Judges Recusing Themselves.

[barbender]

In my understanding of the law, a judge will recuse himself from a case if he has a personal connection to a person he is to be presiding a court case over. This is to remove any possible conflict of interest. Well apparently, someday, there is supposed to be a case showing up at the Supreme Court that is to decide whether or not Trump is immune from legal consequences stemming from what he did while president. This of course directly effects Trump. Now, three of the Supreme Court Judges were actually appointed, or nominated, by Trump. (Even though Trump's choices had to be approved by the Senate) It seems to me that you can't get much more of a personal connection to somebody a judge may be presiding over than that. After all, they wouldn't even be Supreme Court Judges if not for Trump. Does this mean that when that case goes before the Supreme Court the Judges that were nominated by Trump will recuse themselves from the case? I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But I suspect that they wont. Which would make it another case of this.

Cicero quote.jpg

[old dog]

That would mean that every Biden appointed judge would have to recuse himself from any case brought by Biden (via his DOJ). I don't see that happening in the Scotus cases.

[Physics Hunter]

The OP would imply that a judge appointed by a sitting president would have to recuse themselves of cases about any Federal Law matter until the term of that president was done...

[Freewill]

Let's say what the OP contends happens or is supposed to happen. The problem is no one is there to enforce the recusal. Can anything be more obviously partisan than what is happening to Trump in NY? Even the most ignorant of person should be able to realize that maybe the end justifying the means isn't always or usually, the best course of action.

For all the reasons that have been given Trump is being railroaded and or shook down by some petty-minded partisan hacks. But no one steps in to do anything. The only thing keeping Trump floating is that he is still wealthy enough to afford good lawyers. And he is up against some not so bright lawyers whom unfortunately have the power.

[Trinnity]

Does this mean that when that case goes before the Supreme Court the Judges that were nominated by Trump will recuse themselves from the case?

No. It doesn't work that way. SCOTUS is the last stop, so that conflict you presume is moot.

[barbender]

That would mean that every Biden appointed judge would have to recuse himself from any case brought by Biden (via his DOJ). I don't see that happening in the Scotus cases.

What you speak of isn't even remotely the same thing.

[barbender]

The OP would imply that a judge appointed by a sitting president would have to recuse themselves of cases about any Federal Law matter until the term of that president was done...

The second reply where what somebody said wasn't even remotely the same thing. What is going on around here! "Federal Law" is just a misdirection of the fact. And the fact is that there would be Supreme Court Judges who were actually nominated personally by Trump deciding if Trump is personally liable for crimes committed while he was in office. I don't know if it is even possible to get any more clear of a conflict of interest there. So I think the justices who have their positions because of Trump should recuse themselves on that case.

[OldSchool]

The second reply where what somebody said wasn't even remotely the same thing. What is going on around here! "Federal Law" is just a misdirection of the fact. And the fact is that there would be Supreme Court Judges who were actually nominated personally by Trump deciding if Trump is personally liable for crimes committed while he was in office. I don't know if it is even possible to get any more clear of a conflict of interest there. So I think the justices who have their positions because of Trump should recuse themselves on that case.

To play along with that line of thought: Shouldn't all judges that have supported Biden with campaign contributions recuse themselves from any and all court decisions regarding Trump?

[barbender]

Let's say what the OP contends happens or is supposed to happen. The problem is no one is there to enforce the recusal. Can anything be more obviously partisan than what is happening to Trump in NY? Even the most ignorant of person should be able to realize that maybe the end justifying the means isn't always or usually, the best course of action.

For all the reasons that have been given Trump is being railroaded and or shook down by some petty-minded partisan hacks. But no one steps in to do anything. The only thing keeping Trump floating is that he is still wealthy enough to afford good lawyers. And he is up against some not so bright lawyers whom unfortunately have the power.

First of all, I don't think that whether or not a judge may recuse himself from a case has anything to do with any possible enforcement. What it has everything to do with is legal ethics. And when it comes to a judge on the Supreme Court, I think their legal ethics on that matter should be above all others. Next, Partisan? Am I hearing from a Trumptard? A Trumpanzee? If so, your ability to look at the matter rationally has almost surgically been cut out of your brain. But I will say it anyway, for you to not understand. Trump was found GUILTY! Why? Because he WAS guilty!

[barbender]

No. It doesn't work that way. SCOTUS is the last stop, so that conflict you presume is moot.

A conflict of interest in any court, even in the Supreme Court, is never a moot point.