Skip to main content

View Diary: House Democrats call for congressional hearings on Clarence Thomas (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What I meant is that I've never heard of a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Justanothernyer

    judge "retroactively recusing" himself or herself from anything.  The other lawyers here agree.  There really is no such thing in the law as "retroactive recusal" as Rep. Slaughter describes it.  She seems to think there's some procedure where the SCOTUS will go back to a case decided last year and subtract Justice Thomas' vote.  There's simply no basis for that happening.  What she's saying is just wrong.  

    "Retroactive Recusal" as she describes it (going back and subtracting one justice's vote on one case because of a perceived conflict of interest in that case) is a totally different question from whether Justice Thomas was "unworthy of appointment to the SCOTUS."  Whether Justice Thomas should, or should not, have been confirmed in the first place is not the subject of the diary or my comments.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site