5 ms·
People will still see this as some sort of controversy or cover up, but this is the system working as intended and is a good thing. Small tiny conflicts like th
by giarc 4y ago
People will still see this as some sort of controversy or cover up, but this is the system working as intended and is a good thing. Small tiny conflicts like this, if not disclosed and dealt with, appear much larger and consequential when discovered down the road.
- zitterbewegung 4y agoYea but imagine the optics if the judge didn’t do it. It would be much worse either guilty or innocent .
- akerl_ 4y agoYou’re saying the same thing that the parent comment said.
- Waterluvian 4y agoUnless you’re a SCOTUS Justice. Then you do what you want with impunity.
- jackmott 4y ago[dead]
- edgyquant 4y ago[flagged]
- Larrikin 4y agoSome justices recuse themselves some of the time. Others do not
- m-p-3 4y agoThe fact that either the Republicans or the Democrats can influence the SCOTUS is worrying in itself. Justice mixed with partisanship is incredibly dangerous to democracy.
- jfengel 4y agoThere has not been a Democratic majority on the court in the last half century, and it is unlikely that there will be one for another half century. There could have been one a few years ago, but a judicial nomination was held up for over a year, on blatantly partisan grounds. They all know that they were appointed for partisan reasons. There are some very partisan cases appearing in front of the court and it is worth considering whether they will act in a partisan manner. There is reason why to believe that they have, and will. It should not just be up to the minority party to call for impartiality.
- gcanyon 4y agoYou are of course correct -- the last democrat-nominated majority was during the Kennedy/Johnson era. The greatest majority lately was 8:1 during Bush Sr. The last democrat supermajority was during Roosevelt/Truman, when all 9 justices were democrat-nominated. For anyone who's interested, here's a google doc I created that shows the tenure of the justices with the party of the president that nominated them, starting from the end of Truman. It's been on my to-do list to extend it back to the first justices. Maybe I'll take that as a weekend project. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TKXH_wb29XumUAEXPGCnFD_w0i3tOeQnUspGJfi4HFA/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TKXH_wb29XumUAEXPGCn...
- alistairSH 4y agoThomas largely does not recuse himself. Given his wife’s interests and work, this is troubling. Damn near any case involving Trump or the GOP establishment should have Thomas stepping aside. The rest of the Justices appear to recuse themselves regularly and properly.
- phlipski 4y agoI think at this point it's pretty obvious that Thomas is an angry and bitter man who is for whatever reason hell bent on "owning the libs". If we're stuck with this system of politicizing justices based upon the party that appoints them then at the very least I think term limits are appropriate. 12 years? 15? 20? I see no reason for this justice for life crap.
- sam_goody 4y agoIn Israel, the opposite problem exists - the country leans right and the justices lean left. In the Israeli "constitution" the legal system is subordinate to the parliament. Practically, the courts have been taking more and more power to themselves, at one point even ruling that the Parliament Speaker (Edelstein) must quit. [His response was to complain about the courts brazen over-reach, but complied - thereby ceding that authority.] There i now a push-back, as people wonder why "appointed for life" pols should have so much power.
- joshka 4y agohttps://fixthecourt.com/2022/12/recent-times-justice-failed-recuse-despite-clear-conflict-interest/ https://fixthecourt.com/2022/12/recent-times-justice-failed-... shows that failure to recuse is a distinctly republican nominated justice problem. My politics lean left, but so do the facts in this case.
- findalex 4y agoDefinitely don’t want to Judge Ito one of the biggest financial crime cases of the decade. Though, I couldn’t help googling the judge and she’s had some interesting cases lately involving various Trump related things. She had to recuse herself there as well because her husband was in talks with the Mueller investigation. I guess this is more common than I’d think for prominent DC connected families.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- _skel 4y agoEverything about this case has been the system working as intended, and faster than normal. If the conspiracy theorists had just sat back and relaxed, they would have seen the guy get arrested, extradited, and charged for a crime, which is exactly what was supposed to happen.
- shapefrog 4y ago> they would have seen the guy get arrested, extradited, and charged for a crime, which is exactly what was supposed to happen. Funnily enough the conspiracy theorists, who know exactly how it all works, said it would never happen.
- quickthrower2 4y agoIf we are literally talking about a conspiracy though then there are many in the shadows that might get away with it.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoNot only that, in the future I'm more likely to assume this judge is acting in good faith in the middle of other "controversies". Recusing oneself as a judge is the ethical thing to do.