3 ms·
Philosophical arguments aside, the fact that three justices appointed by Trump are then ruling on whether he should be granted immunity is in itself a conflict
by insane_dreamer 2y ago
Philosophical arguments aside, the fact that three justices appointed by Trump are then ruling on whether he should be granted immunity is in itself a conflict of interest that would not be allowed on any lesser court.
- creer 2y agoThat is a good one and in better times might have seen them recuse themselves? Justices have recused themselves in the past for apparent possible economic conflict of interest - don't know about political conflict of interest. "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" is probably what's meant to address political conflict with a specific person: They nominally can't be removed by the person who nominated them.
- cdme 2y agoAlito, Thomas nor any of Trump's appointees have the scruples or decency to recuse themselves.
- gpm 2y agoIt actually would be allowed. I agree it's a questionable practice but it's long standing precedent that judges can hear cases which involve the party that appointed them, e.g. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive-office-of-the-president/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive...