Failed recuse

[Dave785]

Hi

Quick question as was wondering something this evening.

Lets say the US Supreme court is ruling on a case and there is a conflict of interest with one or more of the Justices but the justice and court refuse to recuse themselves from the case.

In a normal court there is always appeals but when it happens with the high court how are these sort of things handled being there is no appeals court higher then the Supreme Court

Whose job is it to hold the justices accountable???

 

[Michael Wechsler]

It's a great question. In short, practically I have no idea if anyone holds them accountable. In theory, I believe that the United States Attorney General is supposed to be the power that can hold justices accountable. Then again, I can recall the complaint about Justice Clarence Thomas' wife's income which was allegedly unreported on Thomas' tax returns.

Barring something unbelievable, SCOTUS seems to do much of what it wants and Congress has been at war in trying to create additional legislature to put on some tangible shackles. There could be a whole lot more here that I just don't know but as far as I recall, this is an open issue that you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

With regard to recusal, I'm sure there is a process of filing a complaint with the court and the Chief Justice should review it. But quite frankly, if they decide there is no conflict, I'm not sure that anyone other than the U.S. Attorney General has the power and authority to do something about it.

 

[army judge]

Recusal is voluntary, even in lower level courts.
When it comes to SCOTUS Justices, they are truly supreme.
Each Justice decides to recuse themselves without prompting or prodding from the others,or even the Chief Justice.
Their power to do so derives from the constitution and their equal status with the executive and legislative branches of our government.
In essence, each justice's moral compass drives the decision to recuse or not.

 

[Dave785]

NOTE: I just found out because I only have 1 post I can't post links until 10 posts so going to refer you to Google to find the bits below I will tell you exactly what to search for to find the right article.

POST: Yeah reason I ask as got thinking on an article I just recently discovered and read regarding Justice Kagan. It was written back in February 2012 by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

To find this article Google the below bold red text exactly and it should be the first search result from the National Review Online website written by Senator Sessions

Kagan Must Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case

Not only was she Solicitor General of the US before becoming a justice but she also participated in the planning for the defense of Obamacare.

That to me is no minor conflict of interest when she was involved in the planning of this. That is a major conflict of interest and she did vote on the side of Obamacare!

And the law is quite clear here.

If you don't have a source for the United States Code do a Google search for the bold red text below exactly and it should be the first search result.

United States Code Cornell

Title 28 › Part I › Chapter 21 › § 455

28 USC § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

Obviously the constitution says they can serve in time of good behavior so someone must hold the power to decide that a justice has acted in bad behavior and boot them from the court. I would assume that to be one or both the houses of congress....cause under a system of checks and balances even the court (low and high) must be checked to make sure it is working for the people properly and legally!

And CNN reported the court refused to hear the case that FREEDOM WATCH wanted to bring regarding this very issue

Again Google

High court turns aside recusal request on health care challenge

 

[army judge]

Supremes are appointed for life. They can be impeached. Samuel P. Chase (Associate Supreme) was impeached in March of 1805. His was the ONLY impeachment of a Supreme.

Impeachment exists,but is rare. In the case of Supremes, very rare!!!!


Sent from my iPad3 using Tapatalk HD