Topic: Chief Justice Roberts: Get over the recusal crap, nobody's going anywhere

[IronDioPriest]

I get his point, but it speaks to a great deficiency in our Supreme Court. There is no recourse for unethical justices aside from impeachment, and congress will never go there. Of all three branches, the Supreme Court is the most autocratic and unaccountable. Roberts reminds us of this, whether he intends to or not.

Roberts: Back off the recusal demands

The chief justice’s comments came in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary. In it, he made what amounted to a vigorous defense of Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, who are facing calls to disqualify themselves from hearing the health care case, which will be argued over three days in late March. He did not, however, mention the justices by name.

“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

Federal law requires that judges disqualify themselves when they have a financial interest in a case, have given ad-vice or expressed an opinion “concerning the merits of the particular case” or when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” For lower court judges, such a decision can be reviewed by a higher court, but the Supreme Court has no such review.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court’s unique status made it impossible for the justices to follow the practices of lower-court judges in recusal matters. Lower-court judges can be replaced if they decide to disqualify themselves, he said, and their decisions about recusal can be reviewed by higher courts.

“The Supreme Court does not sit in judgment of one of its own members’ decision whether to recuse in the course of deciding a case,” he wrote.  “Indeed, if the Supreme Court reviewed those decisions, it would create an undesirable situation in which the court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate.”

Cap'n Ed's comments at HotAir are worth reading...

[Pandora]

“The Supreme Court does not sit in judgment of one of its own members’ decision whether to recuse in the course of deciding a case,” he wrote.

I see.  The most powerful bench in the country, over which Congress refuses to exert what little authority it has, and Roberts is telling us these judges refuse to righteously judge, thus police, each other.

“Indeed, if the Supreme Court reviewed those decisions, it would create an undesirable situation in which the court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate.”

Strawman.  A discussion among them on the merits IS NOT prohibiting participation; merely, as Ed Morrisey wrote, "exerting peer pressure".

Lastly, the cases of Kagan and Thomas are not comparable.  I don't like Roberts' moral relativism on the issue.

[IronDioPriest]

...I don't like Roberts' moral relativism on the issue.

Ditto. It smacks of a "part of the problem" mentality. Scrupulous adherence to comity and assuming the best of ones colleagues out of some sense of tradition, duty, or even true belief will not solve our problems. People have to start recognizing enemies for who and what they are, or there is no hope. Either Roberts really believes the integrity of the Leftist justices is above reproach, or he pretends to. Either way, he's part of the problem.

[Pandora]

Dammit.  Now I'm really aggravated.

[Libertas]

I cannot say I am surprised but I am nonetheless greatly disappointed.

How in the hell can Roberts punt on Kagan's case?!  She was the fricken SG for the Obama Regime and fully supported this heinous abomination of perverted law!!  Do we have any doubt her support for this atrocity will somehow disappear now that she is on the bench?!  It's why she was put there &^%#damnit!!  Are we also to foolishly believe she has any shred of decency within her to recuse herself from this case?!  Who the hell is that effing stupid?!  And there is ZERO comparison to her position and Thomas!  ZERO!!!

And Roberts knows full well there is not enough politicians who give a damn enough about the constitution to impeach this trash when she refuses to recuse herself and sides with The Regime.

And Roberts knows full well this trash will not give a damn about peer pressure!  

His statement is all about placing he and his court above all others and even above the constitution itself!  It is wholly self-serving and a betrayal of our founding principles!

He can and should compel Kagan to recuse herself...failure to do so means he is placing the court above all else.

Somebody please tell me again why this system is salvageable in the least?!

This Republic is over in all but name...

 

[IronDioPriest]

...Do we have any doubt her support for this atrocity will somehow disappear now that she is on the bench?!

I have a shred of doubt, and thus, a very tenuous shred of hope.

Is it possible that Kagan is a Justice of principle? Did Obama miscalculate when he nominated her?

Or is this recusal from the AZ immigration case a cover in advance of her refusal to recuse herself for the ObamaCare decision, making her appear willing to recuse herself when there is a conflict of interest? Certainly if and when she refuses to recuse herself from the ObamaCare decision, the Leftist media's spin will be that there is no conflict of interest, and to prove it, they'll cite her willingness to bow out of the AZ decision as an example of her impeccable integrity.

We won't know until the time comes. I suspect there is no way she will recuse herself. But her decision to do so in the AZ immigration case leaves a shred of hope...

[Libertas]

I would put money down on this - a deal whereby she recuses herself on ObamaCare only if Thomas does likewise.  The Thomas situation as anybody with a few ounces of functional brain matter knows is no way comparable to Kagan's direct well-documented support of ObamaCare, so if Roberts goes for this he is exposed as a fool.  Thus, I suspect Thomas will not agree even if it comes to hard lobbying from Roberts, so that will give Kagan the pretext to refuse her own recusal and her cheerleaders on the Hill and in the MFM will tout her recusal in the Arizona case evidence that she is not the unreasonable one.  But the whole charade hinges on the flimsy argument that the Kagan and Thomas situations are equal.  Since lying, cheating stealing and such come so easy to the Left that is the direction the spin will go, I'll put money on it.