask anyone who deals with judicial ethics. 1
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: No. He said it was important to have her in place to hear any election challenges, which is an immediate issue that may be facing her. And there are some that were existing challenges -- the Pennsylvania one -- that are being re-filed because she is now confirmed. So it's case by case, but a pretty close issue if you ask anyone who deals with judicial ethics. It's important because at 8 you can get a tie. Has nothing to do with her specifically other than she was nominated. 1
Taro T Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Right but I mean Supreme Court packing is hypothetical(there has been 9 since 1869). This is seat is clearly there and if it's such an important issue for their base and maybe even some people in the middle it's a much bigger vote driver. One of the things my dad said was that it's weird for them to essentially give people who this is a huge issue what they want with a conservative majority right before the election with a virus out their making some people think I've got what I want maybe I'll just stay home. Well, it's hypothetical in that Biden doesn't have any say in court packing at present, but it isn't hypothetical in that Democrat think tanks are promoting court packing, senators such as Senator C oons has essentially threatened lower level federal judges, and Biden has explicitly NOT ruled out packing the Supreme Court. Should he win & control the Senate, the SC WILL get at least 2 more members & likely 4.
The Frankish Reich Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: It's important because at 8 you can get a tie. Has nothing to do with her specifically other than she was nominated. True. i'm just saying it's case by case. The Pennsylvania case (I think it was about accepting mail ballots postmarked by election date and received within 3 days of the election)? I think most people would say yes, she should recuse. Remember, the standard is not actual conflict; it's appearance of something being improper. Some unanticipated case like Bush v. Gore, the hanging chads and all that? Probably not. Edited October 28, 2020 by The Frankish Reich
Warcodered Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Taro T said: Well, it's hypothetical in that Biden doesn't have any say in court packing at present, but it isn't hypothetical in that Democrat think tanks are promoting court packing, senators such as Senator C oons has essentially threatened lower level federal judges, and Biden has explicitly NOT ruled out packing the Supreme Court. Should he win & control the Senate, the SC WILL get at least 2 more members & likely 4. Right but the thing is that's a possible issue where as the current empty seat was an actual thing. Maybe it doesn't seem like much but definitely think the current seat would of been better for getting their base out and maybe get some others to switch on the issue. As opposed to the idea of the Dems doing something that hasn't been done in over 100 years.
Doc Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 12 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Right but I mean Supreme Court packing is hypothetical(there has been 9 since 1869). This is seat is clearly there and if it's such an important issue for their base and maybe even some people in the middle it's a much bigger vote driver. One of the things my dad said was that it's weird for them to essentially give people who this is a huge issue what they want with a conservative majority right before the election with a virus out their making some people think I've got what I want maybe I'll just stay home. How long had the Senate needed 60 votes to confirm lower court judges until Filthy Harry changed it? Which led to this? Things can and do change. And hypotheticals/fear-mongering are great drivers for both sides.
Warcodered Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Doc said: How long had the Senate needed 60 votes to confirm lower court judges until Filthy Harry changed it? Which led to this? Things can and do change. And hypotheticals/fear-mongering are great drivers for both sides. I know it's very much a possibility, what I'm saying is it's far easier for people to blow it off than the actual empty seat and it's odd for Republicans to not use that to their advantage with both the Presidency and the Senate up in the air.
Gary M Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, Doc said: And hypotheticals/fear-mongering are great drivers for both sides. And that's why nothing got fixed in DC until Trump got there, because if you solve a problem you have no issues to run for re-election on.
Doc Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Warcodered said: I know it's very much a possibility, what I'm saying is it's far easier for people to blow it off than the actual empty seat and it's odd for Republicans to not use that to their advantage with both the Presidency and the Senate up in the air. The people who would care about the issue aren't blowing-it-off. Meanwhile Joe refuses to answer whether he'll pack the court, which pretty much tells you what he'd do if elected. So what if they get a R-appointed SCJ on the Bench, ostensibly making it 5-4 (Roberts doesn't count as a conservative judge anymore)? The Dems add 4 more and it's moot. Edited October 28, 2020 by Doc 1
4merper4mer Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: No. He said it was important to have her in place to hear any election challenges, which is an immediate issue that may be facing her. And there are some that were existing challenges -- the Pennsylvania one -- that are being re-filed because she is now confirmed. So it's case by case, but a pretty close issue if you ask anyone who deals with judicial ethics. If there was any conflict it would be undue influence of the exec on the legis. She had no ability to impact her own confirmation nor did Trump. It was in the hands of the Senate. 1
Recommended Posts