• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McConnell says calls for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from 1-6 related cases are "inappropriate pressure campaign"

Hypothetical said:
of course there doesn't.. how convenient that must be.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with convenience. Any case in which a spouse may be affected materially or in any other way, positively or negatively, can have an affect on a judge's impartiality. Doesn't mean it's so, but it raises reasonable questions.

Why didn't Thomas vote with the others? Perhaps he's prepared for possible future cases, and has no intention of recusing himself, so why not? Why did Thomas welcome predictable backlash with his vote? Why didn't he just "hide" with the other 8?
 
jpevans said:
No, I believe the top court in the land should have the same ethics rules as any other court. They are the last stop on the path to Justice & must have clear cut rules on recusal among others.
How would they be nominated in your plan, how confirmed, I'd like to hear more, though I doubt if it's time has come. The case for rescinding the EC is clear as day, yet is an uphill battle.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how we could find an independent, nonpartisan group to choose the justices; to be honest, since I know it would never happen, I hadn't tried to flesh out the details. The Pres and Senate have shown us they are not worthy of the honor. Let a group that knows the law, not politics, do the choosing.

In Canada, the justices are simply chosen by the prime minister, but Canada is a lot less partisan a culture than ours. So that probably has as much to do with it as the process.
 
MaryP said:
In Canada, the justices are simply chosen by the prime minister, but Canada is a lot less partisan a culture than ours. So that probably has as much to do with it as the process.
Click to expand...
Although the judges are simply appointed by the PM it really is not perceived to be a big deal politically. Our justice's must retire at age 75. Same with our Senators, they must retire at age 75.
 
Predictable response. Anything to protect a fellow hardliner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom