Setup for SCOTUS recusal?

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Call me silly, but if Trump openly states that he needs a new justice specifically for the purpose of overturning an election result, doesn't that judge then have to recuse themselves?
There is no way his picks for SCOTUS can say that they didn't hear him make those statements. And now that they have heard him make those statements prior to any case arriving at their bench, aren't they required by law to recuse themselves?

 

[element94]

Call me silly, but if Trump openly states that he needs a new justice specifically for the purpose of overturning an election result, doesn't that judge then have to recuse themselves?
There is no way his picks for SCOTUS can say that they didn't hear him make those statements. And now that they have heard him make those statements prior to any case arriving at their bench, aren't they required by law to recuse themselves?

You are being silly, that was something that would've been the right thing to do in a democracy.

 

[Jay59]

Your liberal use of alt-facts does not help.

 

[ludin]

Call me silly, but if Trump openly states that he needs a new justice specifically for the purpose of overturning an election result, doesn't that judge then have to recuse themselves?
There is no way his picks for SCOTUS can say that they didn't hear him make those statements. And now that they have heard him make those statements prior to any case arriving at their bench, aren't they required by law to recuse themselves?

Judges do not have the power to overturn an election result.
what they can do is answer specific challenges regarding how votes are counted
etc ...

The court will not rule on whether or not an election is valid that is not within their purview.
what they can rule on is that all ballots within a state are counted consistently across all districts.

Meaning district A can't count ballots different than district B-D.
they all have to count ballots or invalidate ballots in the same manner.

they could also rule on whether a recount is required or needed or if a recount is valid.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Judges do not have the power to overturn an election result.
what they can do is answer specific challenges regarding how votes are counted
etc ...

The court will not rule on whether or not an election is valid that is not within their purview.
what they can rule on is that all ballots within a state are counted consistently across all districts.

Meaning district A can't count ballots different than district B-D.
they all have to count ballots or invalidate ballots in the same manner.

they could also rule on whether a recount is required or needed or if a recount is valid.

I did not put it in proper terms.
No, of course they do not wave a magic wand. You're right, I misspoke.
But when it comes to specific challenges, if a sitting president openly states that his intent is to mount a predetermined specific set of challenges intentionally aimed at, IN HIS OWN WORDS, preserving his hold on power, then the actions become fruit of a poisoned tree.

Based on that time tested legal principle, the judge must recuse.
Jeff Sessions recused himself for almost the exact same reason.

On March 2, 2017, Sessions announced that he would recuse himself from any investigations into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, or any other matters related to the 2016 presidential election.[137] He had been advised to do so by career Justice Department personnel, citing concerns about impartiality given his prominent role in the Trump election campaign.

It is clear as crystal that Donald Trump is demanding another "loyalist", and "loyalism" is anathema to democracy and anathema to any court in the land. It is anathema TO JUSTICE itself.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

@NWRatCon, you're an attorney, yes?
Do you care to offer an opinion on this?

Can SCOTUS skip recusal on such an obvious case of fruit of a poisoned tree or does it not apply at SCOTUS level for some reason, reasons I must be unaware of.

 

[d0gbreath]

If Ms. Barrett makes it in, she would have to abstain on any decision involving the election results. Trump has only his big mouth to blame.

 

[Jay59]

I did not put it in proper terms.

Here's the problem. There are no proper terms.

No, of course they do not wave a magic wand. You're right, I misspoke. But when it comes to specific challenges, if a sitting president openly states that his intent is to mount a predetermined specific set of challenges intentionally aimed at, IN HIS OWN WORDS, preserving his hold on power, then the actions become fruit of a poisoned tree.

The poisoned tree has to do with evidence law, not here.

Based on that time tested legal principle, the judge must recuse. Jeff Sessions recused himself for almost the exact same reason.

Incorrectly recused.

On March 2, 2017, Sessions announced that he would recuse himself from any investigations into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, or any other matters related to the 2016 presidential election. He had been advised to do so by career Justice Department personnel, citing concerns about impartiality given his prominent role in the Trump election campaign.

Improperly advised. They took advantage of Session's inexperience to run a scam. It may not have been illegal, but it was definitely improper. When people refer to the Deep State, they mean this is the sort of BS.

It is clear as crystal that Donald Trump is demanding another "loyalist", and "loyalism" is anathema to democracy and anathema to any court in the land. It is anathema TO JUSTICE itself.

It's clear only to someone with the idea preconceived and has nothing at all to do with justice.

 

[Craig234]

No, this does not present a requirement for recusal. It's all on trump's side - the Justice hasn't done anything indicating she can't be impartial.

Also, no, Supreme Court Justices are not required to recuse by law. It's their choice. Usually they do, sometimes they don't.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Here's the problem. There are no proper terms.


The poisoned tree has to do with evidence law, not here.


Incorrectly recused.


Improperly advised. They took advantage of Session's inexperience to run a scam. It may not have been illegal, but it was definitely improper. When people refer to the Deep State, they mean this is the sort of BS.


It's clear only to someone with the idea preconceived and has nothing at all to do with justice.

The Deep State.
I knew it was only a question of time before you summed up your fantasies with that.
Is Q involved, too?
I should have realized you're smarter than an attorney general, do you know more than the actual generals too?

 

[Jay59]

The Deep State. I knew it was only a question of time before you summed up your fantasies with that.

Not a fantasy, since here it is. That said, I am not one searching for the deep state. I understand that bureaucracies look after their own.

Is Q involved, too?

Q is the quartermaster corps in the military. What would they have to do with this?

I should have realized you're smarter than an attorney general, do you know more than the actual generals too?

You said to call you silly. That certainly fits. Not amusing though.

 

[NWRatCon]

@NWRatCon, you're an attorney, yes?
Do you care to offer an opinion on this?

Can SCOTUS skip recusal on such an obvious case of fruit of a poisoned tree or does it not apply at SCOTUS level for some reason, reasons I must be unaware of.

Unfortunately, recusal at the Supreme Court is at the discretion of the Justice involved. There is no disciplinary body that can address SC Justice misconduct (other than Senate impeachment). They are only bound by their own ethical standards, which means none really apply.

 

[SheWolf]

Judges do not have the power to overturn an election result.
what they can do is answer specific challenges regarding how votes are counted
etc ...

The court will not rule on whether or not an election is valid that is not within their purview.
what they can rule on is that all ballots within a state are counted consistently across all districts.

Meaning district A can't count ballots different than district B-D.
they all have to count ballots or invalidate ballots in the same manner.

they could also rule on whether a recount is required or needed or if a recount is valid.

Would they rule on not counting mail in ballots at all?

 

[SheWolf]

If Ms. Barrett makes it in, she would have to abstain on any decision involving the election results. Trump has only his big mouth to blame.

I agree, but I don’t think the GOP would require she refuse herself. Who would decide on that anyway

 

[NWRatCon]

A call back to recent history:
Why Justice Scalia Is Wrong To Refuse to Recuse Himself From a Case Involving Dick Cheney and His Energy Task Force (Findlaw)

The universe of Supreme Court watchers is atwitter -- but not over a controversial Court decision. The new controversy revolves, instead, around a Justice's refusal to recuse himself from hearing a case before the Court.

The Justice is Antonin Scalia, and the case is In re Richard B. Cheney. The case involves both Vice President Cheney and the participants in the Energy Task Force that Cheney ran, and that helped shape the Bush Administration's energy policy.

Specifically, the case asks whether Cheney must reveal the names of the participants in his task force as well as some task force records. Watchdog groups hope this information will confirm suspicions that the task force was stacked with Cheney's former cronies from the energy industry who used their insider status to shape Bush's pro-business, anti-environment energy policy.

This recusal should have been a no-brainer for Scalia -- due to facts that I will set forth below. Federal law requires federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to recuse themselves "in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Under the circumstances surrounding the Cheney case, this federal law all but compels Scalia to recuse himself.

Granted, there is no remedy when a Justice wrongfully refuses to recuse himself when it is plainly appropriate. But Scalia's decision is wrong nonetheless. Indeed, the fact that it involves the abuse of unchecked, unreviewable discretion only makes it all the more egregious.

 

[ludin]

Would they rule on not counting mail in ballots at all?

The only argument they would hear on whether the votes are valid is if the same standard of determining validity is used
across all districts.

What caused them to can the 2000 recount is that 1. There was not a full state wide recount and the method for determining what was
a valid ballot and not ballot was not uniform or consistent across each district.

There must be a uniform and consistent method across all district and all ballots have to be treated the same way for them to rule on anything.
Other than that they will count mail in ballots.

 

[d0gbreath]

I agree, but I don’t think the GOP would require she refuse herself. Who would decide on that anyway

She would recuse herself. Of course that would require an ounce of integrity. The other justices would probably highly recommend that she do so.

 

[Mr Person]

Call me silly, but if Trump openly states that he needs a new justice specifically for the purpose of overturning an election result, doesn't that judge then have to recuse themselves?
There is no way his picks for SCOTUS can say that they didn't hear him make those statements. And now that they have heard him make those statements prior to any case arriving at their bench, aren't they required by law to recuse themselves?

There's no way to enforce recusal of a SCOTUS justice. No higher authority.

The only conceivable way would be to punish them with removal via impeachment, but that takes 2/3, and would take that 2/3 to believe that refusing to recuse in such a situation is an impeachable offense . . .

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Unfortunately, recusal at the Supreme Court is at the discretion of the Justice involved. There is no disciplinary body that can address SC Justice misconduct (other than Senate impeachment). They are only bound by their own ethical standards, which means none really apply.

Boy howdy that is a constitutional flaw if ever there was one!
Pity we find out now, on the eve of authoritarian fascist theocracy.
Have you chosen a church yet?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's clear that I was wrong or mistaken in thinking a SCOTUS justice is required to recuse themselves in a clear conflict of interest case or in light of "fruit of a poisoned tree".
As proven by several here, there is no higher authority, and the only remedy is a flawed one, Senate impeachment, which is well nigh impossible.

 

[mrjurrs]

Your liberal use of alt-facts does not help.

I don't see any lies, do you?

 

[NWRatCon]

Boy howdy that is a constitutional flaw if ever there was one!
Pity we find out now, on the eve of authoritarian fascist theocracy.
Have you chosen a church yet?

I'm actually ordained.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm actually ordained.

Yeah me too.
I'm asking if you've chosen a Trump approved church yet.

 

[apdst]

Call me silly, but if Trump openly states that he needs a new justice specifically for the purpose of overturning an election result, doesn't that judge then have to recuse themselves?
There is no way his picks for SCOTUS can say that they didn't hear him make those statements. And now that they have heard him make those statements prior to any case arriving at their bench, aren't they required by law to recuse themselves?

Sure, as long as the Liberal justices recuse themselves.

 

[NWRatCon]

Yeah me too.
I'm asking if you've chosen a Trump approved church yet.

I think that is an unintentionally trick question - Trump doesn't follow any church but his own idiosyncrasies. He wouldn't know god if he were struck by lightning. So, no.