3 ms·

Should judges be forced to recuse cases based entirely on the political activity of their spouse? Everyone supporting this seems to be saying “yes.” I guess we

by gfodor 5y ago

Should judges be forced to recuse cases based entirely on the political activity of their spouse? Everyone supporting this seems to be saying “yes.” I guess we should apply that consistently then? Does it end at spouses, or extend to children and parents?

penneyd 5y ago
"Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
No, people are not saying judges should recuse because of the political activity of their spouse. If that was the standard he should have recused himself much earlier because she's always been a) crackers and b) extremely political. Everyone's always known it; it's never been that much of an issue. This is not about politics, it's about a serious conflict of interest. Ginni Thomas actively pushed the executive branch to illegally overturn the presidential election, and Clarence Thomas had to rule on decisions that could expose that. That's not politics, it's potential criminal exposure for one or both of them, depending on what she did.
mypalmike 5y ago
She is a party to the suit. It's not complicated.
quantified 5y ago
If their business is politics, yes. Same as if their business is coal, cannabis, HR, media, airlines, whatever.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
Exactly, yes (except this should only apply to spouses). The point is to not put judges into a position where they might have to choose between the spouse and the law. No one should have to wonder which way they chose. It's nothing to do with the political persuasion of the spouse, only to do with not putting judges into that position.

by gfodor 5y ago

penneyd 5y ago

"Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

No, people are not saying judges should recuse because of the political activity of their spouse. If that was the standard he should have recused himself much earlier because she's always been a) crackers and b) extremely political. Everyone's always known it; it's never been that much of an issue. This is not about politics, it's about a serious conflict of interest. Ginni Thomas actively pushed the executive branch to illegally overturn the presidential election, and Clarence Thomas had to rule on decisions that could expose that. That's not politics, it's potential criminal exposure for one or both of them, depending on what she did.

mypalmike 5y ago

She is a party to the suit. It's not complicated.

quantified 5y ago

If their business is politics, yes. Same as if their business is coal, cannabis, HR, media, airlines, whatever.

spacemanmatt 5y ago

Exactly, yes (except this should only apply to spouses). The point is to not put judges into a position where they might have to choose between the spouse and the law. No one should have to wonder which way they chose. It's nothing to do with the political persuasion of the spouse, only to do with not putting judges into that position.